Canzano Skewers ESPN's BCS "relationship"

[SockPuppet]

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

 

[Versatile]

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.

 

[DanOregon]

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.

 

[HanSenSE]

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.

 

[DanOregon]

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."

 

[Azrael]

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.

 

[Pancamo]

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.

 

[Azrael]

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.

 

[slappy4428]

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.

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.

 

[Stitch]

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

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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.

 

[imjustagirl]

It used to irk me when people would post **** 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.

 

[Charlie Brown]

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.

 

[Alma]

It used to irk me when people would post **** 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.

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.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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.

 

[SockPuppet]

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 ****ing 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 ****ing New Year.

 

[SockPuppet]

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.

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.

 

[DanOregon]

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.

 

[imjustagirl]

It used to irk me when people would post **** 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.

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.

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.

 

[SockPuppet]

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 "**** 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.