[VanderbiltJets]

In October, Doug Gottlieb, a radio host and basketball analyst who'd decamped for CBS the previous month after nine years with ESPN, went on The Dan Patrick Show and dropped something of a truth bomb about his time in Bristol:
I was told specifically, "You can't talk enough Tebow." I would jokingly throw it into a segment. "I gotta find 15 seconds here to talk about Tebow, all right let's move on and talk about Major League Baseball."

Later, he said:

Is it ridiculous how much you have to talk about Tebow? Yeah! But for whatever reason people can't get enough of that story, and they kind of stoke the fire—that's kind of what ESPN does.

Gottlieb was referring to the network's yearlong infatuation with Tebow, a player who hasn't made much actual news since he was traded to the Jets in March. Bristol executives have decided that what we want—or what we should want—is Tebow. "They want to own the Tebow story," said Jim Miller, the author of the ESPN oral history Those Guys Have All The Fun. "They want to put their watermark on it."

This helps explain why, over the summer, ESPN dispatched veteran reporter Sal Paolantonio and a crew to cover Jets camp as if it were the run-up to the Super Bowl. ("ESPN embarrassed themselves," Dan Patrick, who spent 18 years in Bristol, said of ESPN's flood-the-zone coverage in Florham Park.) This helps explain why ESPN2's First Take referred to Tim Tebow more than seven dozen times in late May even though there was absolutely no Tebow news to report on. This helps explain why SportsCenter covered Tim Tebow's 25th birthday like a moon landing. This helps explain why it seemed perfectly reasonable to a SportsCenter anchor to ask in-studio guest Liam Neeson whether Tim Tebow should be the Jets' starting quarterback even though Liam Neeson had no clue what he was talking about. This helps explain how ESPN wound up breaking Tim Tebow news to, yes, Tim Tebow.

* * *
The Tebow phenomenon—that is, the sustained celebrity of a football player of only moderate ability—says as much about ESPN as it does about the quarterback himself. For the better part of a decade, the narrative about ESPN has held that the integrity of the news operation is subordinate to the Worldwide Leader's business concerns. (Just think back to The Decision or to the Bonds on Bonds docuseries before that, the one that ceded editorial control to the Giants outfielder.) Given that ESPN has deals with nearly every major league—and ignores the ones with which it doesn't have deals—the question has become inescapable: How can the company produce honest journalism when it's in business with, well, everybody?

ESPN has proven it can—the coverage of the replacement-ref fiasco in the wake of the Green Bay-Seattle Monday night game was a high point—but in recent months something began to shift. There was Tebowmania, of course, but more quietly there were several incidents of journalistic malpractice that were notable not for the egregiousness of the crimes but for ESPN's total indifference to them (about which more later).

ESPN left its mark on the major stories of the early '90s—Pete Rose, Magic Johnson, the O.J. saga—and competitors noticed. They worried about ESPN's reach. Well, actually, not just its reach. They feared its audience and its journalistic chops. Here's The Franchise: A History of Sports Illustrated Magazine author Michael MacCambridge talking in Those Guys Have All the Fun:

[Former Sports Illustrated managing editor] Mark Mulvoy was just obsessed with whatever ESPN was doing. A lot of writers at Sports Illustrated couldn't understand that and asked, 'Why are we so worried about ESPN?' but to Mulvoy's credit, he saw that the paradigm was changing and the primacy that Sports Illustrated had enjoyed in the media world was being usurped by ESPN. And the reason was not because ESPN was a cable network with x number of viewers; the reason was Walsh had invested SportsCenter with a journalistic authority that had not existed before he got there, and that did not exist anywhere else where people did sports reporting on TV. Mulvoy was scared, and in retrospect, he was right.

David Hill, the longtime head of Fox Sports, has called Walsh ESPN's "secret weapon." Longtime Disney chief executive Michael Eisner, in his 1998 autobiography Work In Progress, said Walsh's hiring was one of the two turning points for ESPN (the other was getting part of the NFL's Sunday night package in 1987). Walsh's genius, in Eisner's estimation? He "recognized that it was possible to lure viewers to ESPN with strong reporting about sports, even in instances where the network didn't have broadcast rights to a big event," Eisner writes. And it helps when the centerpiece show, SportsCenter, runs three times a day. This seems obvious now, but think about how you watched sports at the time: You watched them live. ESPN provided a self-contained alternative—highlights, reportage, and analysis—without having to open its wallet to buy every "big event," though eventually ESPN would grow profitable enough to want to do that, too. It was a deliriously effective business model. Today, ESPN is worth $40 billion, about $5 billion more than the combined value of every NFL team.

"You can't say enough about how important their news operation is," said Miller. "If you take John Walsh and [director of news] Vince Doria out of its history, ESPN is a fundamentally different place. It's a less important place, it's a less successful place."

But that success has created problems for the newsroom, which operates within a distortion field that the company's size creates. Doria, for instance, recently suggested to media reporter Ed Sherman that passionate local hockey fandom "really doesn't transfer much" to the "national discussion," which overlooked the fact that ESPN is the national discussion. If the network doesn't talk about hockey—and the evidence is strong that, lacking an NHL television contract, it won't—the nation doesn't talk about hockey, either.

And how much power does the newsroom have, anyway? One of the SportsCenter anchors who hosted the bizarre Tebow birthday bash said that she wasn't that into the idea. But she didn't have a choice. Here's Sage Steele speaking to SportsBiz USA (emphasis mine):

When it's Tim Tebow, when it's Tiger Woods, when it's Brett Favre, the numbers are such they support the bosses' decision to do this stuff. Not all the time. We can sit there in the newsroom and argue all we want. Which many of us do. When they come out and say, 'OK Sage, fine, here's a rating,' what do I say? What do I say? I can't fight that.

[…]

The story of ESPN's Tebow obsession really begins last year. In September 2011, ESPN2's First Take, having gone through several different lives (a faint imitation of a morning TV show, a debate-cum-variety show), went to an all-debate format starring former newspaper columnist Skip Bayless. This new iteration wasn't all that popular with other producers in Bristol, a source said, but the decision was made after ESPN consulted a focus group.

"We focus-grouped it to people and realized pretty quickly that viewers wanted debate," hot-shot First Take producer Jamie Horowitz told Men's Journal. "In particular, they wanted to see Skip debate."

Producers around the network saw it the same way a lot of us do: as willful crap. Staged disagreement. On the show, Bayless would be pitted against another panelist—often a black counterpart, including Stephen A. Smith, who is now the full-time co-host—and "debate" him or her, Crossfire-style, on the sports topic of the moment. Around the time that Bayless become the country's most visible and outspoken Tebow supporter—which ultimately spawned this abomination and the 4 million clicks that went with it—ratings for the show began to climb.

Before long, a source told me, higher-minded Bristol producers swallowed their pride and acknowledged that something was working. And the producers who really took notice? The ones who worked on the live morning edition of ESPN's SportsCenter, which runs opposite First Take. The morning SportsCenter's producers had a problem: First Take was eating into its ratings. In September 2011, the 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. editions of SportsCenter had 636,000 more viewers a day than the same time slot that First Take owned on ESPN2, according to data from Nielsen. Over the next six months, a period that stretched from Tebow's emergence in Denver through his trade to New York, First Take narrowed that deficit each month. By March, when Tim Tebow was traded to the Jets, the SportsCenter lead was down to 182,000 viewers—less than a third of what its margin had been.

A programming battle ensued. Morning SportsCenter producers "noticed that First Take was killing them in ratings with Tebow stuff, so they made a conscious effort to deliver more Tebow," the source said. "ESPN is a competitive environment and the competition between SportsCenter and First Take is very real."

It resulted in the sort of skirmishes that you might find ESPN fighting outside the company. At times, SportsCenter producers made sure that certain NFL analysts weren't available for First Take, the source said. When SportsCenter went all-in on Tebow during Jets training camp in a way, some folks in Bristol saw it as a move to neutralize First Take.

"Producers were looking to duplicate the success of First Take," said our Bristol insider. "Given what the ratings were, you would have been an idiot not to talk Tebow. Decisions to talk Tebow were conscious and deliberate."

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.
fillerrrrrrr

[JetsDfc]

Businesses like money

In T.V, ratings = money

Tebow = ratings

Tebow = money

Which = ESPN the business likes Tebow

Which = WAY WAY WAY TOO MUCH TEBOW ON T.V and that's coming from a pro Tebow guy.

[Bannon]

It's such a quaint notion that ESPN was a bastion of journalistic excellence since like . . . ever.

[CowboysFan]

I have said it before, the media (specifically ESPN) over covers Tebow to the point that:

1. Other players resent him.

2. Psycho anti Tebow haters think he is getting credit somehow when he isn't

3. It will ruin his chances to actually catch on with teams because teams just do not want to deal with the headache.

Thanks ESPN!

[Diddy]

If talking about Tebow gave you more ratings, why not talk about him if people will watch, if you are annoyed, don't watch.

Seriously Tebow is the recent phenomenon to make ESPN (Actually, Mickey Mouse himself since ESPN is owned by Walt Disney) millions and millions of dollars. Same can be said for Brett Farve, Barry Bonds, and A-Rod.

Skip Bayless is just a troll, if you realize that, First Take can be enjoyable to watch. Have been watching since the days of Cold Pizza and Stephen A Smith a show calles "Quiet Frankly"

[JFjets]

Originally Posted by VanderbiltJets

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.
fillerrrrrrr

I'd like to just point out the mindblowing irony of posting an article critiquing objective journalism, originating at....Deadspin. Seriously? SERIOUSLY???

Originally Posted by Bannon

It's such a quaint notion that ESPN was a bastion of journalistic excellence since like . . . ever.

Yep.

Whatever one may think of Skip Bayless (I personally disagree with his take more often than agree with his take), he is the only "personality" at ESPN that comes to mind who has been consistent in his views on Tebow for a couple years now, in the face of overwhelming, lemmings running off the cliff opposition and negative views on Tebow at ESPN. Pretty much everyone else at ESPN jumped on and off and on and off the Tebow bandwagon. Even the extreme Tebow haters like Hoge and Dilfer flip-flopped on Tebow at one point during last season when the Broncos were making their run, but they flip-flopped not because they sincerely changed their opinion on him, but because they simply could not stand the heat/shame of looking like a big bunch of idiots downing on Tebow when he was leading a bargain basement team to the playoffs last year, all of their pronouncements about him notwithstanding.

Skip also predicted exactly the W/L record - 7-4 - that Tebow would have in the regular season once he took over for good after the Chargers game last year. What other well-known sports personalities on ESPN (or any other network or sports media outlet) had either the balls or the foresight to make that prediction and stick with it? I don't know of any.

I do believe that some of the positions Skip posits on First Take - maybe a LOT of his positions - are purely for ratings and he doesn't necessarily personally believe the viewpoint he is taking. And that bugs me. But the Tebow issue does not fit into that category for Skip. His views on Tebow are clearly 100% heartfelt and are the way he actually feels, and I for one applaud him for sticking with those views and not bowing to the tremendous peer pressure of other "journalists" in the sports world to do everything possible to destroy Tebow.

[VanderbiltJets]

Originally Posted by Diddy

If talking about Tebow gave you more ratings, why not talk about him if people will watch, if you are annoyed, don't watch.

Integrity and obligation. You're basically advocating for corporate abstention in a corporatist world.

Originally Posted by Diddy

Seriously Tebow is the recent phenomenon to make ESPN (Actually, Mickey Mouse himself since ESPN is owned by Walt Disney) millions and millions of dollars. Same can be said for Brett Farve, Barry Bonds, and A-Rod.

SportsCenter made ESPN millions (and both contracts with sports leagues and the coverage of sports in general) but not any particular athlete. And the network's quality has declined since ABC and ESPN started slowly merging beginning in 1996.

Originally Posted by Diddy

Skip Bayless is just a troll, if you realize that, First Take can be enjoyable to watch. Have been watching since the days of Cold Pizza and Stephen A Smith a show calles "Quiet Frankly"

ESPN prevents uninformed sports fans from using their "originally programming" to become more informed. They've morphed into the antithesis of their original purpose.

[VanderbiltJets]

Originally Posted by JFjets

I'd like to just point out the mindblowing irony of posting an article critiquing objective journalism, originating at....Deadspin. Seriously? SERIOUSLY???



Yep.

Whatever one may think of Skip Bayless (I personally disagree with his take more often than agree with his take), he is the only "personality" at ESPN that comes to mind who has been consistent in his views on Tebow for a couple years now, in the face of overwhelming, lemmings running off the cliff opposition and negative views on Tebow at ESPN. Pretty much everyone else at ESPN jumped on and off and on and off the Tebow bandwagon. Even the extreme Tebow haters like Hoge and Dilfer flip-flopped on Tebow at one point during last season when the Broncos were making their run, but they flip-flopped not because they sincerely changed their opinion on him, but because they simply could not stand the heat/shame of looking like a big bunch of idiots downing on Tebow when he was leading a bargain basement team to the playoffs last year, all of their pronouncements about him notwithstanding.

Skip also predicted exactly the W/L record - 7-4 - that Tebow would have in the regular season once he took over for good after the Chargers game last year. What other well-known sports personalities on ESPN (or any other network or sports media outlet) had either the balls or the foresight to make that prediction and stick with it? I don't know of any.

I do believe that some of the positions Skip posits on First Take - maybe a LOT of his positions - are purely for ratings and he doesn't necessarily personally believe the viewpoint he is taking. And that bugs me. But the Tebow issue does not fit into that category for Skip. His views on Tebow are clearly 100% heartfelt and are the way he actually feels, and I for one applaud him for sticking with those views and not bowing to the tremendous peer pressure of other "journalists" in the sports world to do everything possible to destroy Tebow.

1) Skip also called Dez Bryant the next Calvin Johnson and said he'd pick Tebow over Brady or Rodgers for the last 2 minutes of an NFL game.
2) In the words of Skip Bayless:
"I'VE BEEN EXTREMELY OBJECTIVE ABOUT TIM TEBOW."
--Every Tebowner

[Diddy]

If Tim Tebow flames out of the NFL, I think the Tebots should put almost all the blame on Skip Bayless and ESPN for screwing up NFL career to a point.

[sanchize]

If you all thought that Skip Bayless actually believed the things he said you are all kidding yourselves. I said this months ago that Skip Bayless only says what he does because he gets ratings. TMZSPN indeed. What is one of the largest topics that makes people angry and causees, Religion, and Tebow is huge in this front. What is the second biggest topic that people hate, Lebron James, Skip was all over that as well.

[Demosthenes9]

Originally Posted by VanderbiltJets

ESPN prevents uninformed sports fans from using their "originally programming" to become more informed. They've morphed into the antithesis of their original purpose.

Oh god. Their "original purpose" was to attract viewers in order to make money. It was that way from the very first day that the company existed.

[displacedfan]

It's funny how the best written articles and breakdowns are on Grantland and not ESPN.com. It's also funny how commentary articles are buried away on ESPN.com and there isn't even a section there anymore. The best articles come from the local bloggers of teams, not surprising.

ESPN used to be really good about being objective and their writing, it has slowly gone downhill.

Deadspin is actually a good "slander" website or however you want to use it. They dislike ESPN obviosuly, but most of it is rooted and they post tons of examples why.

The best writing for ESPN comes on their side sites that they rarely push or promote. It's the way it is. Deadspin also has a good point, ESPN can create it's own news cycle. Everyone is talking about Tebow because they are always talking about Tebow. Everyone is talking about Peyton because they influence it. They influence it and they can play both sides by having people saying "so and so are over covered these days" because they are doing it.

ESPN's best thing right now is 30 for 30s.

[JFjets]

1) Skip also called Dez Bryant the next Calvin Johnson and said he'd pick Tebow over Brady or Rodgers for the last 2 minutes of an NFL game.

Without the character issues, Dez Bryant very well could be the next Calvin Johnson. Skip has backed way off of his earlier opinions about Dez, though, because of his constant character issues.

And I would also take Tebow over Brady or Rodgers for the last 2 minutes of an NFL game. Tebow gave us multiple examples last season of how clutch he is in the waning minutes of the game.

2) In the words of Skip Bayless:
"I'VE BEEN EXTREMELY OBJECTIVE ABOUT TIM TEBOW."

He has been. He's never said he would be a pro bowler or hall of famer, has acknowledged he may never have the prettiest throwing motion or highest completion %, but that he is a great leader and a competitive force of nature who raises the play of others on his team and helps to win games. He said Tebow could lead a team to the playoffs, which he did. He was the only NFL media personality I know of who correctly predicted the Broncos regular season record once Tebow took over. Nailed it. Which part of that isn't objective, or true?

Now, when he says he's been extremely objective about Lebron James, well, that's nowhere near the truth. But Tebow? Yeah, he's been extremely objective. Just because you vehemently disagree with his view on Tebow, it doesn't change the fact that he's been very objective about him (while the haters have been very subjective), and it doesn't change the fact that he's been right about Tebow.

Alright, flame away, tell me all the ways he hasn't been objective about Tebow, I know you're just dying to, all while no doubt holding yourself up as the model of objectivity on the subject.

[CowboysFan]

Originally Posted by Diddy

If Tim Tebow flames out of the NFL, I think the Tebots should put almost all the blame on Skip Bayless and ESPN for screwing up NFL career to a point.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this X 1000

[CowboysFan]

Originally Posted by JFjets

Without the character issues, Dez Bryant very well could be the next Calvin Johnson. .

Dez is just not very good because he is (in no particular order)

1. A lazy route runner.
2. has very low football IQ
3. can not grasp hot reads even until last game (still has not gotten it)
4. a lazy rout runner
5. has off the field issues (as you mentioned)
6. is a lazy route runner.

He is not 5% of what Calvin Johnson is. he actually sets the team back more than he helps. In fact last year of Romo's 10 ints, 5 were caused because dez screwed up the route. he is an OK receiver but no where near worth a 1# pick (not even close).

[Bannon]

Originally Posted by Diddy

If Tim Tebow flames out of the NFL, I think the Tebots should put almost all the blame on Skip Bayless and ESPN for screwing up NFL career to a point.

Yeah, it's made it very difficult. I was always ready to settle in and just follow Tebow's development as a hobby. But the extreme polarization, the extreme hype, has made it impossible to to just casually follow the guy in the background.

My most hopeful expectation for Tebow coming out of college was the level of attention, development, and coverage that Colin Kaepernick has gotten. They were comparable situations, in terms of the skillset, the college numbers, and where they were drafted. But Colin gets left alone and Tebow's in a constant fishbowl.

[VanderbiltJets]

Originally Posted by Demosthenes9

Oh god. Their "original purpose" was to attract viewers in order to make money. It was that way from the very first day that the company existed.

The Rasmussens and Eagan were just sports fans; originally they considered creating a cable tv channel to cover Connecticut sports only.

[JFjets]

Originally Posted by CowboysFan

Dez is just not very good because he is (in no particular order)

1. A lazy route runner.
2. has very low football IQ
3. can not grasp hot reads even until last game (still has not gotten it)
4. a lazy rout runner
5. has off the field issues (as you mentioned)
6. is a lazy route runner.

He is not 5% of what Calvin Johnson is. he actually sets the team back more than he helps. In fact last year of Romo's 10 ints, 5 were caused because dez screwed up the route. he is an OK receiver but no where near worth a 1# pick (not even close).

I'm talking about purely from a talent standpoint, and I think that's what Skip was getting at also. Most of the points you mentioned above have to do with character issues.

By the way, while I have never had occasion to mention it here, I was born in and lived in Texas for the first 25 years of my life, and I am a dyed in the wool Cowboys fan, always have been. And for the record, my personal opinion is that Dez Bryant should be cut, or at least traded at the first possible opportunity. He is a drag on that team and on Romo.

Just as a funny aside, Dez Bryant played for the Lufkin Panthers in high school, and Lufkin is where I was born and lived for years. We used to go see Panthers games all the time, I had a lot of friends and some family also that played for the Panthers over the years. I had moved to a different state by the time Dez was playing there, but my baby brother is about Dez' same age, and actually had occasion to play some pick-up basketball games in Lufkin with Dez and some other guys. My brother always said Dez was a heck of an athlete. That much is pretty clear on the football field. It's his character issues that I believe will prevent him from ever being anything more than very inconsistent as a receiver in the NFL.

[jets4lyfah]

Tebow is manufactured product

Sanchez need to get some ESPN tv time for being the first chicano qb in the NFL

[Bannon]

"Chicano?" That's still a thing?