Column: The world-wide leader in what?
Criticism of ESPN grows every day. As a large network providing programs that people spend hours watching each day, it’s inevitable that people are going to comb for imperfections. But realistically, no network is perfect, and ESPN is no exception.
ESPN is constantly harped on for being biased towards the New England Patriots and the Boston Red Sox. It has also been accused of bias toward players like Brett Favre (who needs to retire already), Lebron James, (on the night James made his decision to play for the Heat, ESPN handed over advertising and air-time in exchange for coverage) and Tim Tebow (I love Tebow, personally, but frankly, their coverage of his Heisman Trophy in 2007 was a bit over the top). Although favoritism is problematic, it must be taken into account that ESPN is a ratings-driven network.
They are going to put on the screen what most people want to watch. For example, covering the latest with Kobe Bryant – it’s a ratings issue. People, mostly those outside Utah, like Kobe, people want to hear about Kobe, and people will tune in when he is on-screen. He was rarely covered in the late 90’s, only proving that it’s about numbers when it comes to ESPN’s coverage now.
ESPN holds broadcast rights to the NBA, as opposed to the NHL – resulting in basketball playoffs receiving a LOT more attention than the Stanley Cup ever does. Although basketball is much more popular than hockey, they get shorted. ESPN steers toward games they have the rights to, and makes little of important games not shown on the ESPN family of networks. Although those games do not get much coverage, they do get coverage. But in all fairness, the games seen on “Sports Center” are usually the biggest games of the day. That’s really their job – to cover the biggest sports.
Last year, ESPN limited its coverage of the Ben Roethlisberger sexual assault case while it the peak of its newsworthiness, although the case was covered through every other large media outlet. They claimed the lack of coverage was due to no criminal charges. Information about Roethlisberger could be found on any other station, which leads to questions about the motives behind all of ESPN’s stories.
Occasionally ESPN covers sports that, well, aren’t even sports. I’m pretty understanding of the fact that a lot of things aside from football and basketball require physical effort, but poker? The National Spelling Bee? That’s veering from the concept of “Sports Programming Network,” the SPN in ESPN. They have lost me there. If they can’t give hockey the coverage it needs, certainly there is no need to cover canoeing. The ESPYs (ESPN’s annual entertainment awards) really are not helping ESPN’s case, either. They are a media circus and a joke, and exist only to draw attention.
Every once in a while, the anchors go a little overboard trying to be original. I tune in to see the court-side coverage of a game, not watch them pull a funny face, listen to them make a cliché joke, or hear a clever nickname they’ve invented. On that same note, they sometimes focus more on a racy comment rather than a game-winning play. Again, this deals with audience. Trying to cater to a large demographic can result in spreading yourself too thin. The “E” in ESPN does stand for entertainment, and what that entails varies from person to person. Anchors can now be seen in advertisements with players. Conflict of interest? We will have to see.
There is plenty to complain about when it comes to ESPN. There is a reason they are the most popular sports network, though. They spearheaded the whole idea of a sports-only network, thank heaven. They provide the information and analysis a lot of us are looking for in a fresh and entertaining way. And let’s be honest … picture-in-picture on ESPN3? Pretty hard to beat.
Kayla Clark is a sophomore majoring in broadcast journalism and the sports senior writer for The Utah Statesman. Contact her at kayla.clark @aggiemail.usu.edu