💬 ESPN Layoffs: Tebow has contract extended by ESPN

[planomateo]

Holding people to their non-competes for the length of their contracts, that's not cool...

@TerryP From earlier in the thread

(they have a stake in BAMtech, could that be ESPN's future digital platform?).

 

[TerryP]

@TerryP From earlier in the thread

Missed that.

 

[ComeOnSon]

ESPN is for most everyone as long as they're not white nor Christian. Disney is a chartered member of the NWO.

Obama trying to find his way out of the closet ...ESPN loved the guy

Claim: Obama hid ‘gay life’ to become president

In the words of the great philosopher Randy Quaid..."You serious Clark?"

 

[planomateo]

Something interesting from this article.

ESPN commissioned its own study last year through Langer Research Associates. The study found that only 28 percent of the network’s consumers believed it had a political bias. Thirty-seven percent of those who saw a bias found it was toward conservatives; 56 percent of them said liberals were favored.

 

[Bear315win]

Something interesting from this article.

A few things interesting. I like how this Strauss fellow tells us that I'm mistaken, politics do belong on ESPN:

"But as ESPN responds to a new era of millennial media habits to shore up its bottom line, it must also wrestle with the relative appetite of its viewers for political debate in a space that often has been considered—mistakenly—as a refuge from the contentious questions that dominate the political realm."

We're told ESPN doesn't have a social agenda, yet: "ESPN has not tried to hide its social agenda, but it couches it as transcending politics." Yet, the audience is being told to "provide support, acceptance." I especially love the phrase "couches it" versus "disguises it."

And, like some of the opinions voiced here, there's an attempt to put this on "alt-right" thinking when people who have dissenting opinions, like me here, aren't in that sect.

Transcending politics? As if they are eclipsing some set mark? They're surpassing some achievement? No, it's the ol' circle jerk--we're smarter than you, believe us (as we laugh and ridicule.)

 

[planomateo]

I'm certain ESPN is doing all of this to engage with new viewers and make more money. It's almost like a perfect storm, big (& bad) tv contracts have them anchored, they're dependent on viewers (aka subscribers), providers have non-ESPN packages giving consumers choice, there are many cord cutting options giving more choice, and ESPN's programming sucks (they need viewers, aka subscribers). The downside, they have those big tv contracts and I like watching college football and AFAIK, you still can't get SECN w/o the big packages << big problem.

I don't know that I'd ever go back to watching ESPN like I used to, it's just not that important to me...but I'm changing, not due to ESPN's agenda, but due to my own agenda. I'm tired of paying $1000+/year for tv service.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Getting beyond the political discussion concerning ESPN bias, the network's real guilt is having gotten really bad at what it does. For me, even SportsCenter is unwatchable. I simply turn on my internet and gravitate to my personal multiple websites that quickly gives me the length and width and height of what I care to know about concerning specific sporting events. On the internet, each one of us can be as biased and discriminate as we chose with each click of the mouse. It's so encompassing in my life as far as content is concerned that I rarely even think about the TV for sports intake beyond actual live games.

 

[TerryP]

but due to my own agenda. I'm tired of paying $1000+/year for tv service.

One thing not mentioned here...well, casually mentioned here...is what you're offered. I recall you mentioning two; AT&T and one other 'net supplier. The last time I really looked to see how many ISP's there were in my area it was close to 30 (including DSL options, satellite, etc.) Hell, for options to have ESPN here? Xfinity, AT&T's U-verse, Direct TV, Dish, Time-Warner, Wow, Home...and I know I'm forgetting a couple. Oh, Charter is here...somewhere, I believe.

AFAIK, you still can't get SECN w/o the big packages << big problem.

Do I remember you mentioning Sling's smallest package plus their Sports Extra having SECN? I want to say it was $25 a month?

 

[planomateo]

Yeah, at my house I can only get Suddenlink, AT&T uverse, or satellite.

Internet is getting too expensive with uverse ($90+), I'm about to move over to suddenlink to save another $30/month for 3-4 times the speed.

Yes, ~$30 you get smallest with SECN. What if I only wanted SECN for $3/month.

 

[TerryP]

AT&T uverse,

Internet is getting too expensive with uverse ($90+),

I just received another offer from AT&T this past week. $89 a month for cable (with HBO for two years) and 'net. There were a few changes, here and there, if I chose their Direct TV option.

BUT, that's all about competition in this area. I told Xfinity I'd change if they raised my price over the competition after my two years. They did...for about two days.

What if I only wanted SECN for $3/month.

The extra five for SECN, the U, and ESPNN doesn't seem like that big of a bite to me. Granted, Xfinity includes SECN in my base package but no ESPN News or the U. (I miss both of those during the season...ESPN News especially this time of the year.)

Just glancing at this ... Sling Blue, plus Sports Extra, plus HBO, and 'net ... put me right at the same price I'm getting for Xfinity's X1 platform with 'net. Xfinity may be a little cheaper.

Still...sitting at a grand a year.

 

[18Champs]

This one was also let go. And yes, another example of the condescending attitudes seen from ESPN.

 

[TerryP]

 

[Sgt. Lincoln Osiris]

I'm certain ESPN is doing all of this to engage with new viewers and make more money. It's almost like a perfect storm, big (& bad) tv contracts have them anchored, they're dependent on viewers (aka subscribers), providers have non-ESPN packages giving consumers choice, there are many cord cutting options giving more choice, and ESPN's programming sucks (they need viewers, aka subscribers). The downside, they have those big tv contracts and I like watching college football and AFAIK, you still can't get SECN w/o the big packages << big problem.

I don't know that I'd ever go back to watching ESPN like I used to, it's just not that important to me...but I'm changing, not due to ESPN's agenda, but due to my own agenda. I'm tired of paying $1000+/year for tv service.

At what cost though?

If they pander to the SJW millennial crowd to drum up new business that may only increase by 20% if there lucky, but alienate and piss off half their existing base, that's still a net LOSS of 25-30% viewership.

 

[Max]

30 major league baseball teams.
25, at the minimum on each roster.
1 player hears racial slurs during a game.
It's worth more than two days of news programming on ESPN.

Want to make that even more dramatic? It was fans yelling the slurs. Fans of one team, in one of 160 plus games for said team, or how many thousands of games within a season?

But, it's worth two days of being their led. A news story that applies to so few people...but, it's something that has to be made front and center.

No one is making light of the crassness of such slurs. When the light is put on these stories we see 48hours plus of ESPN personalities lecturing people on society's woes ... when it applies to so few?

This is yet another example of why people are tuning out. Thank god we've still got a few news guys/shows that supply relevant sports news.

 

[ComeOnSon]

30 major league baseball teams.
25, at the minimum on each roster.
1 player hears racial slurs during a game.
It's worth more than two days of news programming on ESPN.

Want to make that even more dramatic? It was fans yelling the slurs. Fans of one team, in one of 160 plus games for said team, or how many thousands of games within a season?

But, it's worth two days of being their led. A news story that applies to so few people...but, it's something that has to be made front and center.

No one is making light of the crassness of such slurs. When the light is put on these stories we see 48hours plus of ESPN personalities lecturing people on society's woes ... when it applies to so few?

This is yet another example of why people are tuning out. Thank god we've still got a few news guys/shows that supply relevant sports news.

Their seeming incredulity at this happening somewhere outside the deep south was another fun part of it. I guess they missed history class and the story about Boston being the last major city in America to desegregate schools.

 

[Tidestalker]

30 major league baseball teams.
25, at the minimum on each roster.
1 player hears racial slurs during a game.
It's worth more than two days of news programming on ESPN.

Want to make that even more dramatic? It was fans yelling the slurs. Fans of one team, in one of 160 plus games for said team, or how many thousands of games within a season?

But, it's worth two days of being their led. A news story that applies to so few people...but, it's something that has to be made front and center.

No one is making light of the crassness of such slurs. When the light is put on these stories we see 48hours plus of ESPN personalities lecturing people on society's woes ... when it applies to so few?

This is yet another example of why people are tuning out. Thank god we've still got a few news guys/shows that supply relevant sports news.

Terrible. I'm "tuned out"... Been tuned out.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Why would you boo some of Boston's most historic players? From Jim Rice to Luis Tiant to Mo Vaughn to David Ortiz you would think the Bostonians would appreciate their own. I'm not sure how that insult doesn't travel through their own organization?

 

[Max]

Why would you boo some of Boston's most historic players? From Jim Rice to Luis Tiant to Mo Vaughn to David Ortiz you would think the Bostonians would appreciate their own. I'm not sure how that insult doesn't travel through their own organization?

A better question is why aren't there reports plastered all over every media outlet about the standing ovation he received the next day? This morning on ESPN radio I heard them discussing the slurs, but nary a mention yesterday.

It doesn't fit their programming agenda.

 

[TUSKtimes]

A better question is why aren't there reports plastered all over every media outlet about the standing ovation he received the next day? This morning on ESPN radio I heard them discussing the slurs, but nary a mention yesterday.

It doesn't fit their programming agenda.

You're right, I did a quick check on a few MLB home pages on several national sports outlets and saw nothing in headlines. I did see the standing ovation on the local sports station but not much nationally. After Adam Jones and the pitcher got tossed last night you can see some of this as a rivalry that has gotten ugly between division foes.

One of the big questions I had about it is why so few actually heard these insults? Maybe it was just a few drunk, rowdy fans expressing themselves in a heated rivalry. But I thought Boston management hit the right buttons as public relations go.

 

[Max]

Maybe it was just a few drunk, rowdy fans expressing themselves in a heated rivalry

I'm sure that's the case. But, these fans are defining today's culture I'm to assume. If not, the story wouldn't be the led two days in a row (three, if you count Mike and Mike this morning.)

Should we expect better? Yes. Will we see these expectation met? No. After all, it was Bama fanS who poisoned the tree.