tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35407493.post6069352592909676583..comments2007-03-31T14:28:39.801-07:00Medill Media Watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12579948385398184830noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35407493.post-9423609338481910512007-03-31T14:28:00.000-07:002007-03-31T14:28:00.000-07:00Well, thanks for stealing what I was originally going to write about. You said it extremely well, and there's very little I can add. But there are two more issues I have with ESPN that I think dovetail nicely with what you wrote.<BR/><BR/>First off, I want to go on a bit of a tangent about Solomon, who may well be the weakest excuse for an ombudsman I've ever seen. He has absolutely no power, and it seems like his recommendations carry no weight. The idea of an ombudsman -- someone viewers and fans can complain to about the issues you write about -- is a good one, but if the network never follows any of his suggestions, then he's useless. But not all of the fault is on ESPN. I think Solomon is far too conciliatory towards the network, and many of his statements vacillate or are incredibly soft, full of "coulds" and "mights" instead of "shoulds." (Example from his final column: "News executives might consider occasionally slowing down the 'on-air' process until more facts become available. They might also want to back off the intensity of ESPN's coverage of Michelle Wie, the Yankees and the Red Sox.")<BR/><BR/>The second problem with ESPN is its ability to make news, which goes hand-in-hand with its decisions on which sports to cover. If Bob Knight "hits" a player's chin, is it news? Well, it is if ESPN says it is. Same with the T.O. "suicide" attempt. These might have been non-stories if not for ESPN. The network's ability to basically set the nation's sports agenda is something it often takes advantage of. It often puts real journalism on the back burner when a story that can draw ratings if ESPN hypes it enough comes up. ESPN has becone its own ratings-driving machine through this, and the level of sports discourse suffers as a result.AJShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13584771657158810860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35407493.post-64673221990514822532007-03-31T14:25:00.000-07:002007-03-31T14:25:00.000-07:00I agree that this sponsorship is a problem. How can a president of an AFL team possibly be objective as a commentator? I think this is a huge problems in other types of news as well. I once interned with an investigative unit at a tv station. The producer really wanted to do a story on this used car place that was ripping off poor people by offering them credit and other deals they could not afford and in the end were ending up with huge debts. However, the used car company was owned by a larger company that was one of the largest advertisers for the station. Thus the producer was informed she could not do the story. I was outraged! It's still hard for me to reconcile the business side of news with its public service. I know I have to, but I'm not sure where to draw the line.EJWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02495496100718322798noreply@blogger.com