Who needs Whitlock? I can connect with ESPN in a much deeper way. Debt.
Joe Theismann Mike Lupica Scoop Jackson Jim Rome Stuart Scott Joe Morgan Michael Irvin Quite a list, now that I look at it. Such an array of fascinating journalists. My comment was meant to imply that ESPN will simply plug in another wanna-be comedian or former player with the journalistic integrity of a crayon and continue to be the sports equivalent of Entertainment Tonight. I don't care about the Whitlock's the station trots out every so often because they're surrounded by a bunch of schmucks, from Berman on down. I tune into ESPN to watch games and to get some information, but all I'm constantly bombarded with is idiots in jackets and ties, most of whom seem to be trying to garner more laughs than the next guy. If I want journalism, I'll read. If I want 21st century, dumbed-down entertainment, ESPN is trying to corner the market in that. All they need is Terry Bradshaw, Shannon Sharpe, Deion Sanders, and a few more, and they'll be a bigger joke. Anyone with journalistic integrity probably either avoids ESPN, or gets out of there as soon as they get a good offer. Also, I guess I've never considered the guy sitting there writing about the Clippers/Hawks matchup a serious journalist. They kind of fall into the same category as Deborah Norville.
See, that's the problem, dyams. You're painting all these people with the same brush. Like any cable news channel, they have to fill a lot of hours of airtime, and most of the faces on camera doing the reportage are, to varying degrees, jokers and charlatans who belong behind a counter at Carl's Jr. somewhere instead of speaking to millions about the issues of the day. But some of these people are actually quality journalists who are passionate about their work and do it well. Those people are the ones who keep interest in their beats, be it NASCAR, the NFL, the steroid issue, NCAA corruption, or other things. I don't think it's any coincidence that people like Keith Olbermann, Bryant Gumbel and Bob Costas (and more than a few others) have made a successful transition to "actual" news from sports journalism. In fact, I'd go one further. Sports journalism is held to a higher standard, as journalism, than actual news is. With sports, there is always a result. You can't stray too far from the facts, because any attempt at disinformation will all come out in the Sunday wash. It's a subset of reality, and there's much less ambiguity, so it keeps people honest. If Michael Irvin shoots his mouth off about one of his college buddies one week and then they go out and lay an egg later that day, his colleagues on that very same show get to call him out on it immediately. (As you know, this happens every thirteen seconds.) When was the last time you saw, say, Alan Colmes do that to a co-host on one of his "news" shows? To be sure, Jason Whitlock is no Keith Olbermann. But to lump him in with Shannon Sharpe and Joe Morgan is kind of lazy. You are, however, well within your right to not give a shit.
I'm disappointed to see ESPN dump Whitlock, one of the only newspaper journalists they brought on who I liked. Most of them are empty-headed chatterers like Woody Paige.
Well said, Chico, and I agree with what you write. I wasn't, however, meaning to necessarily lump Whitlock in directly with individuals such as Irvin, Sharp, etc., but saying the reason I didn't really care about Whitlock himself getting the boot from ESPN was because of ESPN in general. Most of them are empty-headed chatterers like Woody Paige. Abso-freakin'-lutley.
I do not understand the reason for constantly criticizing sports broadcasters. If you do not like what they bring to the table, turn the damn volume down. Keep in mind, that sports journalism is not science, nor does it have life or death consequences, it is merely entertainment. To those who think they are more knowledgeable about the game than Joe Morgan, Sharpe, Theisman, Bradshaw et al are about their respective sports, I say you are sadly mistaken, and again, if it is just their presence or delivery that is annoying you, don't watch or listen. Personally, my day isn't quite right until I've had a cup o' coffee and a Sportscenter fix.
You can't turn the volume down and know the spot of the ball because they don't show it on the screen. Regardless of whether the broadcasters know more about football than their audience, it is useless unless they impart that knowledge to their audience. Some of the guys broadcasting actively interfere with the entertainment provided by the game. I have made changes in my television viewing because of them, such as watching NFL Network instead of ESPN. However, I am not going to miss live sporting events because of those fools, I would rather just complain about them.
Keep in mind, that sports journalism is not science, nor does it have life or death consequences, it is merely entertainment. Therefore it should be immune from criticism? Because it's entertainment? That doesn't make any sense to me. Criticism of entertainment, both positive and negative, is a centuries-old tradition. Just because a player has performed in a sport at a high level does not automatically qualify him as a high level broadcaster of that sport. They are two different, disparate, skills.
I agree, Venice. And I never said it should be immune from criticism. But I think most people's disenchantment about the message stems from them thinking they know more than the messenger. If it is the method or personality that bothers you, then don't listen. Would you willfully listen to, or watch, Jerry Springer? I just think that grousing about a play callers views serve no purpose, and if it is not a 'live event', merely a opinion format show, why watch at all?
