ESPN Bias

ESPN has a well-documented history of biased coverage, most notably on their signature show SportsCenter.  In 2012 thus far, ESPN’s bias has seemingly reared its ugly head more often than ever before.  The topic was discussed extensively in the sports business class that I took over spring term at Drexel with NBC Universal/Comcast Sports Group Senior Vice President of Sports Content, Mike Sheehey.  Whenever the topic of bias was brought up, Mr. Sheehey constantly harped on the “BooYah’s” and the “Back Back Back’s”.  Personally, I believe ESPN’s bias runs much deeper than that. 

We will get to you on Monday in Dollars & Sense, Mr. Berman.

I don’t want to get into nostalgia and dashed future expectations, but as an avid (maybe fanatic) sports fan I have literally watched this ESPN bias unfold before my eyes.  Growing up, I was that kid who would wake up and immediately watch SportsCenter.  I would watch rerun after rerun if I had the time.  The highlights and surface analysis never got old to me.  Maybe I was simply young and naïve. 

ESPN has changed since the good ole days of the 90s (yes 90s kids, I know you’re all with me on that one).  As I’ve gotten older and (hopefully) gotten wiser, I have begun to notice what ESPN truly is.   SportsCenter isn’t about sports highlights and it sure as hell isn’t about sports news.  SportsCenter epitomizes the entire ESPN business, a business that's out there solely to service their partners. 

The proof is in the numbers.  I want to thank Deadspin for doing the leg work here in their BristolMetrics section.  Let's crunch the numbers from last week.

Understandably, the NBA received the most coverage out of any league.  However, is over 100 minutes more coverage than the next closest league really justifiable?  Major League Baseball is in full swing of their season, yet the NBA deserves 100 more minutes (NBA - 178.75 minutes vs. MLB – 75.5 minutes).  I don’t see that as being impartial.  The bias runs deeper more when you check out the most covered teams by sport.  The Miami Heat got 143.25 minutes of coverage.  A whopping 132.75 minutes more than the next closest team, which not surprisingly was the New York Yankees. 

Winning a championship is great, but does it warrant that  much coverage.

ESPN’s bias is even more relevant when looking at the breakdown by player.  Six of the top fifteen players based on mentions were Miami Heat players.  Four more were Oklahoma City Thunder players, making ten of the top fifteen players mentioned coming from the NBA.  To make matters worse, LeBron James was mentioned 280 times in one week.  The next closest you ask?  Kevin Durant… with 113 mentions.  ESPN lovin’ LeBron James much?

It is one thing if ESPN simply loves the NBA more than every other league.  However, the reason is that they are solely out to protect their television interests.  Take a look at the week of June 8 to June14.  Both the NBA Finals were occurring and the NHL Stanley Cup Finals were wrapping up.  This is the perfect comparison because both leagues were in their championship finals and the NBA has a television deal with ESPN while the NHL does not.  Let’s rattle off the numbers.  Time by league: NBA – 190.5 minutes vs. NHL – 31 minutes.  Most covered teams by sport: Miami Heat (again) – 144 minutes vs. Los Angeles Kings – 29 minutes.  Top fifteen most mentioned athletes: NBA - 10 out of 15 vs. NHL – 1 out of 15.  Even if ESPN is biased, the numbers ain’t. 

The scary part about all of the clear numbers to support ESPN’s bias is their coverage (in this case lack thereof) of the Jerry Sandusky trial.  I don’t need to remind you of gory details and the magnitude of the case.  It does seem like ESPN needed to be reminded.  From June 8 to June 14, ESPN covered the Sandusky trial (the first week of the trial), for an unsatisfactory 45 seconds.  Yes, I am aware that I have typed seconds instead of minutes.  The NBA got 254 times more coverage on SportsCenter than the biggest tragedy to rock the sports world possibly ever. 

Biggest tragedy possibly in the history of sports, goes relatively uncovered by the Worldwide Leader.

Still believe that ESPN is a company of integrity?  Check this one out.  Last week, from June 15 to June 21 (the day before the Sandusky verdict was reached), the Sandusky trial was covered for 1 minute.  In comparison, the Roger Clemens trial received 6 minutes of coverage.  I know, I’ll give you a minute to let that all sink in… If you’ve been catching what I’ve been throwing throughout, then I think it goes without saying that ESPN has a television deal with the Big 10 conference.  Oh yea, and Penn State is one of the marquee teams in the conference.  As for Clemens, I think it is safe to assume that he has been irrelevant long enough for his trial not to impact ESPN’s television deal with MLB. 

Maybe I’m stuck in a childlike state of innocence that still believes the world is pure and good.  Maybe I’m some jaded sports fanatic that wants to bring back the good times.  Regardless of what I may be, you can’t argue with the numbers.  SportsCenter should be for sports highlights and sports news, not servicing the suits.  

Tweet Follow @kevin_rossi

Dollars & Sense - PED Trials

Today we are not putting the alleged users of performance enhancing drugs on trial.  We are putting the government itself, the federal prosecutors of these alleged monsters, on trial.  Yes, the same prosecutors that attempted to throw Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong, and Roger Clemens in prison.  Between the three men there were three major investigations.  There were also three trials between the three, one for Bonds and two for Clemens (first ended in a mistrial). 

Experts estimate that the Barry Bonds investigation and trial totaled somewhere between $55 and $75 million.  Excuse me, how much?  Yes, upwards of $75 million.  Bonds stood trial for perjury and obstruction of justice.  After years of investigation and the long awaited trial, Bonds walked away guilty on only one count of obstruction of justice.  Perjury was the main charge that the prosecution was seeking and he walked away with a divided decision and no conviction on it. 

Lance Armstrong was under federal investigation for years for his alleged drug use.  Armstrong represents an interesting case in terms of the court of public opinion.  We all know about his fight with cancer, perhaps the most famous single testicle in the world, and the 7 Tour de France victories.  His campaigns, such as “Livestrong”, to raise money for cancer research are among the most successful in history.  Because of his past and his charitable work, the public seems to turn a blind eye to his alleged doping.   The federal investigation ended up getting dropped without ever getting to the trial stage.

Roger Clemens, similar to Barry Bonds, was on trial for perjury.  In the Bonds case, his personal trainer, Greg Anderson, refused to talk.  In the Clemens case, his former trainer Brian McNamee was the man against him from the beginning.  Sounds like a slam dunk case and conviction for the prosecution if you ask me.  The first time Clemens went to trial, a mistrial was quickly ruled after the prosecution introduced unpermitted evidence.  It was a stupid mistake that should have signaled how poorly the prosecution’s case was put together.  Nevertheless, the prosecution got another chance and last week Clemens was ruled not guilty on all charges. 

Jeff Novitzky was the federal investigator behind the cases on Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong.  With the lack of convictions against the two men, could it have been a personal vendetta of Novitzky’s against these guys that led to sloppy cases?  The public knows they did it!  They know they did it!  How could the prosecution not convince the 12 jurors in the Bonds case?  How could there not be enough evidence against Armstrong?

The investigation against Lance Armstrong always interested me because I always wondered why the feds were so interested in it.  Before I tell you my stance, think about this: What really was the point of investigating and possibly convicting Lance Armstrong?  He donned the logo of the struggling United States Postal Service for years during his Tour de France runs, which could have further hurt the federally run business.  Most importantly, he was the face of cancer research charity efforts.  Wouldn’t a federal conviction hurt the massive fundraising dollars pouring in because of him?  One would have to think so. 

The Roger Clemens trial had some promise at the start.  Clemens’s personal trainer Brian McNamee was not only testifying against Clemens, but there was supposedly physical evidence as well.  The prosecution was so prepared on this one that they let McNamee’s estranged wife steal away every ounce of credibility that McNamee had in the case.  If that isn’t enough for you they let the defense make McNamee look like babbling idiot during cross examination.  They even made Rusty Hardin, the personal injury lawyer, look like Johnny Cochran!  In my best Seth Meyers voice, “Really?”

Court of Public Opinion– Dopes vs. Dopers
The problem with these trials is that people usually internalize them as trials of whether or not the athlete used performance enhancing drugs which that they are not.  They are cases looking to find if these athletes lied under oath, which apparently they did not.  The court of public opinion doesn’t need a federal conviction to prove what they already know.  In the court of public opinion, these guys are all guilty.

Armstrong competed in one of the dirtiest sports in the world when it comes to drug use.  It’s to the point that the goal of a Tour de France cyclist may or may not be to try to come in second place because within a year or two the winner is sure to be stripped of the title and second place will then be crowned champion.  In a sport where many of the top athletes have a history with using, it is hard to believe that Armstrong was just that much better than all of them.  The court of public opinion rules guilty of being a doper.

Bonds was an above average player before he was even accused of using performance enhancers, which makes his use very perplexing.  However, when you look at the circumstances under the era he played in (the “Steroid Era” for those of you who may be lost) and the sheer mass that he gained over the years, it is tough to say that he did it all naturally.  The alleged use of the now infamous cream called "the clear" was most likely a large factor in extending Bonds’s career to a point that he was able to break the most famed record in all of baseball, Hank Aaron’s home run record.  I say we take away his home run record, give it back to the rightful owner, and in an act of gratitude and graciousness trademark the phrase “I didn’t knowingly use steroids” under his name.  Just kidding.  But seriously, the court of public opinion knowingly rules guilty of being a doper.

Clemens’s situation is very similar to Bonds’s.  Clemens just happened to play in the steroid era.  Clemens just happened to get bigger as his career went on.  Clemens just happened to stay great suspiciously past the typical prime age of a major league pitcher.  There was testimony from his former trainer and physical evidence to boot.  The evidence may not fly in a formal court setting, but in the court of public opinion it works perfectly fine.  Just because the jury said not guilty on counts of perjury doesn’t mean that he isn’t guilty of using.  Clemens seems to think that it does, but that may be a product of the delusional world he has been living in.  The court of public opinion rules guilty of being a doper. 

Jeff Novitzky seemed to be under the impression that he had the end-all-be-all of cases when he was handed both Bonds and Armstrong.  The court of public opinion was 100% against Bonds mostly because of his arrogance and big head (literally and figuratively).  Armstrong was a bit tougher simply because some people in the public had a tough time seeing past the vast charity work that he had done.  Nonetheless, the evidence is still against Armstrong.  Neither case resulted in the goal conviction.  Was the investigative work poorly done?  Did a poor investigation lead to sloppy cases?  If so, the court of public opinion rules Novitzky guilty of being a dope.

The Dollars and Sense

These federal investigations into athletes and their drug use are downright expensive.  As mentioned earlier, the investigation and trial against Bonds cost an estimated $55 to $75 million dollars.  It is safe to assume that the investigations against Armstrong and Clemens were around the same figures.  If so, the most conservative estimate of the total cost of the three investigations is $165 million! All for one conviction on a single obstruction of justice charge against Bonds that carries very little consequence.  Next time you wonder where your federal tax dollars are going, just picture a toilet because federal cases against athletes’ drug use are only good for flushing money away. 

If there is one good thing to come of these trials, it has to be that we’ve learned a lesson to never try this again.  In the times of such economic crisis, there is no room to be wasting precious cash money.  These trials are a waste of money, a waste of man power, and a waste of time.  There are bigger problems that the federal government has to deal with first, so hopefully the Clemens trial was the last. 

No matter how hard I try, these dollars just don’t make sense.  Case Closed.

Tweet Follow @kevin_rossi

Quick Hits

Each and every Saturday morning! Must reads and interesting tidbits that you might’ve missed this week!

Mark Cuban says what many of us have always wanted to say to Skip Bayless’s face.

Jerry Sandusky is found guilty on 45 out of 48 charges against him. He faces 442 years in prison.

Eagles WR Mardy Gilyard has overcome great odds in his journey to the NFL, including a six month period in which he was homeless.

San Francisco 49ers fans purchasing seat licenses for the new Santa Clara Stadium are either making a great investment or a terrible one.

Connie Carberg, the first female scout in NFL history (Jets, 1976), has launched a new website “to create and share women-focused football content.”

The LA Kings are looking for the game six-ending puck and they think they know who took it...if you have any additional information, they’re asking that you send it their way!

Roger Clemens walks away legally not guilty, but the truth is out there.

Could social media and the instantaneous information of today stopped Sandusky before lives were ruined? The New Yorker weighs in.

Dan Wetzel continues his unparalleled coverage of the Sandusky trial.

Not content with small-school football offers, Holley Mangold (sister of Jets’ center Nick Mangold) opted for weightlifting...and now she’s participating in the Olympics.

James Varney of the Times-Picayune details the ongoings at the NFLs headquarters this week on the Saints bounty appeals.

“Frog juice” is the latest performance-enhancing drug being used in sports...horse racing.

Rick Reilly drops the legalese in a passionate post for ESPN regarding Jerry Sandusky, labeling him as the indecent coward that he is.

Steve Gleason, former Saints player and current ALS fighter, sends an inspirational message to the New Orleans Times-Picayune employees who are facing staff reductions this fall.

The Eagles plan a major refurbishment plan for the Linc.