More Cuts at ESPN

True. That the column is specious in the extreme is not disqualifying for any op-ed section in the land. That's why I'd get rid of one if I owned a paper.

 

He gives Deadspin too much credit by half. The influence they might have really had is in a outlet he doesn't mention at all: twitter. that's where columnists and talking heads might have curved their persona a certain way. He doesn't give any specific syllogistic instances of where Deadspin did A and ESPN responded by doing B. It's all supposition. Thought-provoking, but ultimately it lacks homework. Like, why not interview people who have just been let go by ESPN? Instead it's all his impression, which is text book Whitlock: no leg work.

 

Right. Did Deadspin convince people to cut their cable service and rely on Hulu/Amazon Prime/Netflix? Hardly.

 

The trouble with media reporting/commenting on media is that all members, me included, have a natural belief that our words and deeds, and hence the words and deeds of media institutions, have more effect on events than is actually the case.

 

I think that is referred to as "believing your own press releases."

 

How did Whitlock deduct that Werder saying he was told the cuts wouldn't be based on talent is an indicator that the cuts were politically motivated? Does that seem thin to anybody else? "Your contract IS expensive, but I want you to know you're being laid off because you're not tweeting enough inane political takes".

 

Rip's opinion is noted and given the lack of respect it deserves. Yours is given even less.

 

@Riptide doesn't stand alone here.

It's the consensus of your colleagues.

I've accepted this. Why can't you?