Isn’t that the point? If you allow me to make the rules and craft the definitions, I can screw you over more thoroughly than you ever thought possible. And it will have the imprimatur of simple rule-following “fairness.”
There seem to be 2 irreconcilable positions in play here:
(1) ESPN is not showing any leftward tilt, no way, no how, how dare you; or
(2) ESPN is indeed tilting left and is perfectly entitled to choose a leftward tilt if they want to (and if you are bothered by that, you are the wrong kind of people anyway, because tilting left is just good business).
I think the ESPN ombudsman’s 2 columns cited upthread are pretty much proof of #2, but there has been a dogged defence of #1 here as well.
I think ESPN’s social media policies favor non-conservative postings, but I’m unsure how much of that is a purposeful shift to the left, or how much of that is just the fact that active conservatives on social media seem to post the most inflammatory stuff possible.
For example: If a leftie posts a link to a Malala Yousafzai speech and comments “U go gurl!” It’s hard to take umbrage at that unless you find the very existence of Muslims so partisan that you take it as an insult. To most people, Malala Yousafzai advocating for education is a sensible stance. In contrast, when a rightie posts about the inconvenience of her flight delay because of liberal protests against an immigration ban, or criticizes kneeling during the national anthem, it’s clearly partisan and aggressive. The leftie post is only insulting to hardcore anti-Muslims or anti-women readers. The rightie post is insulting to lefties and even some moderates.
Wait, that’s partisan and aggressive? Being annoyed by disruptive public behavior or a lack of respect for the national anthem? Tele, clearly we don’t agree on the fundamental definitions here, as I noted above. To me, disrupting traffic and blocking the public way is always boorish behavior, no matter why it’s done. Allegedly noble intent cannot purify the act.
Nor did I think that showing pointed disrespect for national symbols and civic rituals (not to mention the league and the paying customers) was a “partisan” issue that only a crazy right-wing nut could find offensive. How could such a position not lead a whole lot of people in the political center to say to themselves “well, I guess I’m a right-wing nut now”?
This is clearly a “fish don’t think they are wet” scenario. Now I get it, there really is only one acceptable form of politics that one must maintain correctness with in order to prove one is not evil, stupid, or both. Exhausting.
Well, yeah. It’s been clear to me forever that we disagree on fundamental definitions. That said, I enjoy our discussions. :-)
But take it from ESPN’s POV. Kneeling during the national anthem is a hot-button topic for the viewers and the players kneeling. Criticizing it insults some fans and the players kneeling. Endorsing it insults some fans. If you’re ESPN, which is more of an issue?
Because at the base ESPN is a sports channel. Nobody tunes in for the .0001% politics mixed in with the 99.999% sports. You aren’t going there to get a take on the ACA.
I think upon closer examination of that chart there is a raise during football season (fall-winter) and a drop off after that. It’s just that fewer people come back each fall.
I think most media tilts left because most media is peopled with individuals who are well educated and have spent time on open, free thought college campuses. That is Bernard Goldberg’s basic thought regarding the media. It is not a good, a bad or whatever, just the way things work. It is only when the institution itself decides to intentionally slant one way or the other that they should be open to complaint. I am not sure ESPN has hit that threshold, I think they just allow more freedom than a news based media would.
Cord cutters are typically angriest at ESPN, since ESPN is what drove most of them to cut the cord with its high price.
Also ESPN’s drop is very minor, maybe 5 points max, among Dems. Don’t think much can be read into that.
I don’t agree with that. People cut the cord to save on the overall cost. I doubt slashing $7 per month off their $100 tv charge would make them return. It’s not just ESPN. It’s all the channels they never watch. They feel like they are paying for all of those and getting nothing for their money.
It’s also changing tv habits. Younger people may be watching less tv. Social media on smart phones is gobbling up what used to be tv viewing time. I personally, though not young anymore, watch a lot less tv these days. We would cut the cord but the girlfriend gets a sweetheart deal as an AT&T employee. We get DirecTV for $10 per month. How can we cut that cord? I barely watch it anyway.
Maybe the reality is democratic postings and ideals should have been mainstream, normal for society all along. They are not “left leaning”, but indicators for empathy and humanity. Whereas Republican rants tend to be racist, xenophobic, contain hate, and tend to not have any empathy or humanity in them, in fact - usually the opposite.
