Couch Commentary: Is ESPN's Monopoly Eroding Sports Journalism?

Story by Ryan Thies

Let’s say you get your business information from CNBC.  Now let’s say that CNBC, as a channel, invested a lot of their channel’s operating budget into AIG, Microsoft, GM, Intel, Apple, and Google.  They have now based their channel’s future around the popularity and success of these stocks.  They are going to base all of their programming around their investment in these stocks.  In fact they are going to create more CNBC channels to get you up-to-the-minute information of each of those stocks.  Sure they will still cover the rest of the market.  And sure, they will have more insider access than thought possible (during board-meeting coffee-breaks they’re going to interview the CEO to get his thoughts on how the first half of the meeting went), but—and this is THE problem—can we really trust them to provide unbiased information?  CNBC’s life depends on these companies; do we really expect them to investigate whether AIG is spending their money poorly?  Or report that the guys from Google are using drugs?  Or if there is a potential labor-stoppage at GM—a strike, even the threat of a strike, could potentially damage the brand.  Why would they cover it if it’s going to hurt them too?  Of course you’re still going to tune into CNBC because their stock ticker is up to the minute and easy to use, you like some of their writers/personalities, you have some fantasy stock picks through them, their recap of the day in the market is still the best out there, and they are going to have access to things that no one else will.  But it would be ridiculous to think that they have a ton of journalistic integrity.  They would no longer be journalists first; they would now be a business first.

Enter ESPN.  The situation is absurd for a business channel, but it is exactly what’s going on at the Worldwide Leader.  ESPN currently covers the NFL (through 2013), MLB (also through ’13), the NBA (through ’16), NASCAR (through ’13), NCAA basketball (through ’13-’17 depending on the conference), and NCAA Football (including just about every bowl game and the BCS in ’11-’14).  So again I’m going to ask—how can we trust ESPN to cover these sports fairly?  The popularity (and ratings) of these games are the lifeblood of ESPN—and they have invested tens of billions into the coverage rights for them.  ESPN is now a sports monopoly, and like all monopolies, they have no need or desire to be fair in their coverage. 

I’m not writing this to say “I hate ESPN,” because let’s be honest I check their website 15 times a day (not including checking my fantasy teams or reading Bill Simmons or Matthew Berry).  But I am writing this to ask someone, anyone, to step up their coverage, maybe as a way to balance the scales a little bit (Help me Sports Illustrated, you’re my only hope).  Deadspin is fantastic, and it helps.  In fact the blogosphere in general is a great police force to watch when ESPN steps out of line.   But they’re not in the board rooms or locker rooms; and as much fun as they are, your standard blog is not the most-trustworthy source (I’m thinking of, among other things, a “leaked” Mitchell Report that had names on it that turned out to be made-up).  But I’m also not writing to throw vague accusations out there; I have my list of grievances.

First, the Refs.  In the past 18 months, we have seen an NBA official arrested for gambling on games and saw the shadiest call in NFL gambling history (“The touchdown that wasn’t” in the Steelers/Chargers game).  That NFL call saved Vegas tens of millions of dollars.  Was there an investigation?  ESPN certainly has the tools and the power to launch a very public investigation (and an Outside the Lines special) into that call and into the Gaming-Industrial Complex that it benefited.  Did they?  Of course not; because the appearance of impropriety could hurt the NFL, which would hurt ratings, which would of course hurt ESPN’s Monday Night broadcasts.  It just wouldn’t be good for business.  Which brings us to Tim Donaghy.   The Lee Harvey Oswald of the NBA, Donaghy has permanently changed the NBA’s landscape.  Did he act alone?  Is that even possible?  Donaghy worked with 2 other officials every single night, how could no one have ever said something to him, how could no one have reported strange activities, how could no one notice anything?  ESPN reported on the events after the fact and yet they seemed almost eager to go along with David Stern’s assertion that this was a rogue operative—like the KGB denying everything if an agent is caught.   They can’t possibly deny that it helps them (and their sister channel, ABC) if the NBA Finals include two popular teams from major media markets.  ESPN certainly benefits from a more popular NBA, and Donaghy certainly hurts the NBA’s credibility and ratings; it seems like it’d be an easy business decision to not focus too much on this type of scandal.

In fact there appears to be only one ESPN personality willing to talk about crappy NBA refs, or crappy NFL refs, or...  And that same rogue ESPNer also devoted a few thousand words to the impending doomsday scenario—the potential NBA labor strike in 2011.  I don’t think it’s too much to say that Bill Simmons made ESPN.com what it is today.  He is the first, and still best, “blogger”-styled writer they've brought in.  And now he has helped usher the WWL into the podcast age as well.  So he has the leeway to talk about crappy officials and potential strikes, but it sure seems like no one else at the Worldwide Leader in Sports wants to touch it.  Bad for business and whatnot.  Simmons’ conclusion about the strike was that it could clear up a great many problems with the NBA—the flaw in this plan is that he is a NBA die-hard, he won’t hold a grudge after a strike.  The rest of the country might not be as eager to watch an NBA game in 2012-13 after the entire 2011-12 season was lost, and since ESPN will then have to broadcast NBA games for another 4 years (when ratings will presumably plummet), then it only makes sense that they would want to keep a lid on it and just quietly hope that David Stern can avoid the rocky coastline before everybody goes down with the ship. 

With all their access, ESPN does cover a lot in the sports world.  I mean, while every sports site was covering Broncos WR Brandon Marshall’s arrest, only ESPN’s Michael Smith was able to break the story that the charges were dropped.  Move along, nothing to see here…  Or there was Ed Werder’s hard-hitting and often denied story that the Cowboys clubhouse was in shambles.  Of course, “breaking news” stories like that only seem to add drama, and drama seems to only add ratings; but still: hard-hitting. 

We as a people face an information-crisis; more precisely, we need to ask ourselves if we can really believe what we are told?  Blogs get the “untrustworthy” wrap, but we need to ask ourselves: is ESPN really telling us the whole truth and nothing but?  After all, ESPN has a lot riding on David Stern, Roger Goodell, and Bud Selig; so much riding on them in fact, that hell hath no fury like a commissioner scorned.  Just ask Scott Van Pelt what happens to ESPNers who openly mock/criticize one of the big three commissioners.  They also have a lot riding on stars, rivalries, and stars of rivalries.  So it should come as no surprise that ESPN never broke the steroid scandal, despite their unrivaled access to locker rooms and players.  In fact each new revelation has come from Sports Illustrated.  The only new information that came exclusively from ESPN was in Peter Gammons’ interview of A-Rod.  A softball interview if there ever was one, Gammons allowed A-Rod to slander the SI reporter that broke the story, even as A-Rod’s confession confirmed what she had reported.  But Gammon’s silence should come as no surprise to any of us.  Of course Gammons didn’t stick up for her: ESPN isn't the place for investigative journalists.  That just wouldn’t be good business.

Tags: general couch commentary

Aaron (DC) said:

My problem with the NBA/Donaghy conspiracy theorists (or at least one of my problems) is that the goal that the NBA would be working to achieve through any alleged game rigging rarely ever occurs. If the point is to get big markets in the Finals, then why have we seen Utah, New Jersey and Detroit all make back-to-back appearances in the Finals over the past 15 years? Why have we been treated to four trips to San Antonio in the last decade? Why did it take 20 years to get Boston back in the Finals? And why have we only seen the Knicks in the Finals twice in the last 35 years? Or the Sixers once in the last 25? The Lakers are the only one of the NBA's first tier markets (with NY, Bos, and PHI) that have made fairly regular trips to the Finals. So are we to believe that every time the Lakers make the Finals its fixed? I'm not disagreeing with the premise that ESPN's partnerships with the league damages their credibility. I'm just saying that the NBA and questions around the validity of the league is the wrong evidence to cite. Their relationship with the NFL is much more troubling. While ESPN's coverage of baseball at this point is almost solely steroid-focused, PEDs in the NFL have been overlooked. We've now had two SBs in the last five years to suffer from serious officiating flaws, yet not one peep from Bristol. ESPN has been virtually silent on the shameful way the league and the union treats its retired players. And when the WWL does decide to put increased focus on the NFL's blemishes, its only does so on players that the league would probably want to see vilified and cast out anyway (i.e. Vick, Pacman Jones, T.O.) And the NFL's influence with ESPN doesn't just end with editorial influence; it stretches into the creative as well. Why did Playmakers get yanked after a year of solid ratings? Why did the American remake of "Footballer's Wives" -- originally set to air on ESPN-sister net ABC -- not even make it on air? The leaue has become in recent years insanely protective of its public image, and in ESPN, they've found -- or cultivated -- a willing partner.

Travis said:

I've been thinking the same thing about ESPN monopoly for a while now but unfortunately find myself watching Sportscenter every morning and routinely checking ESPNEWS. The best thing is that I follow almost exclusively West Coast teams which get little to no air time on ESPN. That makes it hard to find much info on them when you want it though.

ed said:

The NBA has their thumb on many facets of our society. Not only the media but the prosecutors office in NYC who refused to implicate other officials in the NBA after the FBI investigation. Stern (NBA) donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to their political campaigns. The story will be out soon ! Goodbye NBA .

Mason said:

ESPN definitely has more access than anyone else, especially local sports journalists. I'm from Austin, Texas, and Kirk Bohls for the Austin American-Statesman can't even get past Erin Andrews for a Longhorn game at home, and he's been covering the 'Horns for 20+ years. Even the local news folks have a tough time getting an interview, and that's my beef with the "WWL" -- that if "you're not VIP, you gotta go." That's wrong, but ESPN does it just the same as ABC, CBS, etc. You say this isn't an "I hate ESPN," article yet you base it on ESPN's monopolistic qualities to make the argument. I agree that ESPN is pretty lame, and after Will Leitch wrote in "God Save the Fan," that ESPN is becoming more of an acting gig than legitimate journalism, I was blown away because I agree with that (I can't stand "as cool as the other side of the pillow" and "winner winner chicken dinner" every single night). But you can't call ESPN a monopoly when ABC and CBS have college football and basketball, and FOX has the same, including the Super Bowl and World Series, etc. NBC is in the mix with NFL as well. FOX also has all the FSN channels, like FSN Southwest, Midwest, etc., and The Final Score is a darn good recap show in itself. ESPN is owned by ABC, which is owned by Disney, one of the 5 or so major tops dogs in U.S. media, so you could argue that Disney/ESPN dumb the sports world down to make it more family-friendly (just listen to the color guys and how they talk to us like we're little leaguers). But ESPN isn't a monopoly over other major networks with the same access. So far, at least with this article, all you've provided is hearsay about the "conspiracies" in the NBA and NFL, etc., and I don't like that. To me you are on an anti-ESPN angle, which is fine on other grounds, but don't base it around ESPN's monopolistic qualities because that's not quite the whole picture.

Mason said:

I think this is closer to what I hear you saying: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&id=3983722 ESPN has the same access, but they over-cover the same stuff. That's how, in my opinion, they are eroding sports journalism.