The ESPN ombudsman is pitching a perfect game

Spot on yet again...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&id=3050882

 

I love this woman... "We don't have news cycles, we have opinion cycles..."

And if you want another good one,the Strib ombudswoman -- who stood up to Sid Hartman -- is stepping down after three years. She's going to work as an editor at the same paper and swings at the paper and the Editor, especially since the position will be eliminated.
and you have to r-e-a-l-l-y dig deep to find it...

http://www.startribune.com/161/story/1467528.html

 

The column should make BASW 08

 

Just some great stuff.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who can't stand ESPN's desire to turn every football broadcast into an episode of "Pardon the Interuption."

I notice it most on Monday Night Football, but it seems to be seeping into most of the network's other broadcasts as well.

Frankly, whenever the obvious "discussion" portion of the broadcast begins, I turn it off. Can't stand it.

In many ways, though, it's the same as what we're trying to do as newspapers.

For some reason, we've all convinced ourselves that people no longer turn to the sports page to because they enjoy reading about sports, or watch football games because they enjoy watching football games.

We think people want to be shouted at, both on the air and in print.

Maybe people aren't reading - or watching - because their ears hurt.

 

I think she's great, too. On the one hand it seems a bit silly for someone who essentially writes an opinion column to criticize the amount of opinion ESPN offers, but the difference is she supports her viewpoints with reporting and she generally gives people a chance to defend themselves. I wonder, though, whether her studious, reasoned tone would translate to broadcasting. Could her way of expressing opinion hold an audience in anything but print? I don't know. I'm asking.

I think she's absolutely right that people get pissed when they tune in to watch a game and the commentators talk about everything except the game. And I think they get equally honked when they pick up the paper hoping to read about the game and find in its place a feature or analysis with the score and maybe one or two key plays popped in -- except newspaper editors tend to write off their complaints by rationalizing that the complainers will croak within five years because everyone outside of the nursing home has heard of the Internet and "already knows what the score is." They might or they might not. But no matter what medium it is, it is annoying as bird poop on your head when you tune in or log on or open the newspaper and the very thing you're looking for is being ignored because supposedly you've either already read it or seen it somewhere else, or somebody on the newspaper/TV/radio has determined that what he has to say is more interesting than the actions of the people on the field that drew us to read or tune in to begin with.

 

It was weird.
This past weekend I moved and my internet wasn't connected just like the cable. The paper was delivered to the old address, I guess, so I fired up the radio Sunday morning to get the scores.
I never heard them. I heard that USC and UCLA lost. I heard about coaching decisions and moods in the stadium, but no results.
Not one.
After 30 minutes I gave up and started unpacking.
So to me, the whole notion that everyone knows what happened was rendered completely false. At some point people should report the news, and not what they think about the news.
And my ESPN blackout continues unabated.

 

Opinions don't have to be well reasoned and fact based anymore. They have to be loud and provacative.

I think the worst offenders are the professional journalists who became on air personalities. That stupid game show Around the Horn is an abomination. The hot seat, Around the Horn, first and 10 etc. is sports journalism porongraphy. It is obscene.

I am waiting for them to shoot a show with people on a bar stool. It has the same news value.

 

Yup. It's becoming just one loud roar of crap, with each talking head trying to one-up the next guy in a battle of outrageous statements. ESPN has fostered this culture with its fabricated debates, where Skip and Woody or Clayton and Salisbury square off on pre-determined sides ... yelling, yelling and more yelling.

And the great tragedy of all this is that young sportswriters see this nonsense and think this is what sportswriters are supposed to be. All opinions, all the time. Some of us thought Albom was a poor role model for young sportswriters ... if only we knew then what we know now.

 

Great piece. What's the message here? That being hired to write opinions doesn't mean you're absolved of the duty to report. The best columnists are also very good reporters, people who research their opinion pieces just as beat writers would research a daily news story. With this expanding media, we have a lot of people who are sort of thrust into opinion-writing roles -- some perhaps who don't belong there -- and need to learn that writing opinion isn't just ranting for 900 words. Yes, being a columnist allows you to take more liberties with language and style. But not facts. Given that columnists are almost always featured writers in a paper or on a Web site, it's integral that they be solid reporters. I wonder if everyone hired to write opinion these days really understands that.