More Cuts at ESPN

No, you don't say?

What drives the bus for profit has changed. The demand for detailed, illuminating journalism is declining in the digital age of loudmouths who pontificate for traffic. What's confusing?

 

PCLL brings up a point all of us in TV can relate to.

What is your value to the program/newscast that you're on?

Today, I saw people who made great money get sacked. Only saw friends who "did okay" get sacked.

Ed Werder and Jayson Stark of two of the best in the industry. Who tunes in specifically to watch them?

Stephen A is controversial but people do watch specifically for them. That gives him value. Same for Kornheiser and Wilbon.

Jay Crawford is good but after 14 years with raises, what is his value?

Tbats where the cuts are made.

Edit to add: Always think of your value. I work my tail off anchoring but I also turn a series piece each week. I write for social from home early in the morning on weekends and schedule it to post later. I'll produce shows in a pinch, write more than most anchors and shoot stories when needed. I do this out of fear -- that my value will exceed my salary and the bosses see that.

The axe could hit me any day. If and when it does, I don't want it to be because I didn't do enough.

 

He seems to be a step slow on every part of this discussion.

 

SAS's labor has already been paid for (essentially). Stark's hasn't. If SAS's contract had been up this past month, we might have seen a very different outcome.

 

Exactly.

Every time I get a raise I'm torn between being happy to get more money and the realization that my head just went a little further out on the chopping block. (Happy usually wins.)

 

That's exactly the point. The inane trolls are taken much better care of than real journalists.

No chance ESPN would pull the cord on First Take even in that scenario.

 

You're comparing apples to oranges. Throwing away those shoes I've already bought does nothing to help my cash flow in the coming months. Not going to the baseball game tonight does. So it would be nonsense for me to say that I currently value those shoes more than I do going to the baseball game.

 

The demand for "detailed, illuminating journalism" has been in decline since well before ESPN was launched and it was never, not even for a split second, a profit driver at ESPN. This is the cable network that gave us Chris Berman.

 

I was really just using them as examples because they were the first guys gone. Stark's writing is awesome and he should be hired by somebody, but I don't think he should be handed a gig just because of who he is. There's probably someone already covering a team who was a final cut for the last MLB Network position who's not going to get a job there because of these ESPN firings and if I'm them, I'd be furious.

Some of these people are going to get gigs at smaller local outlets because they're a recognizable name from ESPN even though there might be some young kid who has the talent to be better. If you're a local TV station in a Top 20 market, are you hiring some young stud from Podunk or one of the ESPN talking heads?

There's also a lot of petty jealousy on my part as well, so I'm trying to factor that in my thinking.

 

Do you still watch SportsCenter or pick up the highlights on the web? The move to features and commentary is driven by the change in viewing habits.

 

Let's check back when Smith's contract runs out. I think he'll be gone too.