Deitsch on the Skip Bayless-ization of ESPN

To say never say "never," you done said "never" twice.

 

Never, MileHigh? Never ever? Like Buster Olney and Jeff MacGreagor and Bob Ley and Tim Keown and Wright Thompson and Sean Assael and
David Flemming and Tom Friend and Brian Windhorst and Chris Jones and Adam Schefter and Liz Merril and Wayne Drehs and Steve Wulf and Ryan McGee and Michael Weinreb ... none of them can claim to have any journalistic integrity?

 

I get confused about how much journalism we really want. On this thread we bemoan the lack of it -- and that Charissa Thompson doesn't wear revealing enough clothing. I guess the line is hard to locate, even for us.

 

See that's the thing though - seems pretty clear that ESPN doesn't have a problem selling out with hypefests in between SportsCenters and games, but even SC has sold out with "Cold Hard Facts" and other ad-based content.
So now you've got E:60 and Bob Ley to hang your hat on (in addition to the mag) when 15-20 years ago the suits were worried that Jim Rome would undermine the entire operation with a nightly show on ESPN2.

 

Broad generalizations will get you in trouble . . . but on the other hand, one would like to see a little more than E:60 and the pre-pregame-hype Sunday morning ghetto.

 

Then increase your intake of magazine and dotcom. Take in less ESPN teevee and radio.

 

While I agree with you completely, and with DDown as well (although I will never understand how someone who writes so great can spell so bad--MacGregor, Merrill, Fleming )--ESPN will always be a television company first and foremost, and the television entity completely impacts/restricts/defines the journalism. Maybe not on an item-by-item basis, but in the big picture for sure.

Not to speak for Mile High, but I thought his post was directed at that overall perception and E-is-for-Entertainment image than at the journalists who do great work there.

 

So I shouldn't trust the journalism at Sports Illustrated because Time-Warner also produces TMZ?

 

Don't disagree. There's a goodly measure of quality stuff online . . . the problem being that so much of it you have to filter through various screens, including the always-popular "God, I could take this guy seriously, if he wasn't such an ACC fanboi and didn't think every college basketball coach was eligible for sainthood." I mean, it's a lot of work.

 

You are WAY too smart to suggest that analogy.

It's not about corporate ownership. Time Warner can own any number of entities and operate them with different agendas and purposes. Espn is one thing, with a singular corporate identity, no matter how many divisions and platforms exist. The public makes no distinction between the Mag or the dot com or First Take. It's all espn.