ESPN Is Pathetic

[ifmanis5]

QUOTE (Dummy Hoy @ Jul 8 2010, 09:32 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065491
While i'm a bit cynical about this "event" too, there's going to be way more than a few dimes given to charity. I think 5-6 commercial blocks, clicking in around 15 minutes worth of ads. That may be in the range of a million dollars that he gives to the B&G Clubs. What an asshole.

Literally pocket change. And a tax write-off at that. Stop pretending this is anyhting else than what it is.

 

[johnmd20]

QUOTE (Dummy Hoy @ Jul 8 2010, 09:32 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065491
While i'm a bit cynical about this "event" too, there's going to be way more than a few dimes given to charity. I think 5-6 commercial blocks, clicking in around 15 minutes worth of ads. That may be in the range of a million dollars that he gives to the B&G Clubs. What an asshole.

It is merely a bribe, to make this whole charade seem more worthy than it really is. But this show isn't about charity. It isn't about the kids. It isn't about the NBA. This is about Lebron. Nothing more, nothing less. I agree with ifman, don't get fooled again.

 

[wutang112878]

QUOTE (Dummy Hoy @ Jul 8 2010, 09:32 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065491
While i'm a bit cynical about this "event" too, there's going to be way more than a few dimes given to charity. I think 5-6 commercial blocks, clicking in around 15 minutes worth of ads. That may be in the range of a million dollars that he gives to the B&G Clubs. What an asshole.


In isolation Lebrons donation to the B&G clubs is good stuff. Unfortunately, IMO this was probably hatched by his agent to solve the 'how can we be attention seekers but not seem like complete attention seekers'. Doing something charitable does not mean you are not an attention seeker, and thats most of the critique of Lebron on this one.

ESPN should be taken to task for this as well, I wonder if the Ombudsman will have something to say about this. Major sports news networks simply shouldnt be partnering with the stars they cover.

 

[dynomite]

QUOTE (wutang112878 @ Jul 8 2010, 09:50 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065522
ESPN should be taken to task for this as well, I wonder if the Ombudsman will have something to say about this. Major sports news networks simply shouldnt be partnering with the stars they cover.


Correct. I am really interested to hear what the Ombudsman has to say. I think even casual fans generally uninterested in the notion of "journalism" understand the conflict of interest and questionable ethics at play.

 

[SocrManiac]

Somewhere, Brett Favre is pissed he didn't come up with this idea.

 

[ifmanis5]

QUOTE (SocrManiac @ Jul 8 2010, 10:50 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065610
Somewhere, Brett Favre is pissed he didn't come up with this idea.

:lol:

I'm sure Peter King is pitching him a weekly show of his own as we speak.

Peter: Well, Brett, what's it gonna be?
Brett: Aw shucks.
Peter: See ya next week!

 

[gingerbreadmann]

Let me ask you guys this then -- If you're the head of ESPN and this has been your main story since the middle of May, and then three or four days before the decision is made, LeBron's team comes to you asking for a one-hour special, do you turn him down? Do you tell him that a big network partnering with a superstar would be ethically questionable in journalism? Do you calmly remind him that his ego has gotten out of control and ESPN will not take part in the growing and stroking of said ego? This decision is the big one for the media this summer, and I would have to imagine if the opportunity to break it on your network simply fell into your lap, there is no way you could turn it down. And you know what? LeBron knows the kind of coverage it will get, and kudos to him for taking the opportunity to focus the attention on him rather than some unnamed source. He saw a chance to get unrivaled public attention and millions of dollars in advertising, and he took advantage. Some would say that is just good business.

Now, I do agree that LeBron's ego has spiraled out of control and I am not impressed by his self-importance, but you can't necessarily fault him for taking advantage of a situation that presented itself. He has found a way to capitalize on this media frenzy, and shoved charity in our face to maintain a good rep, and it seems to be working based on the opinions of some people in this thread, and that's just that. As for ESPN, I don't have a problem at all with how they acted here. You can't turn this kind of an offer down -- you just can't. I don't think they even know the decision yet.

 

[ifmanis5]

There's a line between covering news and being used, and ESPN is essentially whoring themselves out, infomercial style. The WWL is the king athlete starfucker, they never miss an opportunity to lay down with Tiger or Bron or Favre no matter what the price. This is a circus and to call it anything else is delusional or ignorant. It's essentially a live "leaked" sex tape at this point. Only thing missing will be Stu Scott giving 23 a rim job on camera.

Oh, but the poor little boys and girls of Greenwich. CT will have a heated indoor pool instead of the non-heated kind and the pony to little girl ratio will now be 1:1 so no one has to share.

 

[Rocco Graziosa]

QUOTE (ifmanis5 @ Jul 8 2010, 12:49 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065768
There's a line between covering news and being used, and ESPN is essentially whoring themselves out, infomercial style. The WWL is the king athlete starfucker, they never miss an opportunity to lay down with Tiger or Bron or Favre no matter what the price. This is a circus and to call it anything else is delusional or ignorant. It's essentially a live "leaked" sex tape at this point. Only thing missing will be Stu Scott giving 23 a rim job on camera.

Oh, but the poor little boys and girls of Greenwich. CT will have a heated indoor pool instead of the non-heated kind and the pony to little girl ratio will now be 1:1 so no one has to share.


So you think ESPN should have turned this opportunity down? Lebron James approached them, not vice versa.

Either way I'll be watching tonight with bells on.

 

[CoolPapaBellhorn]

I'm not near a TV, but ESPN has to have a countdown clock in the corner of the screen today, right? Their entire operation is a self-parody at this point.

 

[wutang112878]

QUOTE (gingerbreadmann @ Jul 8 2010, 11:10 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065633
Let me ask you guys this then -- If you're the head of ESPN and this has been your main story since the middle of May, and then three or four days before the decision is made, LeBron's team comes to you asking for a one-hour special, do you turn him down? Do you tell him that a big network partnering with a superstar would be ethically questionable in journalism? Do you calmly remind him that his ego has gotten out of control and ESPN will not take part in the growing and stroking of said ego? This decision is the big one for the media this summer, and I would have to imagine if the opportunity to break it on your network simply fell into your lap, there is no way you could turn it down. And you know what? LeBron knows the kind of coverage it will get, and kudos to him for taking the opportunity to focus the attention on him rather than some unnamed source. He saw a chance to get unrivaled public attention and millions of dollars in advertising, and he took advantage. Some would say that is just good business.

Now, I do agree that LeBron's ego has spiraled out of control and I am not impressed by his self-importance, but you can't necessarily fault him for taking advantage of a situation that presented itself. He has found a way to capitalize on this media frenzy, and shoved charity in our face to maintain a good rep, and it seems to be working based on the opinions of some people in this thread, and that's just that. As for ESPN, I don't have a problem at all with how they acted here. You can't turn this kind of an offer down -- you just can't. I don't think they even know the decision yet.


Its about ethics. If you are the CEO of Pfizer and someone offers you a strain of disease you can pas through the air without anyone knowing, then sell the cure for this disease, to maximize profit you buy it. Ethically thats pathetic. What ESPN did does not have anywhere close to the financial ramifications of that but we should not use the financial incentive to justify the ethical issues with this.

At the end of the day ESPN needs to decide if they want to be a tabloid or a respected news outlet. In our capitalist system in this age of technology tabloids can be more profitable, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt critique major news outlets for doing this.

 

[Rocco Graziosa]

QUOTE (wutang112878 @ Jul 8 2010, 01:13 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065807
Its about ethics. If you are the CEO of Pfizer and someone offers you a strain of disease you can pas through the air without anyone knowing, then sell the cure for this disease, to maximize profit you buy it. Ethically thats pathetic. What ESPN did does not have anywhere close to the financial ramifications of that but we should not use the financial incentive to justify the ethical issues with this.

At the end of the day ESPN needs to decide if they want to be a tabloid or a respected news outlet. In our capitalist system in this age of technology tabloids can be more profitable, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt critique major news outlets for doing this.


ESPN isn't just a major sports news outlet though. They are in sports entertainment. They produce movies, follow poker and hot dog eating contests, and produce reality television programs. Why should hosting the "Lebron James Decision" show be outside their bounds? That doesn't make sense to me.

Edit: If ESPN shouldn't carry this program, who should?

 

[mabrowndog]

QUOTE (Rocco Graziosa @ Jul 8 2010, 01:15 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065809
ESPN isn't just a major sports news outlet though. They are in sports entertainment. They produce movies, follow poker and hot dog eating contests, and produce reality television programs.

I'm no fan of ESPN's involvement in this or of how it's relentlessly marketing the event, but the above is 100% correct.

Having been named the [SIZE=14pt]E[/SIZE]ntertainment and [SIZE=14pt]S[/SIZE]ports [SIZE=14pt]P[/SIZE]rogramming [SIZE=14pt]N[/SIZE]etwork for over three decades since their inception inherently gives them a shitload of wiggle room when it comes to journalistic integrity.

 

[Dummy Hoy]

I think a whole bunch of folks here missed my point about the charity money.
Obviously LeBron is using that as a tool to look good, and obviously the money is a drop in the ocean for him- but not for the Boys and Girls Club. Having worked for similar organizations to the B&G Club, and having worked with inner city kids who tend to use the B&G Club, it's kind of embarrassing for people to call the amount of money they are going to get "a few dimes." The money that is donated tonight will save jobs, refurbish shitty playgrounds, replace shoddy equipment, and generally help support an organization that does as much to keep kids off the street as any other.
Now, should LeBron get an award for this- no. In fact he, his fellow millionaire atheletes, and the billionaire businessmen should be doing more. But to call it "a few dimes" and to completely disregard the help that money is going to provide is fucking sad and shortsighted.

edit: more to the point- ESPN is pathetic.

 

[mabrowndog]

QUOTE (wutang112878 @ Jul 8 2010, 09:50 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065522
In isolation Lebrons donation to the B&G clubs is good stuff. Unfortunately, IMO this was probably hatched by his agent to solve the 'how can we be attention seekers but not seem like complete attention seekers'. Doing something charitable does not mean you are not an attention seeker, and thats most of the critique of Lebron on this one.

I have to concede I went overboard in my earlier "he's doing this for all the right reasons" statement, because ego is clearly playing a role. However I don't see how conducting such an event publicly and promotionally cheapens the charitable endeavor or intent. Celebrities and athletes hold countless public events that are heavily marketed, from Comic Relief to the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon to Jason Varitek's Putt Putt. I suppose Bob Geldof should have just had all the bands show up at the VFW in Paterson, New Jersey for the 1985 Live Aid concerts instead of packing Wembley and JFK with 180,000 people and 2 billion more watching live on TV.

Does added publicity and subsequent revenue come to the entertainers as part of the package? Of course. They're in the fucking entertainment business. I don't understand why James is begrudged over this.

 

[teddykgb]

QUOTE (wutang112878 @ Jul 8 2010, 01:13 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065807
Its about ethics. If you are the CEO of Pfizer and someone offers you a strain of disease you can pas through the air without anyone knowing, then sell the cure for this disease, to maximize profit you buy it. Ethically thats pathetic. What ESPN did does not have anywhere close to the financial ramifications of that but we should not use the financial incentive to justify the ethical issues with this.

At the end of the day ESPN needs to decide if they want to be a tabloid or a respected news outlet. In our capitalist system in this age of technology tabloids can be more profitable, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt critique major news outlets for doing this.


Are you serious? In what way is Lebron choosing a basketball team akin to committing countless crimes and acts of terrorism? How is ESPN lacking ethics in this situation? They were presented with an opportunity to have an exclusive on one of the biggest items of news in their area of coverage. I don't seven see the ethical conundrum. Because they've pimped this story? Do you honestly think this would be ho hum if ESPN hadn't driven this story as hard as it has? There's always a bit of a pendulum swinging when you talk about whether the public decides what it wants its news to be about or if the news story guides the public, but in this case I don't think it's even remotely possible that the tail is wagging the dog. Anyone who is an NBA fan is interested in this, as it will affect the competitive balance of the league for a long time. It IS news. They HAVe to report it.

 

[wutang112878]

QUOTE (Rocco Graziosa @ Jul 8 2010, 01:15 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065809
ESPN isn't just a major sports news outlet though. They are in sports entertainment. They produce movies, follow poker and hot dog eating contests, and produce reality television programs. Why should hosting the "Lebron James Decision" show be outside their bounds? That doesn't make sense to me.


Thats fine, and if they want to be the TMZ of sports go do that, but you cant play both sides. Today they partner with the King on "His Decision" and in a few months they will act as though they are providing unbiased analysis of his performance?

Did you ever see the Ombudsman's analysis of the BigBen situation? A similar situation where conflicts of interst arise. Check out the last 2 paragraphs, kind of says it all:

QUOTE
Aside from the events to which they have broadcast rights, the most important assets ESPN has are trust and credibility. Both are amorphous qualities; hard to gain, easy to lose. They are central to a bond with the audience. Break that connection and you jeopardize loyalty and, eventually, success.

ESPN goes to great lengths to position its brand as THE place for what's happening in the world of sports. Its stated mission is "To serve the sports fan wherever sports are watched, listened to, discussed, debated, read about or played." That's its mission, and that's what we should hold it to.

 

[Rocco Graziosa]

QUOTE (wutang112878 @ Jul 8 2010, 01:49 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065876
Thats fine, and if they want to be the TMZ of sports go do that, but you cant play both sides. Today they partner with the King on "His Decision" and in a few months they will act as though they are providing unbiased analysis of his performance?

Did you ever see the Ombudsman's analysis of the BigBen situation? A similar situation where conflicts of interst arise. Check out the last 2 paragraphs, kind of says it all:


Well who do you think SHOULD be taking an exclusive press conference of Lebron Jame's decision?

 

[wutang112878]

QUOTE (teddykgb @ Jul 8 2010, 01:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065873
Are you serious? In what way is Lebron choosing a basketball team akin to committing countless crimes and acts of terrorism? How is ESPN lacking ethics in this situation? They were presented with an opportunity to have an exclusive on one of the biggest items of news in their area of coverage. I don't seven see the ethical conundrum. Because they've pimped this story? Do you honestly think this would be ho hum if ESPN hadn't driven this story as hard as it has? There's always a bit of a pendulum swinging when you talk about whether the public decides what it wants its news to be about or if the news story guides the public, but in this case I don't think it's even remotely possible that the tail is wagging the dog. Anyone who is an NBA fan is interested in this, as it will affect the competitive balance of the league for a long time. It IS news. They HAVe to report it.


ESPN is partnering with a star they cover to make news, to have a show they wouldnt have otherwise, to make more money. This is not ethical because intentions of the network arent to provide unbiased coverage but instead are something else. Pharmas was the quickest example I could think, yes its an extreme one but my point was that a company can partner with someone they shouldnt to maximize profit. And the argument of 'why shouldnt they maximize profit' shouldnt be used to justify unethical decisions.

 

[Rocco Graziosa]

QUOTE (wutang112878 @ Jul 8 2010, 01:55 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065883
ESPN is partnering with a star they cover to make news, to have a show they wouldnt have otherwise, to make more money. This is not ethical because intentions of the network arent to provide unbiased coverage but instead are something else. Pharmas was the quickest example I could think, yes its an extreme one but my point was that a company can partner with someone they shouldnt to maximize profit. And the argument of 'why shouldnt they maximize profit' shouldnt be used to justify unethical decisions.



How is this any different than a news station getting (and paying for) an exclusive interview with a politician? I just don't get what ESPN is doing wrong here.

 

[teddykgb]

QUOTE (wutang112878 @ Jul 8 2010, 01:55 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065883
ESPN is partnering with a star they cover to make news, to have a show they wouldnt have otherwise, to make more money. This is not ethical because intentions of the network arent to provide unbiased coverage but instead are something else. Pharmas was the quickest example I could think, yes its an extreme one but my point was that a company can partner with someone they shouldnt to maximize profit. And the argument of 'why shouldnt they maximize profit' shouldnt be used to justify unethical decisions.


ESPN can partner with whomever they damn well please. It would be unethical for ESPN to guarantee Lebron a 50 million dollar contract if he goes to NYK from their own coffers, but they're reporting James' decision and increasing their bottom line as result. If and when ESPN doctors a story to place Lebron in a good light in the future, then you can gripe about that ethical breach, but right now you're complaining about a potential future ethical quagmire that may never take place. There's a news story here, ESPN got an exclusive. This is what happens in news. Are they supposed to say "Thanks, Lebron, but we're going to insist that we be allowed to cover it along with all of our competitors, because it just wouldn't be right to get this story all to ourselves"?

 

[wutang112878]

QUOTE (Rocco Graziosa @ Jul 8 2010, 01:53 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065880
Well who do you think SHOULD be taking an exclusive press conference of Lebron Jame's decision?


How about giving the access rights to all networks and allow them to cover it, then there isnt much conflict of interest because its public news.

 

[dolomite133]

QUOTE (mabrowndog @ Jul 8 2010, 01:27 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065837
I'm no fan of ESPN's involvement in this or of how it's relentlessly marketing the event, but the above is 100% correct.

Having been named the [SIZE=14pt]E[/SIZE]ntertainment and [SIZE=14pt]S[/SIZE]ports [SIZE=14pt]P[/SIZE]rogramming [SIZE=14pt]N[/SIZE]etwork for over three decades since their inception inherently gives them a shitload of wiggle room when it comes to journalistic integrity.


Slight correction ... it reinforces the perception that they don't really have integrity. And, unfortunately, that's OK with people nowadays (just look at FOX and CNBC ratings).

 

[wutang112878]

QUOTE (teddykgb @ Jul 8 2010, 02:00 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065890
ESPN can partner with whomever they damn well please. It would be unethical for ESPN to guarantee Lebron a 50 million dollar contract if he goes to NYK from their own coffers, but they're reporting James' decision and increasing their bottom line as result. If and when ESPN doctors a story to place Lebron in a good light in the future, then you can gripe about that ethical breach, but right now you're complaining about a potential future ethical quagmire that may never take place. There's a news story here, ESPN got an exclusive. This is what happens in news. Are they supposed to say "Thanks, Lebron, but we're going to insist that we be allowed to cover it along with all of our competitors, because it just wouldn't be right to get this story all to ourselves"?


So when TMZ pays someone in LA for photos or an exclusive interview, do you consider that unbiased and without agenda? Thats my point, doing something like this brings up bias issues, which should be unethical in the non-tabloid world of journalism. And if it does take place, you open up your outlet to criticism and rightfully so.

 

[Rustjive]

QUOTE (wutang112878 @ Jul 8 2010, 02:11 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065903
How about giving the access rights to all networks and allow them to cover it, then there isnt much conflict of interest because its public news.

What conflict of interest? Can you describe the conflict between what ESPN's aims are and what ESPN is doing?

 

[Rustjive]

QUOTE (wutang112878 @ Jul 8 2010, 02:13 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065908
So when TMZ pays someone in LA for photos or an exclusive interview, do you consider that unbiased and without agenda? Thats my point, doing something like this brings up bias issues, which should be unethical in the non-tabloid world of journalism. And if it does take place, you open up your outlet to criticism and rightfully so.

Your analogies so far in this thread have been very off-base.

Answer these questions: if ESPN said 'no, we're not going to host this special', would they be reporting the news any better? Would the news be breaking any quicker?

 

[teddykgb]

QUOTE (wutang112878 @ Jul 8 2010, 02:13 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065908
So when TMZ pays someone in LA for photos or an exclusive interview, do you consider that unbiased and without agenda? Thats my point, doing something like this brings up bias issues, which should be unethical in the non-tabloid world of journalism. And if it does take place, you open up your outlet to criticism and rightfully so.


In your world, Woodward and Bernstein share all their information with the other newspapers so they can print it all together. I really don't want to seem as if I'm attacking you, but this is incredibly absurd. TMZ paying for photos of someone's baby is tabloidism not because they paid for the exclusive, but because of the subject matter. News sources pay for information all the time, and you're not even sure that Lebron is being paid for this. News sources accepting exclusive information is not unethical. Exploiting that information only they can obtain is not unethical. Even if they pay lebron for the exclusive, it's not unethical, unless they were trying to influence his decision or agree to not report on him fairly or honestly in the future.

 

[Shelterdog]

QUOTE (teddykgb @ Jul 8 2010, 02:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065916
In your world, Woodward and Bernstein share all their information with the other newspapers so they can print it all together. I really don't want to seem as if I'm attacking you, but this is incredibly absurd. TMZ paying for photos of someone's baby is tabloidism not because they paid for the exclusive, but because of the subject matter. News sources pay for information all the time, and you're not even sure that Lebron is being paid for this. News sources accepting exclusive information is not unethical. Exploiting that information only they can obtain is not unethical. Even if they pay lebron for the exclusive, it's not unethical, unless they were trying to influence his decision or agree to not report on him fairly or honestly in the future.


This is, completely wrong. Credible news outlets don't pay sources. This isn't to say that news outlets don't offer value to their sources (if I have a movie or book coming out, giving interviews is basically free advertising; if I'm a businessman and the WSJ or Business Week give me favorable article for access it helps my career) or push the boundaries (news programs like 20/20 or 60 minutes might not pay news sources but they will fly you to New York city and put you up in a fancy hotel for a week, for example).

I'm not journalistic ethics expert but it's pretty clear there are two big issues:

One, is ESPN letting a programming decision (i.e. we want big ratings for the LeBron show) influence its reporting (for example, what if they have real confirmation about where he's going but aren't reporting it?).

Two, is ESPN relinquishing control over how it airs a story to a third party? There's always a give and take but how much give and how much take is there? It sounds like team LeBron picked the interviewer; are they producing the show? Is it an infomercial? Who will write the script?

There's an interplay between one and two. If ESPN is really producing the show then they very well could have the information in-house to confirm where he's going, because they have to make graphics and scripts and video montages and all. If on the other hand they're letting the LeBron team run the show, well, then it's just lending their network's credibility to an infomercial.

 

[Rocco Graziosa]

QUOTE (teddykgb @ Jul 8 2010, 02:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065916
In your world, Woodward and Bernstein share all their information with the other newspapers so they can print it all together. I really don't want to seem as if I'm attacking you, but this is incredibly absurd. TMZ paying for photos of someone's baby is tabloidism not because they paid for the exclusive, but because of the subject matter. News sources pay for information all the time, and you're not even sure that Lebron is being paid for this. News sources accepting exclusive information is not unethical. Exploiting that information only they can obtain is not unethical. Even if they pay lebron for the exclusive, it's not unethical, unless they were trying to influence his decision or agree to not report on him fairly or honestly in the future.


I've been trying to word my argument like this for the last hour or so but I'm just not smart enough. Thank you for saying what I could not.

 

[Average Reds]

QUOTE (Rocco Graziosa @ Jul 8 2010, 01:58 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065886
How is this any different than a news station getting (and paying for) an exclusive interview with a politician? I just don't get what ESPN is doing wrong here.


This is precisely the relevent comparison.

To my knowledge, no major news organizations pay for interviews with political figures. To do so completely undermines their credibility as an objective news organization, which is precisely why they don't do it.

Obviously, ESPN has decided that they do not have to live up to these standards, and the reality is that they may very well be right. The sports world is not the real world, and so the expectations aren't as stringent. They might lose some viewers, but if the promotional aspets of this event outweigh the negatives, then they've made the right decision from a business perspective.

However, putting the business case aside, I don't know how anyone can argue that the way this was set up and especially the way this has been shamelessly promoted by ESPN does anything other than reinforce the notion that the WWL is little more than a promotional arm for athletes they view as being valuable "properties" for their network.

QUOTE (teddykgb @ Jul 8 2010, 02:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065916
In your world, Woodward and Bernstein share all their information with the other newspapers so they can print it all together. I really don't want to seem as if I'm attacking you, but this is incredibly absurd. TMZ paying for photos of someone's baby is tabloidism not because they paid for the exclusive, but because of the subject matter. News sources pay for information all the time, and you're not even sure that Lebron is being paid for this. News sources accepting exclusive information is not unethical. Exploiting that information only they can obtain is not unethical. Even if they pay lebron for the exclusive, it's not unethical, unless they were trying to influence his decision or agree to not report on him fairly or honestly in the future.



Didn't see this until I posted, so I'll reply through an edit.

IMO, you are correct about everything you say here except for the issue of payment. It's considered unethical to pay for stories precisely because you are incentivizing people to tell you something that will generate ratings/move product rather than be truthful.

This doesn't mean that "checkbook journalism" always gets it wrong - John Edwards says hello - but it's the primary reason that checkbook journalism is always suspect.

 

[mabrowndog]

QUOTE (Shelterdog @ Jul 8 2010, 02:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065945
This is, completely wrong. Credible news outlets don't pay sources.

In a world of unicorns, rainbows and puppy dogs that live forever, this is undeniably true.

But in the real world, with multiple billions of dollars at stake in the highly competitive news business, you can't possibly be so naive as to believe the media -- especially the larger newspapers and national networks -- don't provide some sort of quid pro quo when it comes to getting their biggest scoops.

It even happens in the smaller outlets, though obviously on a far less visible stage. I spent two years as a news reporter on the Cape, a job dependent on building a network of trust with sources. That often meant soft-pedaling some feel-good stories about certain community and charity events they were involved with (fingerprint registration for kids, food drives for the local pantry, volunteer beach cleanups, the annual fire department MDA fundraiser, etc.). It's because the publisher printed this non-hard news that these contacts would work with us providing leads and information on key local stories. Absent such networking, those calls would be placed to competing publications that played the game. Sometimes it even extended to where certain articles were placed. On one occasion a huge drug bust that I wrote up got buried on page 5 because the editor decided to put another story on page 1 above the fold. My contacts gave me the cold shoulder for the next two weeks, answering the calls of another paper -- and they told me why to my face -- until the editor called to apologize and explain.

And this is in a fucking coastal resort town. If you can't comprehend that the tradeoffs on the larger stages are even more grandiose, you've got your head buried in the sand.

 

[wutang112878]

QUOTE (teddykgb @ Jul 8 2010, 02:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065916
In your world, Woodward and Bernstein share all their information with the other newspapers so they can print it all together. I really don't want to seem as if I'm attacking you, but this is incredibly absurd. TMZ paying for photos of someone's baby is tabloidism not because they paid for the exclusive, but because of the subject matter. News sources pay for information all the time, and you're not even sure that Lebron is being paid for this. News sources accepting exclusive information is not unethical. Exploiting that information only they can obtain is not unethical. Even if they pay lebron for the exclusive, it's not unethical, unless they were trying to influence his decision or agree to not report on him fairly or honestly in the future.


My analogies are extreme because in today's media there the approach is either incredibly boring but ethical, or biased with agenda working with those one covers to make news, and very little in between.

There is a fine line between say promoting a players charitable work to get inside info, and paying or providing significant media attention [Lebron] or not providing significant media attention [BigBen] for information/access/or other benefits in the future. Lebron isnt being paid by ESPN, but this program is helping Lebron the brand, which isnt much different than TMZ doing a favor for Tom Cruise and mentioning Knight and Day during every show for example.

QUOTE (teddykgb @ Jul 8 2010, 02:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065916
agree to not report on him fairly or honestly in the future.


This is my issue. It would be great if news outlets didnt do this but it happens. However, come tomorrow pretending they are going to provide unbiased analysis of Lebron after partnering with him like this is a joke. They dont have a contract about this, but you know there is a wink-wink deal to not show say Celts/Cavs game 5 and 6 highlights ever again

 

[Average Reds]

QUOTE (mabrowndog @ Jul 8 2010, 03:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065989
In a world of unicorns, rainbows and puppy dogs that live forever, this is undeniably true.

But in the real world, with multiple billions of dollars at stake in the highly competitive news business, you can't possibly be so naive as to believe the media -- especially the larger newspapers and national networks -- don't provide some sort of quid pro quo when it comes to getting their biggest scoops.

It even happens in the smaller outlets, though obviously on a far less visible stage. I spent two years as a news reporter on the Cape, a job dependent on building a network of trust with sources. That often meant soft-pedaling some feel-good stories about certain community and charity events they were involved with (fingerprint registration for kids, food drives for the local pantry, volunteer beach cleanups, the annual fire department MDA fundraiser, etc.). It's because the publisher printed this non-hard news that these contacts would work with us providing leads and information on key local stories. Absent such networking, those calls would be placed to competing publications that played the game. Sometimes it even extended to where certain articles were placed. On one occasion a huge drug bust that I wrote up got buried on page 5 because the editor decided to put another story on page 1 above the fold. My contacts gave me the cold shoulder for the next two weeks, answering the calls of another paper -- and they told me why to my face -- until the editor called to apologize and explain.

And this is in a fucking coastal resort town. If you can't comprehend that the tradeoffs on the larger stages are even more grandiose, you've got your head buried in the sand.


Not trying to pick a fight with you, but I think it's the reverse of what you are saying.

Local news outlets often get cozy with local businesses and political figures because they depend upon the goodwill of the community for their continued survival.

National news organizations do not depend on the goodwill of any specific community. Their fortunes depend on the "quality" of their product and whether that product can attract enough viewers/readers to attract advertisers. Some organizations pay for stories and some don't, and the difference is related to what they think is in their best interests.

As I said earlier, ESPN has judged that their best interests are served by being a conduit for LeBron and his ego. And they are probably right, for any number of reasons.

 

[Shelterdog]

QUOTE (mabrowndog @ Jul 8 2010, 03:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065989
In a world of unicorns, rainbows and puppy dogs that live forever, this is undeniably true.
....
And this is in a fucking coastal resort town. If you can't comprehend that the tradeoffs on the larger stages are even more grandiose, you've got your head buried in the sand.


No, I get it. There's no doubt that the media and their sources are in a perpetual tug of war. That's why I said (in the bit you neglected to quote).

"This isn't to say that news outlets don't offer value to their sources (if I have a movie or book coming out, giving interviews is basically free advertising; if I'm a businessman and the WSJ or Business Week give me favorable article for access it helps my career) or push the boundaries (news programs like 20/20 or 60 minutes might not pay news sources but they will fly you to New York city and put you up in a fancy hotel for a week, for example)."

There is no question that LeBron gets treated with kid gloves because he's popular and will bring ratings. There's no question that a sufficiently big name will get all sorts of control about what happens in an interview, including the interviewer, the format, the number of questions, the questioning time, and possibly forbidden subjects. [Christ, I'm told that on a show like meet the press most of the politicans who appear have been given most of the questions AHEAD OF TIME.] And sure, maybe you're not paying someone for an interview, but if you're helping their career, promoting their favorite cause, or selling their book/movie/play/sporting event/institutional interest, there's a pretty tangible benefit, so it's really not that different.

 

[Burt Reynoldz]

The best analogy I can come up with for what's happening between ESPN and LeBron is when ABC agrees to pay for the Bachelorette's wedding as long as they get exclusive rights to the photographs. Sure, the event would happen anyway, and if they didn't facilitate it, somebody else probably would, and they'd report on it regardless, and they're not exactly creating the news, but it still leaves a bad taste.

 

[Rocco Graziosa]

QUOTE (wutang112878 @ Jul 8 2010, 03:36 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3065999
My analogies are extreme because in today's media there the approach is either incredibly boring but ethical, or biased with agenda working with those one covers to make news, and very little in between.

There is a fine line between say promoting a players charitable work to get inside info, and paying or providing significant media attention [Lebron] or not providing significant media attention [BigBen] for information/access/or other benefits in the future. Lebron isnt being paid by ESPN, but this program is helping Lebron the brand, which isnt much different than TMZ doing a favor for Tom Cruise and mentioning Knight and Day during every show for example.



This is my issue. It would be great if news outlets didnt do this but it happens. However, come tomorrow pretending they are going to provide unbiased analysis of Lebron after partnering with him like this is a joke. They dont have a contract about this, but you know there is a wink-wink deal to not show say Celts/Cavs game 5 and 6 highlights ever again



Well FWIW Lebron James is getting killed for making this decision in the manor that he is by just about everyone on ESPN today who is paid to have an opinion. Outside the lines had 5 people on and they were pretty much going to town on his decision, no matter what that turns out to be. The basic mantra was "no matter what he does, he's alientaed just about every group of fan out there other than the one he chooses, and if that turns out to be Cleveland even they might be offended that he dragged them trough all of this".

I have a feeling after this is all done, the mainstream media, including ESPN, is going to take great delight in trying to tear down this empire that Lebron James has created for himself. I for one will enjoy it if he sticks a knife into the entire city of Cleveland tonight.

 

[priestvalon]

I'd like to point out that ESPN gets a ridiculous $4.08 per subscriber per month.. so while you may laugh at their antics.. they are, in fact, laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[jose melendez]

My issue is, in many ways, the same issue I have with any television network or affiliate that has a news wing or program--the entertainment portions and the news portions are becoming increasingly indistinguishable. The way I see it, ESPN has three types of programs: sports (games, drafts, etc), entertainment (movies, documentaries) and news (SportsCenter). Not the sports news is, by its nature, on the entertaining side-- sports are a diversion, not, as a general rule, "serious." However, the news program is heavily, heavily involved in cross promoting, that is, using its "news" operation to promote its sports and entertainment programming. The equivalent, as I see it, is when Channel 4 in Boston (the local CBS affiliate) runs a news story about Survivor, which by a stunning coincidence airs on CBS. This is epidemic in the news industry these days (the morning "news shows" are absolute jokes in this regard) and ESPN is, too a large extent just following a broader trend.

My problem is that it is not clear to me that there is much of anything in terms of good sports journalism these days, at least on stuff that goes beyond the day to day of games and signing and to the major issues facing the game. The most celebrated example of this is the steroid issue, when the entire media apparatus (and fans) turned a blind eye to the story. The one that is most frustrating to me, however, is that there has never been, to the best of my knowledge a serious journalistic investigation of the Donaghy scandal in the NBA. I'd add that I think ESPN is structurally incapable--in any of its outlets, print, TV, radio or net-- of doing a serious investigation because of the nature of their relationship with the NBA.

To my mind, the only people capable of covering major off field issues in sports are people who are not sports reporters and do not work for sports outlets. It is not a coincidence that the folks who wrote Game of Shadows were not sports guys. If you want to be a sports reporter, you cannot commit an act of serious journalism and maintain the access needed to cover the games.

 

[priestvalon]

QUOTE (jose melendez @ Jul 8 2010, 02:11 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3066054
My issue is, in many ways, the same issue I have with any television network or affiliate that has a news wing or program--the entertainment portions and the news portions are becoming increasingly indistinguishable. The way I see it, ESPN has three types of programs: sports (games, drafts, etc), entertainment (movies, documentaries) and news (SportsCenter). Not the sports news is, by its nature, on the entertaining side-- sports are a diversion, not, as a general rule, "serious." However, the news program is heavily, heavily involved in cross promoting, that is, using its "news" operation to promote its sports and entertainment programming. The equivalent, as I see it, is when Channel 4 in Boston (the local CBS affiliate) runs a news story about Survivor, which by a stunning coincidence airs on CBS. This is epidemic in the news industry these days (the morning "news shows" are absolute jokes in this regard) and ESPN is, too a large extent just following a broader trend.

My problem is that it is not clear to me that there is much of anything in terms of good sports journalism these days, at least on stuff that goes beyond the day to day of games and signing and to the major issues facing the game. The most celebrated example of this is the steroid issue, when the entire media apparatus (and fans) turned a blind eye to the story. The one that is most frustrating to me, however, is that there has never been, to the best of my knowledge a serious journalistic investigation of the Donaghy scandal in the NBA. I'd add that I think ESPN is structurally incapable--in any of its outlets, print, TV, radio or net-- of doing a serious investigation because of the nature of their relationship with the NBA.

To my mind, the only people capable of covering major off field issues in sports are people who are not sports reporters and do not work for sports outlets. It is not a coincidence that the folks who wrote Game of Shadows were not sports guys. If you want to be a sports reporter, you cannot commit an act of serious journalism and maintain the access needed to cover the games.


Well... technically ESPN stopped being a sports network and became just another media wing of Disney... when Disney got involved. Disney are notorious for being heavy handed from a management viewpoint with their acquired properties. Not that I'm accusing ESPN pre-Disney of being excellent journalists, but frankly when Disney got involved it was a pure race to the bottom.

More and more I look for information on sports blogs rather than the regular outlets. That cannot replace all original reporting, surely, but outfits like mlbtraderumors.com have begun to get some scoops as well as collecting the accumulated "wisdom" of other MLB news outlets... in a very focused way. To me, a site like that is the future of sports reporting.

 

[Rocco Graziosa]

QUOTE (priestvalon @ Jul 8 2010, 04:28 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3066079
Well... technically ESPN stopped being a sports network and became just another media wing of Disney... when Disney got involved. Disney are notorious for being heavy handed from a management viewpoint with their acquired properties. Not that I'm accusing ESPN pre-Disney of being excellent journalists, but frankly when Disney got involved it was a pure race to the bottom.

More and more I look for information on sports blogs rather than the regular outlets. That cannot replace all original reporting, surely, but outfits like mlbtraderumors.com have begun to get some scoops as well as collecting the accumulated "wisdom" of other MLB news outlets... in a very focused way. To me, a site like that is the future of sports reporting.


I dunno about that. Who the hell scoops ESPN on breaking news? They have just about every national sports reporter worth their salt working for them in one capacity or another. And even if they do get "scooped" they have that particular news up within seconds that it comes out. ESPN isn't going anywhere.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

My issue with what they're "doing" isn't so much a journalistic integrity thing, although I think this definitely undermines theirs in theory even if it doesn't end up conflicting in practice.

I'm just gut-reacting to the entire M.O. they have where they want to be buddies with the athletes instead of cover them. ESPN has, for years, facilitated things like what Lebron James is doing, and is absolutely a part of the "culture" of the modern American athlete. ESPN treats them like entertainers and not news subjects. ESPN has, I think, spent the better part of their existence helping to create an environment where Lebron thought something like this was plausible; a great idea. Of course, at this point, ESPN can't say no to something like that. I just think they're part of the "problem."

Not so much that I won't watch though

edit- I just think they should have drawn a line. "Yeah, you're a big deal, but no, you can't have an hour of our programming to talk about yourself." I see where they're coming from, but I think they were wrong.

 

[mabrowndog]

QUOTE (Shelterdog @ Jul 8 2010, 03:43 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3066011
No, I get it. There's no doubt that the media and their sources are in a perpetual tug of war. That's why I said (in the bit you neglected to quote).

Fair enough. My apologies for glossing over that addendum -- admittedly my eyes were drawn to the one sentence I quoted, in the process denying it proper context.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

QUOTE (Rocco Graziosa @ Jul 8 2010, 04:32 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3066085
I dunno about that. Who the hell scoops ESPN on breaking news? They have just about every national sports reporter worth their salt working for them in one capacity or another. And even if they do get "scooped" they have that particular news up within seconds that it comes out. ESPN isn't going anywhere.

Don't think anyone's saying ESPN is going under or anything, but I think it's naive to think no one scoops ESPN. Most "scoops" still happen on the local level for the most part. ESPN as a whole seems loathe to credit any other outlets when they do get the scoop, choosing instead to use phrases like "ESPN has learned" or simply wait until one of their reporters confirms a story broken by another outlet before they run with it themselves. Sometimes that wait is mere minutes, sometimes longer.

ESPN has some good insider-type reporters like Schefter and Mortensen and Kurkjian. But let's not pretend they have the market cornered by any means. Broussard didn't get a scoop when he "broke" the Lebron announcment thing. He wasn't glued to his blackberry checking his sources. He probably got an "anonymous" email from the ESPN PR department.

Hooray for ESPN getting the exclusive with Lebron. But there was nothing journalistic about it at all. I think that's where people are finding fault with the WWL.

 

[jose melendez]

Check this out

Apparently, Jim Grey was on LeBron's payroll last night, not ESPN's.

QUOTE
As Jim Gray has told it, it was his idea to make LeBron James' free agent plan an hour special. He took the idea to James' marketing agent Maverick Carter of LRMR, who then worked with William Morris Endeavor to put the package together in front of ESPN executives.

ESPN didn't play down one part of the business arrangement of the deal — that Gray, the former ESPN and NBC reporter who is now working on a freelance basis, was James' preferred interviewer. But the network didn’t say, and now says they didn't know, that Gray's travel and payment for "The Decision" show was being paid by the entity set up by Team LeBron and not by ESPN, as CNBC has learned.

 

[dolomite133]

Lost among the Lebronathon discussion ... how did Seth Meyers land the ESPY gig this year? This guy is a poor man's Jimmy Fallon. His run on SNL was completely forgettable.

 

[Rocco Graziosa]

QUOTE (dolomite133 @ Jul 13 2010, 11:25 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3072598
Lost among the Lebronathon discussion ... how did Seth Meyers land the ESPY gig this year? This guy is a poor man's Jimmy Fallon. His run on SNL was completely forgettable.



And the commercials are completely unfunny. I mean like really bad. Who the hell is writing that sh!t?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Meyers makes somewhat regular appearances on Simmons' podcast. Would not at all be surprised that that connection played a role in his hosting the ESPYs this year. Judging from past hosts, it's not exactly a glamorous spot that people are falling over themselves to get. Meyers might just be the best they could get.

 

[dynomite]

QUOTE (dolomite133 @ Jul 13 2010, 11:25 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3072598
Lost among the Lebronathon discussion ... how did Seth Meyers land the ESPY gig this year? This guy is a poor man's Jimmy Fallon. His run on SNL was completely forgettable.


You're entitled to your opinion, obviously, but I think Meyers is really funny and generally a great guy.

First of all, he's been the head writer of SNL since Tina Fey left, and has risen through the ranks because of his writing, not really his stage stuff (he wrote the Sarah Palin sketches for Tina Fey, the MacGruber sketches, and the "REALLY?!" sketches on Weekend Update for example). I also always thought he did a pretty good job with Weekend Update -- good deadpan delivery.

He's also local (New Hampshire), a huge Sox fan, and donated the $100,000 he won on Bravo Celebrity Poker to the Jimmy Fund.

So.. what I'm saying is, why do you hate the Jimmy Fund?

 

[dirtynine]

Sorry for the tangent, but Seth Meyers wrote the MacGruber sketches? I thought that was Forte with Jorma Taccone?

 

[dynomite]

QUOTE (dirtynine @ Jul 13 2010, 01:33 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3072772
Sorry for the tangent, but Seth Meyers wrote the MacGruber sketches? I thought that was Forte with Jorma Taccone?


The way I understand it, actors on the show come to weekly pitch meetings and pitch characters, but if they're accepted the writers end up writing much of the sketches. (i.e. Forte came up with the character, but Meyers helps write the sketches)

He seems to claim to have written at least some in Penn's magazine:

QUOTE
The character, according to Seth, comes from that special mix of comic genius and severely long workdays: “you don’t write MacGruber first thing in the morning, you write MacGruber after 24 hours of no sleep.”