• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Jeff Zucker in Consideration for the ESPN leadership

I was wondering if ESPN thought they couldn't get anyone competent, so they were chasing Zucker. If ESPN's goal was cratering ratings he'd be an excellent choice judging by his CNN performance.
 
umfan said:
I was wondering if ESPN thought they couldn't get anyone competent, so they were chasing Zucker. If ESPN's goal was cratering ratings he'd be an excellent choice judging by his CNN performance.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest CNN's ratings problems pre-date Zucker.
 
TheBigA said:
I'd suggest CNN's ratings problems pre-date Zucker.
Click to expand...

Have they improved or gotten worse under his 'leadership'?

Don't answer, it's rhetorical, they've gotten worse, far, far worse.

So, then, consider ESPN now as compared to CNN when Zucker took over. A big, recognizable cable network name that needs change that will improve the performance of the network. Do you go with someone who's already been a complete and utter failure with a similar task?

Again, rhetorical, because it's obvious that he wouldn't be a good choice and ESPN has already wisely concluded that.
 
AFTER is was reported he wasn't in consideration for it. In the very unlikely event that AT&T does acquire TW, his resume better be dusted off because he'll be hitting the bricks in short order.
 
Don't know a lot about him, but he has a challenge in front of him. I can say, with confidence, that he'll be far better than at least one person whose name was floated as an (unlikely) possibility for the job.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom