The final Poynter post
coming from Kelly McBride and Jason Fry, readers were given six takeaway
lessons from the 18 month review project.
The six takeaways were: 1) ESPN
isn’t a monolith 2) Repetition is
method as well as madness 3) We get
the ESPN we deserve 4) The Bristol
bubble 5) The numbers game 6) The big picture. ESPN announced that they would not be
renewing Poynter’s contract and that although the search is on for the next
ombudsman, there are no imminent plans to fill the void.
Throughout the time
that Poynter spent critiquing ESPN’s practices the company was met with
critical and mixed feedback. Many sports
media experts, like SI’s
Richard Deitsch, criticized the work of the Poynter Review Project at ESPN. Criticism wasn’t necessarily for the work
that actually got done but more based on the fact that there simply wasn’t a
lot of work done.
Deitsch looks specifically
at the lack of work produced by Poynter saying in his weekly media review
column that “they lacked the metabolism of what the job demands today: a
near-daily look at the many issues that filter though ESPN’s properties.” He is exactly right. In the final Poynter column, McBride and Fry
cite that ESPN.com “posts more than 800 new items a day.” If that is true, then that is over 24,000 new
content items between October 10 and Monday’s final column. That’s a lot of content to not touch on.
I have been very critical
of ESPN on I-95 SportsBiz. Although I
think that my criticism is warranted because ESPN was built on the premise of
the avid sports fan and has virtually abandoned the avid fan in its marquee
programming, Poynter looked at ESPN through a more journalistic lens.
Perhaps the biggest
point that Poynter made in their final column that all consumers of ESPN content
should take a look at is the “We get the ESPN we deserve” point. This section touches on the reasons why ESPN
loves their debate shows even when public opinion of them may not fare so
well. Poynter reminds us that “television
is a hits-driven business” and that if viewers don’t want more debate shows,
then “they need to vote with their remotes.”
As much as I (and I’m sure some others) would love for
it to be ESPN’s duty to give the people quality and relatively educational
content, ESPN is simply giving the people what they want. Even if the people watch First Take to see how ridiculous Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith
are acting on any given day, they are still feeding the ESPN beast. It’s just like anything that works on supply
and demand principles: if the people want it, then they gon’ get it. And a lot
of it I may add.
Paul Pabst, producer of
the Dan Patrick Show, joked on Twitter that ESPN should hire two ombudsmen and
have them embrace debate. Come on,
mocking ESPN is always funny!
@ourand_sbj @richarddeitsch How about two ombudsmen...have them embrace debate?
— Paul Pabst (@PaulPabst) November 12, 2012
The “Repetition is
method as well as madness” point that Poynter makes is also a big takeaway
especially for avid sports fans and ESPN-watchers. One of the big backlashes against ESPN is
that they talk about the same things all day even if the show has a different
name. Poynter is correct in pointing out
that “wall-to-wall ESPN watchers are outliers.”
As tough as it may be for some of us to accept that notion, it is
true. They did mention that ESPN has
gone a bit overboard in their excessive Tebow coverage, something that we can
all agree on.
Maybe the Poynter
Review Project at ESPN did not have the scope that we had all hoped for, but
there is plenty that can be learned from it.
Keeping the giant of the sports world relatively in check is not a bad
idea. Will it ever change how they do
business? Probably not. It will be interesting to monitor the search
for the next ombudsman going forward and to see if the next (if there is a next) embraces the
criticisms of Poynter.
Follow Kevin Rossi on Twitter @kevin_rossi.
Follow Kevin Rossi on Twitter @kevin_rossi.
No comments:
Post a Comment