Canzano Skewers ESPN's BCS "relationship"

I realize it's yet another rip of The Self-Proclaimed World-Wide Leader, but John Canzano brings the shiv and drives it deep into ESPN's bloated carcass. Good for him.

http://bit.ly/vG3cAQ

 

I agree with his points for the most part, though the idea that ESPN has had some sort of mass talent exodus was really twisting the facts. But I'd guess most of The Oregonian's readers really don't care and would prefer something related to the University of Oregon football team.

I like Canzano, but this column is imbued with envy.

 

He didn't have a problem when Paul Allen owned the radio station he works at.
Canzano doesn't take a dive for anyone - that's not my point - but he's been around long enough that he should know that college teams give a lot more access to their broadcast partners (in exchange for not bringing up all of that "negative stuff." Local pro team broadcasters are on a leash as well.
This is nothing new.

It would be interesting to read a story about ESPN getting out of the journalism business though. They still do some good work, but the seem to purposely be two steps behind most big stories that might reflect negatively on entities they write checks to.

 

Really not much than we haven't talked about on this forum (except Herbstreit and Co. getting to hang around after the rest of the media has to leave), but it may be new to Oregonian readers.

 

I'm curious how people feel about print reporters getting paid to be "insiders" by radio or TV outlets that are owned or in a business relationship with the team they are covering.
Is it better or worse than those that work for a website owned by a cable outlet that broadcasts games?

At some point you would think that a radio or TV station would tout that their reporters are "outsiders."

 

Since when are color analysts or play-by-play announcers "journalists?" And every football broadcaster, pro or college, on every network gets privileged access to that week's teams. Ask Enberg or Michaels or Musberger.

There's a lot to criticize at ESPN, sharply and legitimately. This column does neither and proceeds from a phony premise.

 

He isn't complaining about access, he is complaining about ESPN buying events and trying to control stories because of a vested interest.

 

He complains repeatedly about access. In fact, since he offers no evidence that ESPN ever sat on or spiked a BCS story, it's the basis for everything else he says. He assumes "Everyone already knows."

But c'mon, you invoke Herbstreit's children as your argument?

And by 'vested interest' do you mean the same 'vested interest' NBC takes up when it packages the Olympics? Or your hometown newspaper scrupulously avoids ruffling the feathers of its major advertisers?

There's a real point to made here about the tangle of money and sports and journalism and entertainment. Canzano doesn't make it.

 

It's what I got out of it too. Yeah, there's probably a little jealousy and bitterness over access.'
But the ESPNization of college football is the heart of the issue.

 

Day late and a dollar short. Message me when a columnist has an original point to make on the issue.

 

Any article criticizing ESPN is going to be ripped as being "jealous"

With ESPN's resources and access, it should break every story in college football. Obviously, it doesn't, in part because there are reporters at Yahoo, CBS Sports, SI and a few who remain at newspapers who do great work.

ESPN certainly seems to break the smaller stuff (players declaring for the draft, coaching changes, etc...) pretty well, but is really lacking on the bigger stuff. Obviously that's not because of lack of resources, but I think ESPN has gotten choosy about which "bigger" stories it pursues.

I don't know where the Ohio State story broke. I know ESPN got its ass kicked on the Penn State, Miami and USC scandals.

ESPN broke the Syracuse scandal, but that one raised more questions than it answered.

 

It used to irk me when people would post shit like "Why would you confuse ESPN with journalism" but reading that story drove the final nail in that coffin.

As a former employee, I can tell you this: It's dangerous to paint all of ESPN's sections as one entity. TV and the .com are wholly different. Game broadcasts and OTL are wholly different. Just using the broad stroke of "ESPN doesn't care about journalism" is meek and petty.

Do I think Kirk Herbstreit or Erin Andrews care about Journalism with a capital J? No. I don't. Do I think their bosses care if they care? No, I don't. ESPN paid for the rights to broadcast the games. That's what it's doing. To go back and question that now seems disingenuous.