1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Canzano Skewers ESPN's BCS "relationship"

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by SockPuppet, Dec 31, 2011.

  1. Charlie Brown

    Charlie Brown Member

    Agree it's old stuff for us, but maybe not as tired a topic for readers. I also doubt it means much to most readers.

    Will say this: it deserved a better last graf. That one was weak. Weak.
     
  2. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    It's not really disingenuous. It's an ongoing, legitimate conversation about how and why news and entertainment merge. We gotta stop having it because, what, ESPN defines itself a certain way? That's like saying "let's stop talking about Fox News, because, hell, we journalists all know Hannity is different than Shep Smith's hour-long news report and you can't paint the whole org with a certain brush..."

    There is an argument to be made on a variety of networks that the shadow so overcomes any other mission that the shadow - from the perspective of journalists and fans - is the mission. Canzano's column's pretty soft, really - driving in the shiv, to me, would be taking dead aim at all the name writers ESPN overpays to mail it in - but it's not illegitimate on the grounds of " Canzano is working with an outdated paradigm." It's not outdated. It's ongoing.

    Oh, if I'm ESPN, I tell Kirk: No kids at practice. And I'm guessing Kirk would probably abide.
     
  3. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I don't even care about Herbie's kids being at practice.

    It's a similar deal with CBS at the NCAA Tournament, not that Billy Packer's kids are out there, but they shoo the media away and the CBS people get to stay.
     
  4. SockPuppet

    SockPuppet Active Member

    I liked Canzano's take because he's spot on. Call me a a Bitter Old Guy but The ESPN-ification of sports (at least the sports ESPN is in bed with) sickens me. And I realize it is what it is. ESPN can trick up the NBA and the NFL all it wants. I'm cynical about college sports just like anyone. But to ESPN, college football and college basketball - the games, the coaches, the players - are nothing more than inventory, product and programming. I get that. And ESPN pays for the right to tell everyone when and how high to jump.

    I get it, I get it, I get it. But ESPN's blatant arrogance about it being The Source for everything important is galling. I fucking HATE 95 percent of what ESPN says and does about college sports. And as evidenced by the Bruce Feldman fisaco, ESPN is a monster with so many nerve centers/tentacles that the left tentacle doesn't know what the right tentacle is doing.

    If you don't like Canzano's take and you want to find ways to take shots at him for writing it, congratulations. You're qualified as an ESPN Around The Horn candidate and count yourself as another ESPN clone. Happy fucking New Year.
     
  5. SockPuppet

    SockPuppet Active Member

    Quite a big difference. The NCAA at least has rules for who can be where. Yes, CBS gets plenty of access at the NCAA Tournament and Final Four. But the media does get its assigned time and at the Final Four gets plenty of access.

    Obviously, the BCS is not run by the NCAA. And with ESPN propping up the BCS with 100s of millions of green backs, it gets a bigger say as to access for itself and for the media.
     
  6. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Agree with the idea that ESPN is multiple things these days. It does have a journalism branch, a sports production branch and the hype show branch. They aren't the only network that paints a murky line between their journalism and it's info/hype division (see NBC's Today Show, Barbara Walters etc.) The problem for all is using the status for one division to give credibility to another and using the info/hype stuff to promote the news division. Hell morning shows have been paying news sources for access for years.
     
  7. imjustagirl

    imjustagirl Active Member

    I must not have written that properly.

    I meant questioning the fact that ESPN did, in fact, buy access by purchasing the rights to broadcast the games is disingenuous. I thought I made clear with my first graf that I'm done pretending that ESPN's broadcasting arm (which is to say the game broadcasts, not the OTL/etc. arm) is anything remotely close to journalism.

    I apologize for any confusion.
     
  8. SockPuppet

    SockPuppet Active Member

    I don't give a s*** about morning shows paying sources. I don't consider those shows as news/journalism. It's something to wrap around commercials and fill time.

    I'm not making any comparisons to any other network or journalism entity. I think Canzano's opinion bears weight and considering he's spent a few days around the Rose Bowl and witnessed ESPN's actions up close. And again, I get the fact that when you bring in $400 million per month in subscription fees you have "fuck you" money. That doesn't mean Canazano has to like it. Doesn't mean I have to like it. Doesn't mean we can't throw some rocks at ESPN's ivory tower.
     
  9. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    This particular messenger is quite correct.

    JSPN needs to do a better job being cognizant of its relationships. It's very important to avoid any possible appearance of not being completely above board.

    http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/45763/
     
  10. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Jerking Off and Sports Programming Network? Just sayin', that'd be a great Freudian slip.
     
  11. ESPN is a business before it is a news outlet. It's business is getting viewers, and therefore advertisers and cable contracts, for its programming.

    The column sounded like a complaint that ESPN didn't give equal access. To that, I say go pout in a corner. ESPN is his <b>competitor</b>. Why would they let him in?

    He should have -- and could have -- made a coherent argument about how ESPN's vested interests undermine the company's incentive to do real reporting. He only scratched the surface of that, in part because he was whining about access.

    Jealousy can undermine a valid point, as it did here.
     
  12. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I like this post.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page