Orlando Sent does a piece on ESPN... worth discussing?

Carmen Renee Thompson is also the same writer who does the "athletes at parties/charity events" writeups that ESPN the Magazine runs.
It's not a surprise that she'd churn out such syncophantic bullshit about Artest.

 

Honestly, I don't want to knock Thompson too much, because I've seen that kind of story countless times in the Magazine, including a piece several years ago that basically rationalized a drunken Derrick Coleman walking into a restaurant kitchen, unzipping his pants, and pissing on the floor. (He was confused! Could have happened to any of us!) Seriously.

(Though, to be fair, I've read a lot of good stuff too, from Eric Alderson, Keown, Friend, even from younger writers like Seth Wickerstam).

But I think either that kind of Brown Bunny profiling Thompson did is either encouraged, or at the very, very least, not discouraged from on high. And as much as I'd like to get the opportunity to do that kind of writing with that kind of freedom in that big of a forum, it makes me uncomfortable, and cuts to the very heart of ESPN's problems as a "journotainment" entity.

 

You know the answer.

The answer is no.

 

There is NO new news here, just another feeble attempt by Whitlock to keep us informed on others quoting him.

I found this interesting:

There is too little critical analysis of ESPN elsewhere in the media, Whitlock said, in part because at the end of the day many people want to work there. He did, while also writing for the Star, but left last year for AOL.

This is in error because everybody knows:

YOU GOT FIRED!!!!!!!!!!!!

CANNED!!!!!!!!!!

KICKED TO THE CURB!!!!!!!

lol

 

Kill me now.

 

Do you want a smoke and a blindfold, or just two behind the ear real quick?

 

Did Bruh really just end his post with lol?

<checking>

Yep. Carry on.

 

That's an elitist view which doesn't make a lot of practical sense in the real world.

You want to write for a magazine....how many national mags are publishing what you want to write? Esquire, GQ, SI...ESPN? Go ahead, let's make a list. What are your other options? How many of those are looking to hire you right now? Might they hire you down the road after you've already been writing for another national magazine?

I think you may be overstating the shill factor...and even if you're not (in some cases) wouldn't it be worth the challenge of writing the story the way you want to write it, and arguing your position if/when you have to? Wouldn't you discuss this with the folks hiring you before you took the job?

This is a small and painfully competitive business. When you're young and talented and ambitious, you have to look at all the stepping stones that get you where you want to be....because good stepping stones are far and few between.

 

You're absolutely right on all counts, 21. I was giving Double Down a personal answer in a public space, and probably should have just PMed him. I took his question to mean 'do you take a job where they send you out the door to buff an athlete to a high shine without regard to the truth'?

That said, though, if you cross-reference this thread with the new one about the declining standards of our business in general, and then add this quote from the article JW cited:

"We're basically covering an industry here that is an entertainment industry," said Doria, a 15-year ESPN veteran who formerly worked in newspapers. "If you're not careful and all you do is hard-core investigative, enterprising journalism on an entertainment industry, which people go to, to be entertained, you're probably giving them more journalism than they want.

"We also understand that the fan comes to sports to be entertained, comes originally to watch games, but also comes to get news, information, insight and analysis on those games. The line is gray without a doubt -- not the way we go out about journalism, that's not gray, but in terms of what we're delivering to the fans [news and entertainment]."

If this fella's going to call his business "sports entertainment," then I think you can make the argument that the only standards we have left at the end of the day are our own. As you say, mine aren't particularly practical.

 

There are a ton of interesting angles on the ESPN story. This isn’t one of them.

Sorry, but this is poor reporting. Nice writing, but a total surface job. A lot of talking about ESPN, but it's not a particularly hard look at ESPN, and it does not at all try to specifically critique or analyze the content of the network. Folks, there is not one number in that story. No ratings. No dollar figures. The word "business" appears again and again, but there is not one piece of evidence to quantify or clarify any of it. The whole article is total, pointless, useless hearsay.

All of these quotes and this writing, and not one person thinks to create a focus group of regular sports fans to watch the network for a week, honestly assess what they're seeing, and provide feedback to the author? No true analysis of how ESPN is pimping the AFL? No foreshadowing of the eventual ESPN/cable company wars? No examination of the Playmakers debacle? No quotes from any ESPN talent? Or former on-air talent - and no, I'm not counting Simers and Whitlock.

The whole thing reads like a summary statement of what comes before all the actual reporting. It's disappointing.

As far as working for ESPN magazine…the reporter who wrote the Artest story had written Artest stories before for other basketball magazines. She was a hired gun to come and wax thug.