The ESPN ombudsman is pitching a perfect game

True and false. Having Schreiber at ESPN gives people the false notion that the WWL cares what she thinks. Because she's so good, people assume they're listening to her. They're not... Of course, the same can be said for the ombudsman at most newspapers.

 

Believe me, I understand the futility in what we're discussing. I'm just pointing out that the ombud role - wherever it's found - is as much about stirring change from without as it is from within.

If ESPN viewers clamored for better journalism by voting with their remotes, they'd get it. They won't, of course, on either count.

 

Of course, if it's all up to the viewers or readers, what's the point of having an ombudsman, exactly?

 

Everyone keeps stating "they're not listening to her."
That may the case. But, that is not a fact. We don't know that. We don't know if there have been meetings or memos or suggestions. That's our perception.

 

I was told the ombudsman column was one of the least-read stories on ESPN since, for the most part, regular readers don't give a shit...

Journalists do, but what percentage of their readership/viewership do you think we represent. If they wanted the writers/reporters/heads to care about what Schreiber thinks, they'd give her a half-hour on ESPN once a month...

That will never happen...

 

I know people who work there who were told not to pay attention to Solomon when he was writing it...

 

And, jgmacg is right. Change from without is often stronger and swifter than from within.

 

I think DD knows Nichols, Mort and Olney know. But sometimes you just go along with the momentum of mediocrity and conveniently forget your principles when you're well paid.

Then someone you respect comes up to you and says, "Hey, don't you realize you're being a douche?"

Or ...

"What's with that stupid mustache?"

And then you go look at yourself in the mirror, and you feel ashamed. And then you shave it off.

You get the idea.

 

I'm not going to challenge anecdotal hearsay. It's a forlorn exercise.
I do challenge the impertinent dismissing of a respected voice. Here and there.

 

Exactly. Besides, you've got to cater to the lowest common denominator to attack the biggest problems.

 

Just saw this. God, that was great. So much better than that ridiculous Klosterman article.

Comparing her stuff to Solomon's... yikes... poor guy.

 

I was talking with my brother and his friends the other day. They're all "wuzzah brah?" kind of guys: ex-jocks, young men, disposable income -- the very embodiment of ESPN's target demographic. They tell me they don't watch the WWL's main channel anymore except for live broadcasts and pregame coverage stuff like "College Gameday." One likened it to MTV, saying that the Uno had shifted its credible programming to ESPNews. One referred to the ombudsman (he called her the "omniboardsman") and her thoughts on TMQ.

I was stunned. This wasn't a group of journalists or media-savvy minds. This was a group of former frat boys who never read a book longer than "Friday Night Lights."

Someone's listening, and those remotes are going to to start flipping to other channels. If ESPN stays the course and becomes the MTV of sports channels, someone else is going to catch on and bacome the go-to place for sports news.