More Cuts at ESPN

I think (1) is highly debatable. I don't see it. And I've worked for Disney -- you'll struggle to convince me of its liberal leanings.

The answer to (2) is no, they haven't lost subscribers because of politics, and anyone who argues that they have is either lying or doesn't know how these things work. Have they lost viewers? Very, very doubtful.

 

I think a lot of it is the ever expanding list of what now qualifies as "strictly liberal" views, which may in the past have been considered common sense. Now, any opposition to a President who routinely lashes out at people is quantified as "liberal." Saying you want to work to stop mass shootings is considered liberal. Being opposed to racism is considered "liberal."


-

 

1. Skipper absolutely was and a lot of the boutique things he's set up - the literary journal Grantland, The Undefeated among them - had a natural liberal bent to them. But two things stand out to me, both related to the ESPYs. One was Jenner. The other was the Missouri football team getting honored for getting roped into what I still think was a pretty coordinated protest of intersectionality (that started out as a protest of health care and the availability of birth control) that ultimately was such an embarrassment for Missouri that it crushed enrollment numbers. And the way ESPN has covered the NFL in recent years - up to and including an article that suggested that Lamar Jackson's success or failure in the NFL will depend on whether the NFL is ready for him, not the other way around - is curious. I get the impression the ESPN has kid gloves for the NBA, but wants to strike hard at the NFL because the NFL is more conservative than the NBA and less fascinated with its celebrity players than the NBA is.


2. ESPN has probably not had many people unsubscribe from their work because of a perceived liberal bias. But ESPN's brand has been hurt. Absolutely it has.

 

"I think black people are humans."

WHOA HOW DARE EXPRESS THESE GODDAMN LIBERAL VIEWS DURING MY SPORTS!

 

Honestly, I disagree. Caitlyn Jenner had nothing to do with Donald Trump. It a deal where ESPN gave her a celebrity an award for transitioning to a woman, and that woman gave Diane Sawyer an exclusive interview. And the Jenner decision was not a small one.

I think it's just the opposite, frankly. Mainstream views on football - that it's OK for it to be violent, that it's kind of odd to kneel during the national anthem when the thing you're kneeling for (institutional racism) is a 300-year problem - have suddenly become oppressive and backward.

Read the Tess Ringer piece. When he talks about wanting to have fun watching a football game, what the hell do you think he's talking about?

 

OK - I'll take another shot at it. ESPN is trying to appeal to the widest audience possible. The Jenner award was the first time the ESPYs were on ABC. They are seeking eyeballs. Trying to be everything for everyone - which has become harder to do in a fractured media environment.

 

The Jenner thing was a DISASTER for ESPN. Jesus man, if someone is trying to deny that, they are purposefully putting their head in the sand. It has left an indelible stain, like the Al Haig moment in the white house, The Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman" moment, NBC's Heide game, the tie MLB All Star game, or any other monumental screwup.

 

I asked this question once before and was told if I had to ask I was dense. But maybe you can help me break out of whatever liberal cocoon I live in. The EPSY's were created expressly to fill a couple hours of screen time on a slow programming night. The awards are not voted on by some panel to commemorate heroic acts like the Medal of Honor. The recipients selected are given the award because giving them an award will produce the highest ratings and make Disney the most money. Giving Jenner the award would produce a lot of interest and also allow Disney to make more money off the Sawyer interview. Why is this perceived as a liberal statement rating than as a ratings stunt?

 

I think that's a charitable read of it, but what came out of it was a very uncharitable impression.

The Missouri one was not good. It made heroes of players that honestly I think were used as pawns.

 

It was a bit of a left-leaning award before Jenner, which is fine. Do I think Jenner being transgender had something to do with it? Yes. Do I think it was a ratings stunt? Yes. Do I think ABC/ESPN wanted to try to pull both a humanitarian statement and a ratings stunt at the same time? Yes.

I don't think ESPN globally walks around thinking "how can we stick it to conservatives today?" I do think there was a conscious effort to recruit "diversity of voices" and, in doing that, I think the voices weren't as ideologically diverse as they could have been.

 

ESPN often tries to be too hip and/or woke for its own good. I don't know if it is a liberal vs. conservative thing, because it often presents itself in stupid, but decidedly unpolitical ways.

The Jenner thing falls in that category. So desperate to make a splash, it gave an award for courage to a person who recently killed somebody in quite a cowardly way.

 

A very large percentage of America does not find it courageous, or award-winning, for a multi-millionaire celebrity to come out as transgender. In fact, it grated on many people's nerves.