You agree?

Next on ESPN...More programming about ESPN! (http://www.holecity.com/asp/sportshole.asp?issue=227&sec=3&hole=1)

Since the dawn of 2004, ESPN has aired a swirling, CGI-dominated commercial depicting a million television sets. In each telly appears either a dramatic sports moment---say, a celebrating hockey player followed by an immolating linebacker---or a talking head explaining his or her "fan" outlook on sports. Computer wizards have emblazoned quite a claim over this steaming, cylindrical Marshall McLuhan nightmare. To celebrate ESPN's 25th anniversary, the network's poobahs have deemed 2004 "The Year Of The Fan."
Surely, this is born from a noble impulse. The idea, one supposes, is to pay back sports and ESPN fans, who have made the Boys From Bristol the most powerful sports media outlet in existence, have made celebrities out of sports geeks with bad haircuts, have, through their cable-TV viewing habits, helped engineer a (some say sorrowful) change in the ways highlights are viewed, contracts are negotiated, and athletes are revered. In theory? A fine idea. In practice? Good lord.

ESPN's idea of "celebrating fans" is to allow them to apply for a SportsCenter job. ESPN's idea of "celebrating fans" is to give them a glimpse of what it takes to create a SportsCenter broadcast. ESPN's idea of "celebrating fans" is to cover the trials and tribulations of ESPN personalities like Rush Limbaugh and the cast of Playmakers with breathless abandon, as though they were external news. For God's sake, ESPN's idea of "celebrating fans" is Dick Vitale.

Like all evil empires, somewhere along the line ESPN stopped drawing a distinction between itself and its subjects, and assumed that what is good for ESPN is good for the nation. Like all evil empires, ESPN started mistaking self-recognition for ubiquity. Like all evil empires, somewhere along the line ESPN became convinced that it was the most powerful and intriguing game in town.

Remind us again: Does ESPN stand for "Endlessly Self-Promoting Network?"

Perhaps the roots of ESPN's demise as a legitimate news entity can be traced to its most famous Sunday-night SportsCenter duo: Keith Olbermann and Dan Patrick. We loved them because they were funny and different, and we watched them incessantly. What would Keith say next? How would Dan smarm his way out of that one? Which running gag would carry on through an entire show, which one would make it into the next show? It was, we thought, innocent fun.

And in the hands of a sublime partnership like Patrick/Olbermann, it was relatively innocent. But it was also subtly self-referential, as though the day's sports news wasn't quite enough, as though that extra spice of "inside joke" would add to a show that, let's face it, is still just a glorified George Michael's Sports Machine.

Next came Chris Berman, a walking self-parody, a truly nice man whose gags---"back-back-back," "Santana 'A-Rolling-Stone-Gathers-No' Moss," singing 1960s and 70s lyrics as though anyone cares---were old in 1990. These days, Berman can't open his mouth on the air without doing schtick, which is to say, doing his old familiar schtick, which is to say, he injects himself into every story, every analysis, every highlight. Dick Vitale's ridiculous screaming act and his oft-imitated fellatio of every coach, every player and every school in college basketball ("what's being done to Jim Harrick at UCLA is nothing short of criminal") routinely lead ESPN as far away from "journalism" as Stuart Scott leads it from "subtle."

Oh, yes, and then there's Stuart.

His long-ago "boo-yeahs," which seemed so stupid at the time, were sublime compared to his latest gigs on last year's Inside SportsCenter and the current Dream Job mess. Scott has an American Idol way of breathlessly intimating that whether this Steve-Levy-wannabe will be voted off the island is only slightly less important than, say, whether WMDs are discovered in Iraq. How, exactly, does it "celebrate the fan" to show viewers "what it takes" to make a SportsCenter broadcast? How, exactly, does it "celebrate the fan" to pick ten possible SportsCenter employees, and then elevate one of them out of the masses, into that benighted studio chair? Doesn't that essentially communicate the message that you, the audience, are outside, while we, the Bristol Stompers, are inside, and never the twain shall meet? What's next? "Check out John Buccigross's beautiful Stamford mansion on ESPN Cribs?"

You see, sports are no longer the story; ESPN is the story. This is a message communicated at every level of this self-important commercial entity. Playmakers was a pretty terrible show, but when it was canceled (by ESPN!), ESPN covered it as though the Hindenburg had gone down again. After the network enabled big-fat-idiot Rush Limbaugh to spew racist garbage on NFL Countdown, its bottom-screen crawl breathlessly reported that Limbaugh had been fired. On ESPN.com, faux-journalists like Bill Simmons are endlessly reporting their own experiences, their own histories, their own rooting interests. And all this is to say nothing of the ridiculous, self-created "events" like the Great Outdoor Games or the Winter X Games, whose commercial cynicism and pre-programmed demographics hawk a giant loogy in the face of any self-respecting sports fan. "Fuck you," ESPN says, "if we're showing it, it must be sports, and if we're mentioning it on SportsCenter it must be interesting sports. Watch it, now!!!"

Oh, but that's right. 2004 is the Year Of The Fan.

Better look out, 2005. We hear you might be the Year Of The Network Executive.

I'm thinking Chris Berman came before Patrick/Olbermann... He is what he is. I think Berman gets a bad rap because he's so young. Add 30 years, and he's as loveable an old coot as Harry Caray. Since he's not even 50 and has been doing this for 25 years, now he's considered annoying.

Perspective, people! All of these personalities have a shtick. I don't fault him for going to the well. He's like the sportscaster version of Bill Clinton - 50 years old, and nowhere to go but down (professionally speaking, of course).

I agree with ksyrup.

Like it or not, we all have a shtick.

In each telly appears either a dramatic sports moment---say, a celebrating hockey player followed by an immolating linebacker---or a talking head explaining his or her "fan" outlook on sports.

Is this written by an English person? If so, it would explain some of the disdain.

During the last 10 or 11 years I have seen several sports networks try to stay afloat and not make it. I particularly remember the one that Chet Koppack (sp?) was an anchor for around 96. It lasted several months...maybe a year. There was also CNNSI (didn't Chris "I kid because I care" Meyers go there after ESPN?)

Anyway, my point is that ESPN has done something successfully for 25 years. I can say I don't approve or like everything or everybody that I see from their station each night. I do know that to this day, I find myself watching Sportscenter more than once a day...the exact same show...several times a day. You have to be doing something right to make an idiot do that.

On ESPN.com, faux-journalists like Bill Simmons are endlessly reporting their own experiences, their own histories, their own rooting interests.

Okay... now he's done it. Fine, the guy makes some good points, but here's his big screw up. Simmons is a *genius* and should not be mentioned anywhere near the same breath with self-parodies like Berman and Scott. Now the whole article's invalidated and the author is a dumbass.

Okay... now he's done it. Fine, the guy makes some good points, but here's his big screw up. Simmons is a *genius* and should not be mentioned anywhere near the same breath with self-parodies like Berman and Scott. Now the whole article's invalidated and the author is a dumbass.
It's not so much that Simmons is a genius, but that he's not a journalist. He writes a column. Nearly everyone who writes a column writes about their own personal experiences - that's pretty much what makes it a column, and not a news story.

I think these people are just grasping at strawmen, and they hit the slippery slope when they tried to drag Simmons down.

Okay... now he's done it. Fine, the guy makes some good points, but here's his big screw up. Simmons is a *genius* and should not be mentioned anywhere near the same breath with self-parodies like Berman and Scott. Now the whole article's invalidated and the author is a dumbass.
Ping: SkyDog.... we need to change LloydLungs title to "The Sports Guy's Bitch"

;)

I really wish the ESPN sunday night football theme was something more than a siren. They should also get new announcers

This guy is also dumb when he thinks the Rush Limbaugh story wasn't a big story!! I mean it wasn't just ESPN reporting it. It was on Fox, CBS, etc, etc. Every football preview show was talking about it!

On the one hand, this person's got a fairly valid point, but on the other hand ESPN and the others are just apparently giving people what they want. ESPN does its very best to put on "a show" with everything it does, which does diminish that the "show" is supposed to be the sport. I thought Dan Patrick and Keith Olbemann were hysterical, but I do see the point -- those two more than anyone glorified the idea that the messenger is more important than the message. Too much of SportsCenter became, "Did you hear what Dan and Keith said?" rather than "did you see that basket?" To me, everyone who came after Dan and Keith was a pale copy, and each generation of that copy gets worse and worse until Stuart Scott is at the pinnancle of the industry.

I share similar views about columnist. Simmons is a funny guy, but I don't think of him as a great columnists. I'm an old school journalist -- to me, a great columnist is someone who tells a great story, who through their words alone can get you interested in something that 10 minutes ago you didn't care about. The Kansas City Star has two columnist that to me exemplify what is great and what is wrong about columnists in America. Joe Posnaski is a true wordsmith and storyteller whose best work doesn't include himself but rather lets other people tell their stories. Then their is Jason Whitlock, who has no true convictions and simply blows whichever way the wind is blowing and then howls that direction. He is not a wordsmith -- he's an instigator, looking to start a fight and get people riled up, as though for some reason that's supposed to be hard to do. Posnaski is a true professional, annually ranked as one of the nation's best columnists and an award-winning writer. Whitlock is on ESPN, which is pretty much the most important thing in his life.

It's a matter of taste. ESPN is just giving the largest part of the audience wants, it's just not what everybody wants.

If he'd just talked about how Stuart Scott has ruined the network, then he'd have been in safe territory.

I share similar views about columnist. Simmons is a funny guy, but I don't think of him as a great columnists. I'm an old school journalist -- to me, a great columnist is someone who tells a great story, who through their words alone can get you interested in something that 10 minutes ago you didn't care about. The Kansas City Star has two columnist that to me exemplify what is great and what is wrong about columnists in America. Joe Posnaski is a true wordsmith and storyteller whose best work doesn't include himself but rather lets other people tell their stories. Then their is Jason Whitlock, who has no true convictions and simply blows whichever way the wind is blowing and then howls that direction. He is not a wordsmith -- he's an instigator, looking to start a fight and get people riled up, as though for some reason that's supposed to be hard to do. Posnaski is a true professional, annually ranked as one of the nation's best columnists and an award-winning writer. Whitlock is on ESPN, which is pretty much the most important thing in his life.
Man, I hadn't read this thread until today but you hit the nail right on the head about written sports journalism and my thoughts right down to Posnanski and Whitlock.

In that same vein, it's why I get the Sporting News rather than SI or ESPN the magazine. It's not as pretty as the other two but has volumes more of actual content. Style versus substance.

I just can't watch Sportscenter these days for most of the above stated reasons. The few times that I have, it's as if everyone on SC is out auditioning to have their career go the way of Craig Kilborn's where they can parlay their lack of sportscasting and ability to overact into some other talk show gig. I like Kilborn a lot of the time and I think he's got a funny schtick for his late night show but he was never a good sportscaster for SC.

Everyone likes to point to Dan and Keith and they likely will, rightfully so, go down as the best SC duo ever but even the B and C teams back then were watchable in that they gave you the sports, they just didn't have the subtle comedy routine down. But now you have to cringe or wade through full minutes of some hack's clown routine. I must be in the minority because they are doing as well as ever despite the fact that it is now all about the sportscaster and nothing about sports itself.

SI