• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Deadspin: How ESPN Ditched Journalism And Followed Skip Bayless... A Tim Tebow Story

Status
Not open for further replies.

xbhaskarx

Member
How ESPN Ditched Journalism And Followed Skip Bayless To The Bottom: A Tim Tebow Story

xlarge.jpg


I'm sure a lot of this is stuff everyone already knows about, but this piece does a nice job of putting it all together to show just how embarrassing ESPN has become:

In October, Doug Gottlieb, a radio host and basketball analyst who'd decamped for CBS the previous month after nine years with ESPN, went on The Dan Patrick Show and dropped something of a truth bomb about his time in Bristol:

I was told specifically, "You can't talk enough Tebow." I would jokingly throw it into a segment. "I gotta find 15 seconds here to talk about Tebow, all right let's move on and talk about Major League Baseball."

Later, he said:

Is it ridiculous how much you have to talk about Tebow? Yeah! But for whatever reason people can't get enough of that story, and they kind of stoke the fire—that's kind of what ESPN does.

...

This helps explain why, over the summer, ESPN dispatched veteran reporter Sal Paolantonio and a crew to cover Jets camp as if it were the run-up to the Super Bowl. ("ESPN embarrassed themselves," Dan Patrick, who spent 18 years in Bristol, said of ESPN's flood-the-zone coverage in Florham Park.) This helps explain why ESPN2's First Take referred to Tim Tebow more than seven dozen times in late May even though there was absolutely no Tebow news to report on. This helps explain why SportsCenter covered Tim Tebow's 25th birthday like a moon landing. This helps explain why it seemed perfectly reasonable to a SportsCenter anchor to ask in-studio guest Liam Neeson whether Tim Tebow should be the Jets' starting quarterback even though Liam Neeson had no clue what he was talking about. This helps explain how ESPN wound up breaking Tim Tebow news to, yes, Tim Tebow.

The story of how ESPN fell in love with Tim Tebow is really the story of a breakup, between ESPN and the business of reporting the news.

..

The story of ESPN's Tebow obsession really begins last year. In September 2011, ESPN2's First Take, having gone through several different lives (a faint imitation of a morning TV show, a debate-cum-variety show), went to an all-debate format starring former newspaper columnist Skip Bayless. This new iteration wasn't all that popular with other producers in Bristol, a source said, but the decision was made after ESPN consulted a focus group.

"We focus-grouped it to people and realized pretty quickly that viewers wanted debate," hot-shot First Take producer Jamie Horowitz told Men's Journal. "In particular, they wanted to see Skip debate."

Producers around the network saw it the same way a lot of us do: as willful crap. Staged disagreement. On the show, Bayless would be pitted against another panelist—often a black counterpart, including Stephen A. Smith, who is now the full-time co-host—and "debate" him or her, Crossfire-style, on the sports topic of the moment. Around the time that Bayless become the country's most visible and outspoken Tebow supporter—which ultimately spawned this abomination and the 4 million clicks that went with it—ratings for the show began to climb.

Before long, a source told me, higher-minded Bristol producers swallowed their pride and acknowledged that something was working. And the producers who really took notice? The ones who worked on the live morning edition of ESPN's SportsCenter, which runs opposite First Take. The morning SportsCenter's producers had a problem: First Take was eating into its ratings. In September 2011, the 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. editions of SportsCenter had 636,000 more viewers a day than the same time slot that First Take owned on ESPN2, according to data from Nielsen. Over the next six months, a period that stretched from Tebow's emergence in Denver through his trade to New York, First Take narrowed that deficit each month. By March, when Tim Tebow was traded to the Jets, the SportsCenter lead was down to 182,000 viewers—less than a third of what its margin had been.

A programming battle ensued. Morning SportsCenter producers "noticed that First Take was killing them in ratings with Tebow stuff, so they made a conscious effort to deliver more Tebow," the source said. "ESPN is a competitive environment and the competition between SportsCenter and First Take is very real."

...

"Producers were looking to duplicate the success of First Take," said our Bristol insider. "Given what the ratings were, you would have been an idiot not to talk Tebow. Decisions to talk Tebow were conscious and deliberate."

A small, prideful ratings battle had metastasized around the network. ESPN had become the source for Tebow news, whether it bled into SportsCenter or into its various NFL shows or its Monday night pre-game show or its NFL reporters' Twitter feeds or its dot-com stories or its SportsNation polls.

And what dawned on a segment of the newsroom was something that would've seemed absurd even five years ago: Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith were indirectly setting the editorial agenda for the biggest platform in the sports world. As our source put it to me, First Take's ratings surge late last year "completely changed" the look of ESPN.


Meanwhile, there were smaller moments that, taken as a whole, suggested ESPN was long past caring about its news operation. A litany:

Our old friend, Sarah Phillips, was a weekly contributor to ESPN's website while also moonlighting as a sort of social-media huckster. The red flags were there when she was hired—a lack of experience, a trail of accusations in the message boards of the betting website where she briefly contributed—but she was given a column anyway because, as she put it, "they thought I was pretty, quick witted, and knew my stuff."

Lynn Hoppes, an ESPN senior writer and former senior editor (he was the guy who recruited the scam artist mentioned above), was caught copying-and-pasting from Wikipedia and occasionally from press releases, too. ESPN called Hoppes lazy, but it turns out no editors over there could be bothered with updating any of his stories that we flagged. There are no editors' notes appended to Hoppes's stories; no corrections or links or attributions or clarifications. They exist exactly as they did before our initial story was published. He remains employed.

In July, a German soccer player Lukas Podolski claimed that an interview posted to ESPN's Soccernet never actually happened. The story was removed from the web, and all Bristol had to say was that the interview was conducted by a "freelance contributor," and that the company was looking into "sourcing questions." A few weeks after the incident, I asked ESPN for an update; a spokesman gave me the same statement that was trotted out after Bristol deleted the story. Was the interview made up? Was it conducted when Podolski thought it was off the record? Who knows?

Later that month, a SportsCenter anchor read on air, word for word, without attribution, something written by RealGM.com about Dwight Howard. An ESPN spokesman said steps were being taken to prevent it from happening again.

Three weeks later, it happened again.

In September, ESPN's soccer blog initially failed to credit an SI writer, who raised a small fuss over the omission. Poynter gave ESPN a slap on the wrist for that one.

The same month, ESPN scooped itself when a video posted to ESPN.com broke the news that prized college hoops recruit Demetrius Jackson had elected to go to Notre Dame. The video was quickly yanked. Why? Jackson's announcement was scheduled to be broadcast exclusively by ESPNU later that evening—a staged event that for obvious reasons was more important to ESPN than the news itself.

These cover the waterfront of journalistic malfeasance: plagiarism, fabrication, a hiring clusterfuck, business decisions masquerading as news judgment, business decisions overriding news judgment. Taken individually, none of these missteps is pervasively illuminating. All newsrooms screw up. But here's why the recent incidents tell us lots about how ESPN regards journalism: nothing happened.

At any newsroom around the country, these dust-ups would prompt a self-administered proctology exam. There'd be earnest committee assignments, standards-and-practices reviews, a "Letter to Our Readers" or two. None of the mea culpas really matter in the grand scheme of things—mistakes will go on happening no matter how many seminars the Poynter Institute convenes on the subject—but the point is to let your readers and colleagues know that you're deeply concerned about these things, that somewhere a standard is being upheld. But if any of this were happening in Bristol, it would come as a surprise to the rank and file in the newsroom.

"What's funny is that as soon as the Steve Phillips [sex scandal] went down, they were very proactive about informing us on company policies and all that jazz," said one ESPN insider. "This?" the source went on, referring to Hoppes, Phillips, and the quote fabrication. "Crickets."

My favorite part: SportsCenter Spends The Day Celebrating Tim Tebow’s Birthday
 

DominoKid

Member
no shit.

it was worth it though, as evidenced by the success.
if there's not a game or sportscenter on, there's nearly always an argument to be heard.

as an espn addict i enjoyed it. but then again i've always been a fan of skip and stephen a arguing with each other. i'm sure the article also mentions lebron stuff too which was another big factor.
 
I thought that was a well put together piece.

Its been obvious that the network is getting worse but it was nice to see it in one place
 

LuchaShaq

Banned
ESPN ditched journalism long time ago.

They have some great stuff but 90% of that is hidden behind on insider online only writing.

For every 12 skip bayless' fox news level of credibility writers espn has they have someone awesome like John Hollinger/David Thorpe behind the scenes secretly being better than almost anyone.
 

NYR

Member
Only thing good on the channel is the 30 for 30 series imo
Was just about to post this.

MTV sucks at covering music but manages to make popular reality shows now. ESPN sucks a sports but manages to make really good documentary films. What in the bloody fuck...imagine trying to convince someone in 1994 this would happen...

Skip Bayless is the Snooki of ESPN.
 
And yet there are people on here that take what the ESPN reports say as gospel. ESPN gets out scooped by everyone else, Yahoo, Sports Illustrated, sports blogs, etc. and they never give credit. The Deadspin piece is a good read and they reserve the clicks for putting this together.
 

Fjordson

Member
I still enjoy Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption, but more for their entertainment value than their journalism.
 

Derrick01

Banned
Would anyone be shocked to learn how fake first take is? Just watch it and you'll quickly realize it's WWE without the wrestling. You can easily predict what they'll talk about for most of monday's show after an NFL week because they rehash the same argument every week and sometime's daily. It's a tiresome fucking show and I wish something else was on at 10 am.
 

sixghost

Member
Watching ESPN squirm when Deadspin was running the Brett Farve stuff a couple years ago was great. They refused to report on it until the story had been out there for weeks, then treated it like they were the ones in the know.
 

Z_Y

Member
First post nailed it.

ESPN is in the sensationalism business. If all they talked about was scarves it would be 24 hours of scarf controversy and debate. Is red the greatest scarf ever? Does green scarf deserve its BCS bid? Will orange scarf leave for a better job? Should black scarf join the ACC?
 
The only thing I really like about ESPN now is Bill Simmons and his brainchild "30 for 30". But I keep watching because it is the only prominent televised sports programming.

They have caused me to hate Tebow, Favre, Reggie Bush, Dwyane Wade, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, and LeBron James. They simply have not been able to stop talking about them at certain points in time.
 

Goro Majima

Kitty Genovese Member
Watching ESPN squirm when Deadspin was running the Brett Farve stuff a couple years ago was great. They refused to report on it until the story had been out there for weeks, then treated it like they were the ones in the know.

I'm pretty convinced it was because they had future broadcasting plans for Favre and didn't want to screw them up. Even though Favre has zero talent for it...
 
When you see the difference in ESPN now a days and say Sky Sports News, its laughable.

I blame John Buccigross, whoever thought it was a good idea to let that joke of a man near a camera needs multiply beatings.
 

Corran Horn

May the Schwartz be with you
I dont know why but I watch too much ESPN :/ Maybe its because the other channels are still not great compared to it. MLB or NFL network will have it moments but I cant watch more than 1-2 hours of it without getting bored. For ESPN it tends to be more sportscenter/Around the horn/PTI/or live games though. I use to enjoy the morning shows but then grew really tired of how it became and stop watching it all together.
 
I remember when ESPN turned the news of the Raiders signing Dennis Allen into a Tebow story. That's when I swore them off.

I just wish there was a viable other option. I like the idea of a 24 hour sports news channel.
 
ESPN tends to run stories into the ground. From PEDs to Favre to Tebow, they can get quite annoying and I just tune them out. Sure, Favre may be a bit of a diva, but Rachel Nichols didn't need to camp on the man's lawn months out of the year. Same with Tebow, just let the man play football (or not play, as the case may be). No need to give him undue attention.

Anyway, I typically avoid SportsCenter (particularly during the over-saturation moments), but I do enjoy PTI and Around the Horn. I suppose it helps that their formats do not lend themselves well to all-Tebow, all the time.

Oh, and I didn't realize that Gottlieb had left. I always found his radio show quite peculiar. It would often be "The Doug Gottlieb Show... guest hosted today by [insert fill-in host here]," because Gottlieb would always be off filling in for somebody else, be it Greenie or Golic or Cowherd. I mused that he had maybe a 50% likelihood of being on his own show for any given day. Seemed rather absurd, to be honest.
 

BadAss2961

Member
Would anyone be shocked to learn how fake first take is? Just watch it and you'll quickly realize it's WWE without the wrestling. You can easily predict what they'll talk about for most of monday's show after an NFL week because they rehash the same argument every week and sometime's daily. It's a tiresome fucking show and I wish something else was on at 10 am.
Regardless, First Take is the best thing they've got going for them.
 

Zizbuka

Banned
Pales in comparison to what they did to Bernie Fine. Ruined his life, put 2 potential victims together to make sure their stories were in sync.

Fine may have been a pedo, but the way they went about it was sickening. Personally, I think Fine is in the closet, but maybe not for kids.
 

Izick

Member
ESPN is basically dogshit for the most part. 30 for 30's are usually good though.

I'd rather just watch the Dan Patrick show, or just get scores and highlights online with no shenanigans injected like some deadly neurotoxin that kills viewer interest.
 

Puddles

Banned
Skip Bayless is probably the worst well-known journalist in the entire country, and they made him the focus on their show? Morons.
 
I'd rather just watch the Dan Patrick show, or just get scores and highlights online with no shenanigans injected like some deadly neurotoxin that kills viewer interest.

I always love it when Dan starts talking about ESPN (or "The Mothership" as he likes to call it). He's obviously bitter about the whole thing, but i'd imagine that there's a lot of truth to what he's saying.

They've lost that credibility, a large portion of the credibility of covering news. I think that it's now: ‘What's trending?' Focus groups. You're trying to create things there. Bernie Fine story at Syracuse. Where's that? The New Orleans story with the Saints with Mickey Loomis? Where's that? Where are those stories? Those are big stories that you guys created. You were late on the Joe Paterno story. I think there's just a different mindset from what they're doing and how they're covering it. And they always fall back on ‘Well, Bob Ley covers the serious news stories.' SportsCenter should be covering sports, they should be covering the news. I think they created it with Tebow. And ESPN embarrassed themselves in spending a week out there at Jets camp.

http://deadspin.com/5948667/you-cant-talk-enough-tebow-espns-instructions-to-on+air-talent
 

Slizz

Member
I always love it when Dan starts talking about ESPN (or "The Mothership" as he likes to call it). He's obviously bitter about the whole thing, but i'd imagine that there's a lot of truth to what he's saying.



http://deadspin.com/5948667/you-cant-talk-enough-tebow-espns-instructions-to-on+air-talent

I'd be bitter too if catchphrases that I threw out on air during broadcasts under ESPN magically became t-shirts and I didn't see a dime of it. On top of that, upon leaving ESPN all of the catchphrases that I used and made me as well as the company famous are now owned by ESPN.



I really can't understand how people can watch First Take, its so awful. Sports broadcasts and 30 for 30. Only thing ESPN is good for.

Shit 'The Lights' on NBCSports is a great alternative for Sportscenter.


EDIT: And the way ESPN disciplines people is hilarious. There is a story about LeBetard that he was once banned from ESPN for a year because of a remark he made about someone else in the company. LeBetard had no clue he was suspended, he just thought PTI just didn't need him anymore and was giving other journalists a shot at being a guest.
 
The core problem is that ESPN tries to play both sports broadcaster and sports reporter.

They're too financially invested in these sports to report on them objectively.
 

truly101

I got grudge sucked!
The core problem is that ESPN tries to play both sports broadcaster and sports reporter.

They're too financially invested in these sports to report on them objectively.

And they pander to whatever the flavor of the month is. Everyone loves to claim how in the tank ESPN is for Duke basketball, so much so that they ran a "most hated Duke player" poll back in 2007 on the front page of ESPN.com. I can't recall that they've done that for any other team, certainly not in college. And for as much as Dickie V loves Duke (he does, but he loves EVERY CBB blue blood), most of their commentators seem to have an ax to grind for us. The general belief that we "get all the calls" is portrayed in their commentary as they would scoff or deride every call that went our way.

Duke basketball brings ratings and thats all ESPN cares about, but they're aware of the public sentiment and they pander to it. Whether you think its deserved or not (I'd argue the praise could be toned down as well) its not neutral

The other thing ESPN has taught me to loathe are the Yankees and the Red Sox. I don't even care about baseball but those two can disappear for a while. I feel bad for Tiger fans (outside of the WS loss). Detroit was apparently a non factor to NY being swept.
 

bluehat9

Member
I still watch Around the Horn and PTI for some laughs. If Rob Parker is on First Take I can watch a little bit of that too since he can calmly knock Bayless' points back at him (how anyone can watch Bayless vs. Smith for more than 2 minutes without getting a migraine I don't know). And I used to watch Sportsnation, but when Beadle left I was out.

Everything about ESPN does seem to change for the worse though.
 
First take is an awful show, literally watch one episode and youve seen them all. Only thing I watch espn now are actual games.
 

Deadly Cyclone

Pride of Iowa State
ESPN is fine, not sure the issue here. They have the occasional awesome journalistic piece (30 for 30, etc.) but I tune in more for the discussion on current sports.
 
ESPN is fine, not sure the issue here. They have the occasional awesome journalistic piece (30 for 30, etc.) but I tune in more for the discussion on current sports.

Did you read the article?

They habitually place ratings over newsworthiness in their reporting. They let stupid fucks like Skip Bayless dictate the entire direction of their news department. They fuck over sports they don't have a financial stake in by flat-out ignoring them.

There are almost too many issues to count here.
 

dorkimoe

Member
I stopped watching espn in the baseball offseason because of the tebow crap last year. And even during the season this year it was 24/7 jets and tebow coverage so I had to avoid it all together during the day. It's even more annoying than the constant Red Sox/ Yankees coverage.
 

Talon

Member
Well, NBC and CBS are finally investing significant capital into sports outlets now after watching Comcast fail with CSN over the past decade, so hopefully we'll have a reliable alternative going forward when it comes to highlights.

*NBC is now owned by Comcast, of course.
 

BFIB

Member
ESPN is sports entertainment personified.

I like most of the good things Disney does with buying companies, but this isn't one of them. The network has gone to shit since the late 90's.
 
They have billion dollar contracts with the NBA, the NFL and other monetary investments in potential stories they have to cover. I stopped expecting them to have any journalistic integrity long ago. I mean, we talk about gaming journalism, but can you imagine if IGN or Game informer actually had a multi-million dollar relationship with Nintendo or EA? How impartial would we expect them to be?
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
I just miss when Sportscenter was just highlights and scores and sports news.... now they gloss over the highlights to get to the next stupid non-news piece.
 

Derrick01

Banned
They have billion dollar contracts with the NBA, the NFL and other monetary investments in potential stories they have to cover. I stopped expecting them to have any journalistic integrity long ago. I mean, we talk about gaming journalism, but can you imagine if IGN or Game informer actually had a multi-million dollar relationship with Nintendo or EA? How impartial would we expect them to be?

Game Informer is already kind of like that with its relationship with gamestop. Am I supposed to believe every AAA game is really a 7-10 when gamestop is trying to push preorders for all of these games?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom