LeBron To Make "Decision" Tonight On ESPN: Will You Watch?

[quadraphonic]

The reporters aren't making this a story. The fans of the sport are making it a story. The reporters are simply covering it. Not to do that is ignoring the story, which would be irresponsible.

Neither the reporters nor the fans are making this a story.
ESPN is.
The most rabid fans of the NBA aren't making this a story. They're only responding to the hype that ESPN has created.
It's not a 70minute program on its own, without ESPN creating, it, packaging it, and pushing it.

 

[TheBigA]

Neither the reporters nor the fans are making this a story.
ESPN is.

Oh come on. This was a story two years ago. Don't create a conspiracy where none exists. ESPN would not devote this much time to a story that had no interest.

 

[quadraphonic]

Neither the reporters nor the fans are making this a story.
ESPN is.

Oh come on. This was a story two years ago. Don't create a conspiracy where none exists. ESPN would not devote this much time to a story that had no interest.

ESPN only responds to what the viewers want, afterwards?
Riiight.

 

[TheBigA]

ESPN only responds to what the viewers want, afterwards?
Riiight.

You can't force people to be interested in a story. Too many choices.

 

[Rollo-Smokes]

I'll be waiting for Nets part-owner Will Smith to be called a "sucker" by Will Smith...

I think you meant Nets part-owner Jay-Z. And I think his rival 50 Cent would be the one calling him a "sucker".

 

[quadraphonic]

ESPN only responds to what the viewers want, afterwards?
Riiight.

You can't force people to be interested in a story. Too many choices.

They're not "forcing" anyone to do anything.
But they presented "The Decision" as a story, way beyond just mentioning it on the news, ad nauseum.
That doesn't force anyone to be "more interested in the story." But it does make the "story" bigger than other sports stories, as far as that goes.

ESPN is an advertising organization before they are a news organization.
Dragging all this out was a way to [hopefully, but not forcibly] "make people watch."
Do you really think they're still just reflecting what the public wants? They're "the worldwide leader" not just "the mirror."

 

[TheBigA]

They're not "forcing" anyone to do anything.
But they presented "The Decision" as a story, way beyond just mentioning it on the news, ad nauseum.
That doesn't force anyone to be "more interested in the story." But it does make the "story" bigger than other sports stories, as far as that goes.

It *IS* bigger than any other sports story. It's on the front page of every paper, and top of every internet new site. ESPN didn't do that. Those other news organizations have no reason to promote ESPN. The STORY did that.

By your logic, there should be no full length reporting any more, because covering health care, elections, crime, and education makes them bigger than other stories. All stories are not equal. By definition, news reporting identifies priorities, in choosing their lead story and how much time or space it gets. That's how news is done. Those priorities are made based on importance of the story and the interest. If there was no interest in this story, ESPN would have done something else. And they didn't give this treatment to any other free agent. Obviously, this was different. They did the right thing.

 

[DToTheJ]

ESPN is an advertising organization before they are a news organization.

Exhibit A: Live broadcasts of ESPN programs from Walt Disney World.

Exhibit B: Elisabeth Hasselbeck as a guest analyst on "NFL Live" as part of that "Job Swap" thing.

 

[TheBigA]

Exhibit A: Live broadcasts of ESPN programs from Walt Disney World.

Oh come on now! That option is available to any radio or TV outlet. Not just Disney-owned media.

The main headquarters has been in the same place almost since the network was started. Unlike NBC, which moved its LA studio to Universal Theme Park.

 

[quadraphonic]

It *IS* bigger than any other sports story. It's on the front page of every paper, and top of every internet new site. ESPN didn't do that. Those other news organizations have no reason to promote ESPN. The STORY did that.

News organizations copy other networks' "news" all the time. They don't want to "miss a story" even if all they do is copy and paste another network's information with a different byline or talking head.

Besides, ESPN is "the worldwide leader in sports," not "the worldwide leader in news." They picked a sports story that was a sports story, and made it bigger. Bully for them, but see it for what it is.

Just because something gets coverage doesn't mean it's "more interesting" or "a bigger story" otherwise there would be a Lindsay Lohan channel by now, and you'd have to be in Afghanistan to hear about any fallen soldiers.

Most of what constitutes "news" goes through gatekeepers, who don't take phone calls and letters about how they "pick the news."

By your logic, there should be no full length reporting any more, because covering health care, elections, crime, and education makes them bigger than other stories.

That's your logic superimposed on mine, and overstretched. I never said that.

When did you see health care, elections, crime, and education stories on ESPN?
I thought we were talking about ESPN. Not a news organization, an advertising organization.

All stories are not equal. By definition, news reporting identifies priorities, in choosing their lead story and how much time or space it gets. That's how news is done. Those priorities are made based on importance of the story and the interest. If there was no interest in this story, ESPN would have done something else. And they didn't give this treatment to any other free agent. Obviously, this was different. They did the right thing.

Again, ESPN is not a 'news organization' as much as they are an 'advertising vehicle.' One that Lebron James and the NBA took advantage of last night.

ESPN showed Lebron James' high school games. He's interesting, but only to the NBA fans. This story got picked up by other websites, papers, and the like because those other "news sources" were following what was "news" not because 50% of the audience was blowing up their phone lines asking for info on his "decision."

I hate to say it again, but it's all about 'brand.'
NBA games have only been shown on ABC/ESPN since 2002, and have them through 2015 or 2018 or something.
Nope, no reason to promote any "news stories" that aren't really "news."
None at all.

And it's not so much a "conspiracy" as it is "a business model."

 

[TheBigA]

You're obviously placing your own biases and definitions on this.

ESPN is BOTH a news organization AND an advertising organization, as are ALL profit-making media organizations. It's not a one or the other thing.

To deny that this story has larger interest is ignoring the very obvious facts.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Let's envisage LeBron James in ... oh, 1984. Before sports talk radio and before 24-hr sports television. Would this have been the story that it was yesterday? I would say not. It would have gotten coverage in most major newspapers, and would have been mentioned in TV sports segments, but would not have garnered near the speculation and coverage that it did get this week.

I'm with everyone else: ESPN way, way over-did this story. Your average local media outlet might have devoted 4 stories over the last six weeks to LeBron. ESPN spent dozens of hours talking about it.

 

[TheBigA]

Your average local media outlet might have devoted 4 stories over the last six weeks to LeBron. ESPN spent dozens of hours talking about it.

Bad comparison. Your "average local media outlet" doesn't specialize in sports coverage. ESPN does. And I promise you this story got big coverage on local TV in Cleveland and Miami. I wouldn't be surprised if network affiliates interrupted national programs with this story. If they didn't, they're idiots.

It's not 1984 any more. Let's not try to compare today with the past. If ESPN had simply reported the story like any other, they'd be criticized for missing the biggest sports story of the week. You have to know your beat, know your audience, and respond to them. That's what being a professional means.

 

[quadraphonic]

You're obviously placing your own biases and definitions on this.

Not really. Just going with the facts, as presented.

ESPN is BOTH a news organization AND an advertising organization, as are ALL profit-making media organizations. It's not a one or the other thing.

Never said it was.
It's definitely a [/i]both...and[/i], with the advertising weighing most heavily.

To deny that this story has larger interest is ignoring the very obvious facts.

What are the facts?
You haven't presented any except for "other news organizations covered it."
While that's a fact, it's not what makes this "a news story" it just reflects the fact that it was covered.

 

[imhomerjay]

Yes, in 1984, it would have been different because the world largely lacked the kinds of all-sports outlets. But that's not really the point. ESPN, sports talk radio and other outlets exist precisely because there's an audience for making a bigger deal out of sports.

So a network that's all about sports devoted an hour on one of its channels to what was, to a fair sized sub-section of sports fans, a major event and something they cared about. That's why there are sports channels in in the first place, to show that kind of stuff many casual fans (not to mention non-fans) don't care about. Whatever any non-ESPN outlet did isn't ESPN's responsibility. Their job is to get people to watch their own content, and it appears at this point, they accomplished the goal. The ratings show there were quite a few people who voluntarily made the choice to watch it. That part is fact.

The issue of what is or isn't news is subjective. Just because it fails to interest someone (and I include myself when talking about LeBron) it doesn't disqualify it as news. News from the sports world to be sure, but news nonetheless.

 

[quadraphonic]

Your average local media outlet might have devoted 4 stories over the last six weeks to LeBron. ESPN spent dozens of hours talking about it.

Bad comparison. Your "average local media outlet" doesn't specialize in sports coverage. ESPN does. And I promise you this story got big coverage on local TV in Cleveland and Miami. I wouldn't be surprised if network affiliates interrupted national programs with this story. If they didn't, they're idiots.

It's not 1984 any more. Let's not try to compare today with the past. If ESPN had simply reported the story like any other, they'd be criticized for missing the biggest sports story of the week. You have to know your beat, know your audience, and respond to them. That's what being a professional means.

If people can't compare this over-coverage to what would have gone down in 1984 or "average media outlets" then you can't use Cleveland or Miami outlets giving it 'big coverage' to prove "it's big news" on a national level at ESPN.

You did notice they are the NBA network for now? Don't "ignore that fact."

 

[TheBigA]

It's definitely a [/i]both...and[/i], with the advertising weighing most heavily.

Not really. The reporters covering the story aren't affected by advertising. They're affected by the story. Everyone knew this was a big story, and ESPN did exactly what it was supposed to. They didn't sell this as a separate advertising vehicle. It carried the same spots it would have had they played Sports Center.

 

[TheBigA]

If people can't compare this over-coverage to what would have gone down in 1984 or "average media outlets" then you can't use Cleveland or Miami outlets giving it 'big coverage' to prove "it's big news" on a national level at ESPN.

Huh? Re-read what I wrote. The previous poster was comparing it to "average LOCAL media outlets," which I did. Not national. That's why I brought up Cleveland and Miami, not to prove it's big news on a national level.

It's big news on a national level because sports isn't strictly local, and people's opinions on what LeBron did aren't restricted to where they live. A local star and celebrity has left his home town for another. That issue transcends sports and locality. That is the way the story will play when non-sports reporters cover it.

Look: Not everyone is interested in this story. I understand that. Very few stories of any sort get universal interest. But this was a big sports story, and it was important for the biggest sports network to give it full coverage. Whether or not individuals like the story or agree with the coverage doesn't matter.

You did notice they are the NBA network for now? Don't "ignore that fact."

Having the rights only made it easier to do. They'd still have devoted as much time to the story even if they didn't have the rights, as they do with other stories they don't "own."

 

[BRNout]

It was overblown and, as a result, came off as incredibly egotistical and tone-deaf for the economic times in which we live. How many millions is he getting? And exactly how does that impact the life of the average middle class American? The answer is: it really doesn't.

Did you see the clip of the idiot in Cleveland crying about how he's a Lebron fan and that this was the worst thing that could ever happen to him? Really? Worse than cancer? Or a death in the family? Come on people, get a grip. They're paying a grown man millions to play with a ball. He may play very well, but ultimately that's all it is and that guy really doesn't give a whit what any of us thinks or does. Scarier still, the crying idiot is able to vote in elections that actually DO influence our lives.

On a macro scale, the hype surrounding this non-event is nothing more than bread and circuses for the dumbed-down masses who are rapidly becoming the majority in this country. And yes, the rest of the world is laughing at us. Especially China.

 

[TheBigA]

And yes, the rest of the world is laughing at us. Especially China.

You think they don't have "dumbed down masses" in other countries? Really? You haven't been watching the World Cup.