SF Giants beat writer blasts ESPN coverage

It's little things, isn't it?

If he had left out this clause: ", that is a partner of Major League Baseball,"

and if he had used a bit softer word than "inexcusable," he probably would have been fine.

As it is, though, it indeed reads like he's writing FOR the team, not about it.

 

I haven't watched one continuous minute of ESPN since I was in Las Vegas six months ago, and I am very grateful for that. It might help prolong my life.

Schulman is obviously right about everything here.

 

Not debating SportsCenter's quality has gone downhill.

However, if SC had just shown highlights from that game and not "mocked" Molina's Usain Bolt impression, do you really think said Giants writer uses his next blog post to chastise ESPN? I'm guessing ... hell no.

He used the timing to try to point out something else sort of related, but he came across homerish in the process.

 

Good point, MizzouGrad. As Jeff Pearlman's Bonds book noted, Kent wasn't exactly Mr. Cuddly when it came to dealing with the media.

 

One of the things in media that frustrates me to no end, and SC is just one of many media properties to do this, is chase audiences it doesn't have while drifting away from its core.
The Weather Channel is showing movies.
Arts and Entertainment is doing reality shows.
MTV no longer shows music
And who hasn't worked at a newspaper where a "youth initiative" was launched?

 

These posts always make me chuckle.

Who makes the line in Vegas? The bookie or the public?

Who decides TV content? A bunch of executives or the public?

Ratings, and the millions ESPN and other networks spend on research and analytics surrounding view habits, applying all sorts of metrics and algorithms in conjunction with face-to-face consumer insights are just some of the factors that go into what you see on any network.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, consistently draws the ratings that Red Sox-Yankees does. ESPN, or any network with MLB rights, would be crazy not to put the product on air that draws the largest viewership. This is how you maximize your earnings, remain innovative and reward your employees with bonuses, merit raises and job security.

 

This isn't a very sophisticated opinion.

Learn about the research and analytics surrounding demographics and TV programming. Wishing that today's sitcoms were like the great ones in the '70s or '80s is a waste of time; same thing about music; same thing with movies; etc. etc. Better yet, you'd probably advocate for the old 10- or 12-column newspaper design with bumping, stacked headlines all over the place vs. today's fancy, modular dee-sign. Compromises the content.

God forbid the people who cut and edit highlights for a news and entertainment network take some risks or show genuine creativity in the presentation of a May MLB game.

The depths of pettiness surrounding the ESPN bashing never ceases to amaze.

C'mon, man. Be bigger people than this. Be better informed.

 

Then riddle us this, genius . . . what explains the continued presence of
Joe Morgan?

 

Last I checked, the bookie makes the line, then the line moves as the public bets.

And last I checked, TV executives decide the content, then they flip-flop based upon public wishes. And sometimes, they even go against the public when they either try to cancel a popular show (Friday Night Lights, for instance) or put it on even though it sucks.

Of course Yanks/Red Sox are going to draw ratings. You've got the biggest city in the country with their regional rival. And conveniently, ESPN is located right in between. They've already got their built-in audience. They're picking the low-hanging fruit. Meanwhile, the rest of the country yawns and wonders why there are only two teams in the American League.

 

So, based upon research and demographics, TV stations should just do the cheapest and easiest thing to get ratings. Why not just show some porn, or blow someone up in a building and just get it over with?

People still remember great shows and musicians from the 70s and 80s. With everything today being based upon research and demographics, things are here today and gone tomorrow so quickly people can't even catch up.

 

Another factor is that executives (especially new ones) need to tinker in order to advance. If you want to move up you can't just say "I supervised staff and made sure the show/newspaper/magazine got out on time and under budget." You have to introduce new content and bring something new to the table. (See New Coke, ESPN's game shows and movies, McDLT)

 

People are reading way too much into the demographics/executives/ESPN blah blah blah. It's simpler than that.

Baseball highlights are incredibly boring after a while. To argue that showing lighter moments -- like Molina waddling around the bases -- somehow detracts from the really really important stuff, like a pitcher having several no-hit innings, is just silly.

There are 15 MLB games today. Most of the highlights are guys singling in a runner from second. You want Sportscenter to run all of those, 162 games a year?

The first thing I ever did in the TV business was help produce a daily sports segment. By the end of baseball season I hated looking at baseball video -- and I like baseball.

If Sportscenter did the just-the-facts approach people are pining for, no one would watch it. (And let's not talk about SC straying from its original style, because SC never did things that way.)

And NY-Boston ain't brain surgery. It gets better ratings than any other matchup. I wish it didn't, but it does, so you're going to see it over and over.