ESPN’s features and analysis moving ESPN+ paywall

ESPN has literally cancelled shows and suspended people who are too critical of the NFL, and were noticeably late on criticizing the NBA for being "soft" on China for their Hong Kong stance. The idea that they're going to develop some backbone now, when the only thing increasing in value from year to year in the media landscape is the rights to live sports, strikes me as insane.

 

Heh. No. Disney is a global property. Its arena is the world.

 

Anything for a buck strikes me as insane. But, to each their own. I'm more interested in the journalistic engine of it and how it serves readers/people. I forgot I share this digital space with 37 libertarian economists.

 

It's more like you're about 20+ years too late to have a serious discussion about the journalistic engine of ESPN.

 

I don't think The Athletic has an adversarial relationship to sports. But the Athletic just ran an extensively researched article on Gregg Marshall. I don't think that ESPN would run that kind of investigative reporting. And I would be shocked if ESPN broke anything negative about a league office because of their business relationships.

 

Exactly. When I mentioned how difficult it is to transition between print and broadcast, this might have been the hardest lesson to understand and balance.

The Atlantic doesn't pay billions of dollars to the sanctioning bodies of major sports leagues for the right to profit from the transmission of their content. It's a conundrum since Harold Arlin broadcast on KDKA from Forbes Field in 1921.

Disney/ESPN cannot afford to bite the hands that feed them. It's impossible to satisfy two masters: The push-me pull-you of journalistic freedom vs. cooperative partnerships for promotion. It's "pay to play." And it's not black and white at all. There's a ton of wiggle room in some cases, and none in others.

The NCAA, NFL, PGA Tour and NASCAR are particularly nasty when it comes to stories or comments that push too far over that gray area, and they'll wave their contracts in the faces of their broadcast "partners" as often as they can.

There were more than a few times where I chafed under the restrictions placed upon me because the league wanted a "rah rah" piece and I wanted to do my job as a journalist, presenting something the reader actually wanted to know.

The fact that MLB.TV and Turner's NBA studio guys have gotten away with some pointed criticism is more a feature of their relationships with the leagues than allowing actual journalism to be done.

 

I've had ESPN+/Insider forever it seems like. I love it for all the extra live sports, especially during CBB season and they added in MLB and NHL games as well. I like the library of stuff be it their nightly NHL highlight show or if I want to watch an old UFC card while I am on the exercise bike. Like someone said I don't know how much of the editorial content I'll consume, but I have already appreciated the convenience of knowing if I click on it I can read it.

 

Who really wants adversarial content anymore, though? Fanbois and fangirls generally get mad at the most milquetoast of coverage. The Athletic taking on Gregg Marshall is shooting fish in a barrel. If he hangs on there, it's because he's employed by the Kochs, for whom employing an asshole is nothing compared to tearing down a country from behind the scenes. Marshall is an asshole, most people in college hoops long ago knew he's an asshole and if you anger a small fanbase by reminding everyone long after the fact that he's an asshole, who cares? I'll be impressed when they take on Coach K and the Duke machine.

 

Give me a f--ing break.

 

It would and has, such as with the Maryland situation and DJ Durkin.

What it is more reluctant to do is unearth too much dirt on NCAA violations, because the sports media has come to the collection opinion that players should be paid, and thus covering under-the-table payments and the like doesn't serve what the sport media believes is the larger moral good. But that generally goes along with the media being tired of observing; it wants to make winners and losers in its coverage, and root for an outcome accordingly through its reporting and suddenly omnipresent editorial boards.

 

Why would ignoring NCAA violations advance the cause of college players getting paid. I would think more investigation of violations would supprt the argument that the current system is corrupt and hypocritical.

I also did not follow the Durkin situation that closely. Did ESPN go out and do an investigation similar to what the Athletic did and then break the story or did they have a beat reporter who did a good job of breaking news as it came out? I don't know.