I used to watch quite a bit more ESPN in the 90’s, when they focused on sports. Didn’t their Ombudsman say that sports + social + culture stuff is what they are going to stick with? Maybe they think they will become less reliant on sports and still keep people watching, what people i don’t know.
Edited to make a complete sentence and sense.
I know what an ombudsman is, but I’m not sure what Ombudsman sports are. Is that when Ombudsmen get together and compete at who can give the most independent oversight?
:-)
Ah, handwave. I forgot that snark replaced substantive responses a while back.
Sure, snark is the only response for wild deluded claims. Anything else is a waste of time.
Q.E.D.
He would know:
Yes, they have an ombudsman. I’m not sure how a publication having one – most major newspapers do, for instance – affects this.
That’s the cheapness of the argument, it’s all posturing to dismiss the legitimacy of anything outside the hivemind. Disagreeing with you is literally mental illness.
I’ve given you data. You’ve given me sentiment and anecdote.
“Because data” seems like a pretty appropriate response.
Yeah, man, I can piss away my whole afternoon gathering data and presenting to . . . who? The echo chamber here? It’s pretty clear that there is nothing going on but disingenous posturing. I’d honestly rather clean the garage than spend my time in such a pointless endeavor.
You could get a dog. They won’t refute your sentiment with data. They’ll wag their tails at everything you say!
No, you told me that data is out there somewhere that 100% supports your position. I’ve been linking things, you’ve been declaring them.
Hey, it works for Donald Trump and the far right culture warriors.
So far, the argument from @Scuzz was peppered with claims and opinions, but light on evidence and facts. When you make claims of the nature that Scuzz was throwing around, then you should be able to back it up. Where is the evidence?
If none exists, then why make such claims? Mental illness is one explanation.
Such a creative “u mad bro.”
data.
Which has zero bearing on ESPN’s ratings.
Edit: or, now that I think about it, ESPN’s post-layoff personnel priorities.
How about something we can all agree on. They fired a bunch of pricey on air tallent, but kept Stephen A Smith, therefore this calls into question their entire decision making process.
It has everything to do with it. If we assume that carriage revenues will remain flat or drop in 2017, ESPN has to cut costs, because we have to assume their other expenses make $6 billion in rights fees untenable. (FOX pays about 4.5 billion by comparison, and they’ve got ways to amortize that cost.)