Here come the ESPN firings, worse than we thought
- Thread starter Halldan1
- Start date
espn wiped out a lot of otl content support (farrey, desolhm, katz) as the weekend show will be morphed into e 60 with ley and schapp, espn announced weeks ago or it was reported that otl sunday and sports reporters were going away
Brit McHenry will have more time to harass parking lot attendants.
First, I appreciate your opening line. When talking content, people too frequently apply the 'I think/like so everyone else does too' line of thinking. I wouldn't call the SC group you list self-promoters, not to say there aren't some robust egos in that lot. There was no agenda by them or anyone else to put their personality in front of the show. The personalities were part of it for sure. It began organically and worked extremely well. Be a little witty. Have some fun with it. After all, it's sports and not serious. It worked well, because of the people doing it could do it well (for the masses - I understand it's not your cup of tea). I disagree with you there. There were some folks that came along later and we're clearly influenced by their predecessors, but lacked the ability to do what the others did so well.
I think you're missing some dots in the connection. PTI, referenced in this thread by others, was borne from Tony K's network radio show. Wilbon would frequently call in to argue with Tony on any given topic. It was organic and authentic (I'll use those words a lot) and entertaining as hell. It was at its best during the breaks when the conversations turned blue...and hilarious. PTI launched as an authentic show that featured debate and personality. There was no acting and it was wildly successful. PTI hatched Around the Horn or as I call it 'I AM LOUDER THAN YOU'. That useless crapfest, which nowadays seems tame compared to some programs, was a bastardized spin-off and...I know I'm breaking the rule I warn of above, but my hypocrisy knows no boundaries. Fast forward to Jamie Horowitz, embrace debate, First Take, bloviating hot-takers, and the end of civilization. A bit of hyperbole there, but that show is more entertainment than real. For many, it is their cup of tea. It's not mine and I'm pretty sure it plays on a loop in hell. I skipped plenty of nuance and influence from elsewhere in all that, but it is IMO, a little more accurate in terms of evolution.
Lastly, your last few lines are part of a false narrative I've seen elsewhere. Journalism has not been abandoned. OTL, E60, Original Content stuff (30 for 30, OJ doc), and plenty of good ole fashioned journalism in the Mag and .com (double truck). ESPN offers a little something for everyone on many platforms, understanding that everyone won't like everything.
I appreciate that, @Stevie_H. My post is basically 1,500 words' worth of thoughts compressed into about 150, so there are plenty of thoughts mashup up into vast generalizations. And yes, I skipped plenty of dots. In particular, I liked PTI (Well, I guess it's still on, right?), and for the reasons you say: it was authentic and organic. And ESPN (like so many other outlets) couldn't get enough of a good thing and proceeded to do what you stated. So forced, in most cases.
I made a big leap in the evolution of the self-promoters. While Olbermann, Kilborn, Patrick, etc. were the progenitors of the network's personality-forward approach, they are not the ones themselves who sent it off the rails. I mean strictly that it can be traced to them. They were good at it (and even then, it wasn't my thing, but I recognized the freshness of it), and it played well. But I couldn't take the generation who grew up watching them and then tried to mimic them. It was (and is) phony.
"Hot takes" ... I don't know if there are any two words in the English language I hate to see paired more than these. And yet it's a cottage industry.
You've got me on the last few lines. OTL and 30 for 30 are excellent. Bob Ley is a pro's pro, and I'd say the same if he went to Rutgers. Almost every 30 for 30 is worth watching (unless they are trying to engineer viewer behavior, such as pretending the Big East is no more). Even my wife, who is more antipathetic toward sports than just about anyone I know, can get into them. I haven't seen the magazine in years (and honestly didn't know they produced it any longer), and I also cannot recall the last time I visited the website on my desktop (though I do check the app for scores at some point almost every day), so I can't say much about their state these days.
Bloomberg ran an excellent piece a few weeks back, in which Rob King talks about how they rely on the social media conversation to drive a lot of their SC coverage. I understand that, and it's perfectly logical, but intuitively, I can't help but believe it's not a good idea. Speaking strictly for myself, I am consuming different news on social than I want to see expanded upon on TV. Some topics will obviously overlap, but the intersection is so obviously forced a lot of the time. King admits as much, that they will cover things on SC that he cannot believe are a story, but they're talking about it on social. To me (and again, it's just my gut feeling), that social media chatter often exhausts the life in a story, and by the time it makes it to TV, it's over and has been done to death already ... before it ever reaches TV. But it's not my business, and I could be totally wrong. King sounds kind of amazed, though, and maybe his instinct is telling him something.
I made a big leap in the evolution of the self-promoters. While Olbermann, Kilborn, Patrick, etc. were the progenitors of the network's personality-forward approach, they are not the ones themselves who sent it off the rails. I mean strictly that it can be traced to them. They were good at it (and even then, it wasn't my thing, but I recognized the freshness of it), and it played well. But I couldn't take the generation who grew up watching them and then tried to mimic them. It was (and is) phony.
"Hot takes" ... I don't know if there are any two words in the English language I hate to see paired more than these. And yet it's a cottage industry.
You've got me on the last few lines. OTL and 30 for 30 are excellent. Bob Ley is a pro's pro, and I'd say the same if he went to Rutgers. Almost every 30 for 30 is worth watching (unless they are trying to engineer viewer behavior, such as pretending the Big East is no more). Even my wife, who is more antipathetic toward sports than just about anyone I know, can get into them. I haven't seen the magazine in years (and honestly didn't know they produced it any longer), and I also cannot recall the last time I visited the website on my desktop (though I do check the app for scores at some point almost every day), so I can't say much about their state these days.
Bloomberg ran an excellent piece a few weeks back, in which Rob King talks about how they rely on the social media conversation to drive a lot of their SC coverage. I understand that, and it's perfectly logical, but intuitively, I can't help but believe it's not a good idea. Speaking strictly for myself, I am consuming different news on social than I want to see expanded upon on TV. Some topics will obviously overlap, but the intersection is so obviously forced a lot of the time. King admits as much, that they will cover things on SC that he cannot believe are a story, but they're talking about it on social. To me (and again, it's just my gut feeling), that social media chatter often exhausts the life in a story, and by the time it makes it to TV, it's over and has been done to death already ... before it ever reaches TV. But it's not my business, and I could be totally wrong. King sounds kind of amazed, though, and maybe his instinct is telling him something.
The same shows you both lament also led to the deterioration of cable news into the nonsense you see on CNN, Fox & to a little bit less of an extent MSNBC (still a terrible channel that primarily exists to parrot establishment talking points under the guise of being progressive, but at least doesn't feature people yelling over each other as the highlight of their programming). Once CNN saw the success of Crossfire, there was no looking back.
Matter of opinion. I like them. I liked their previous show better than their new Sportscenter thing.
Hate to see anybody lose their job, but she is NOT a sympathetic figure.
I think they're OK - certainly not the worst the Worldwide Leader has to offer. I have not see the new show (The Six?) yet, though. I think I ever only caught parts of the His/her thing a couple times, and don't recall much, but I like both individually.
I saw it on AwfulAnnouncing (great site, despite the name) but Mark May got cut? Anyone else can confirm?
Similar threads
