Is anyone else tired of hearing the New York "football" Giants?

[Kevin W.]

I don't get referring to ESPN as "The Worldwide Leader."

Well, it sounds pompous, but they, as a whole, do have some footprint just about everywhere in the world.

I don't mean ESPN referring to themselves that way, I mean other people. It's just a weird thing to type out or say when you're talking about them.

Usually when I hear someone who doesn't work for ESPN refer to them in that way, it's sarcastic and meant to mock ESPN for some perceived deficiency.

[thespleenenator]

I don't get referring to ESPN as "The Worldwide Leader."

Well, it sounds pompous, but they, as a whole, do have some footprint just about everywhere in the world.

ESPN is like a local town prostitue. She has her marks on everyone, they pay good money to see her, and after they've dealt with her, they feel nothing but regret and Chris Berman's voice.

[Kevin W.]

I don't get referring to ESPN as "The Worldwide Leader."

Well, it sounds pompous, but they, as a whole, do have some footprint just about everywhere in the world.

ESPN is like a local town prostitue. She has her marks on everyone, they pay good money to see her, and after they've dealt with her, they feel nothing but regret and Chris Berman's voice.

Or Skip Bayless or Craig James or Colin Cowherd...

[thespleenenator]

I don't get referring to ESPN as "The Worldwide Leader."

Well, it sounds pompous, but they, as a whole, do have some footprint just about everywhere in the world.

ESPN is like a local town prostitue. She has her marks on everyone, they pay good money to see her, and after they've dealt with her, they feel nothing but regret and Chris Berman's voice.

Or Skip Bayless or Craig James or Colin Cowherd...

Careful cowboy. The more the merrier, the more the money.

[pmoehrin]

ESPN used to use the "worldwide leader in sports" tag line ALOT more then they do now.

Back in the early 90's they would basically open and close every program with that. You hear it some now, but not nearly to that level.

Not something that really bothers me either. Its not the root cause of how they have become basically the sports version of tabloid journalism because it predates when that change started to happen.

[tBBP]

Yeah, I'm online with that assessment.

I couldn't even begin to try to pinpoint the period where ESPN (and its flagship program) went from being the Worldwide Leader in Sports, a bonafide quality sports journalism broadcast, to the Worldwide Hype Machine?and some type of overblown bootleg Quentin Tarantino production. I do remember realizing it, though, once they decided to stick Neil Everett and Stan Verett behind the desk at the same time, which just completely ruined my early morning viewing experience?few things annoy me more than people trying to be funny when they ain't.

That point there really jumped the shark once somebody in Bristol thought it'd be a good idea to stick Rick Reilly in front of a video camera?Reilly, who was singularly worse behind the desk than Everett/Verett together, whose voice is about as grating to listen to as nails on a chalkboard, and whose mug looks like somebody smashed it into said chalkboard.

And that was just the morning broadcasts.

[wdm1219inpenna]

It does annoy me that they say the "Football" Giants, but it's not the worst thing in the world. I too agree with the emphasis on "THE" for Ohio State.

What I'm wondering is, back in the 1940s and 50s, did they say the New York BASEBALL Giants when they were still there?

I am old enough to remember when the Arizona Cardinals were still the St. Louis Cardinals, but what I cannot recall is if anybody ever said, or felt the need to say the St. Louis FOOTBALL Cardinals or BASEBALL Cardinals. Seems the "Football Giants" moniker is just the Giants. Perhaps this was one reason why Art Rooney switched to the Steelers nickname in 1940 from the Pirates.

[BrySmalls]

No, it never gets old to hear them being called the "New York Football Giants". It demonstrations that there's only one team in the metropolitan area which plays football. The other team is just a green and white freak show.

[BBTV]

Yeah, I'm online with that assessment.

I couldn't even begin to try to pinpoint the period where ESPN (and its flagship program) went from being the Worldwide Leader in Sports, a bonafide quality sports journalism broadcast, to the Worldwide Hype Machine?and some type of overblown bootleg Quentin Tarantino production. I do remember realizing it, though, once they decided to stick Neil Everett and Stan Verett behind the desk at the same time, which just completely ruined my early morning viewing experience?few things annoy me more than people trying to be funny when they ain't.

That point there really jumped the shark once somebody in Bristol thought it'd be a good idea to stick Rick Reilly in front of a video camera?Reilly, who was singularly worse behind the desk than Everett/Verett together, whose voice is about as grating to listen to as nails on a chalkboard, and whose mug looks like somebody smashed it into said chalkboard.

And that was just the morning broadcasts.

But it's sports - it's not real life. Pro (and now college) sports exist solely as entertainment for ticket-paying customers, and as such, really should be treated like any other TV show. I find it silly when you see two "journalists" sitting there with their serious "147 dead in a plane crash" look on their faces discussing last night's shootout loss.

ESPN (and really any sports-themed network, like Comcast Sportsnet for example) have these "Sports Center" or "Sports Night" shows really just as ways to promote their other program ("check out these highlights! If you want more of this, tune in at 8:00 and watch the Team Xs play the Team Ys!") I think that it's foolish on the viewer to tune in and expect the same "journalism" that would be expected from the nightly news or any legitimate news network.

There is (and shouldn't be) any expectation of integrity from a sports-based network.

[infrared41]

Yeah, I'm online with that assessment.

I couldn't even begin to try to pinpoint the period where ESPN (and its flagship program) went from being the Worldwide Leader in Sports, a bonafide quality sports journalism broadcast, to the Worldwide Hype Machine—and some type of overblown bootleg Quentin Tarantino production.

But it's sports - it's not real life. Pro (and now college) sports exist solely as entertainment for ticket-paying customers, and as such, really should be treated like any other TV show. I find it silly when you see two "journalists" sitting there with their serious "147 dead in a plane crash" look on their faces discussing last night's shootout loss.

ESPN (and really any sports-themed network, like Comcast Sportsnet for example) have these "Sports Center" or "Sports Night" shows really just as ways to promote their other program ("check out these highlights! If you want more of this, tune in at 8:00 and watch the Team Xs play the Team Ys!") I think that it's foolish on the viewer to tune in and expect the same "journalism" that would be expected from the nightly news or any legitimate news network.

There is not (and shouldn't be) any expectation of integrity from a sports-based network.

Agree 100%. It cracks me up when I see sports "journalists" bemoaning the loss of journalistic integrity at ESPN, et al. Whether these "journalists" like it or not, they are essentially entertainment reporters.That's not to say that I think sports "journalists" should leave their ethics at the door and just write whatever the hell they want (although a lot of them do just that), I just think that they could benefit from a little perspective.

[Lights Out]

Journalistic integrity doesn't go hand-in-hand with "serious" journalism. I agree that, other than actual tragedies revolving around the sporting world, sports should be covered in a light-hearted manner.... but also in an ethical manner. You can still have fun, lighthearted coverage without Skip Bayless coming up with 100 new ways to express his deep-seated, jealous contempt for LeBron and TO every morning.

[IceCap]

TSN's been going with the "lighthearted and fun but not moronic" philosophy for a while now. Being lighthearted/treating it as entertainment above news isn't the problem. It's just that ESPN tends to get moronic from time to time.

I still don't know what the hell "Who's Now?" was supposed to be about.

That said, I do enjoy PTI.

[Gothamite]

What I'm wondering is, back in the 1940s and 50s, did they say the New York BASEBALL Giants when they were still there?.

No, because baseball was so much bigger than football it would have been absurd to think that such a clarification was necessary.

That's the way it was before television.

[BBTV]

Journalistic integrity doesn't go hand-in-hand with "serious" journalism. I agree that, other than actual tragedies revolving around the sporting world, sports should be covered in a light-hearted manner.... but also in an ethical manner. You can still have fun, lighthearted coverage without Skip Bayless coming up with 100 new ways to express his deep-seated, jealous contempt for LeBron and TO every morning.

I'm not sure who Skip Bayless is, but IMO sports needs heel and face personalities, just like professional wrestling, and needs heel and face announcers, just like... well, professional wrestling. Sports needs controversies and angles and storylines and all that just to keep people interested, because when you break it down for what it is, sports really aren't that interesting to many people. Without all that other nonsense, there's not much difference between a pro game and an amateur game (obviously the level of athleticism is different, but without storylines and rooting interests it's just an exhibition.)

The difference between sports and professional wrestling is that with the latter being scripted, they can gracefully manufacture the angles that they need to generate interest. Since sports are allegedly legitimate competition (though I'm sure we've all had our doubts here and there, especially in the NBA), the broadcasters employed by the networks that broadcast the games need to go above and beyond to generate the angles and stories that are needed to get people to tune in, hence your comically over-the-top announcers.

NBC Nightly News doesn't create the news it reports on, nor does it have the exclusive rights to broadcast any specialized type of story (like if NBC bought the exclusive rights to broadcast and report on the gulf war.) There can be some integrity there because they're not necessarily promoting an agenda while reporting on the news (I realize that the agenda point is debatable when it comes to political stories, but either way their agenda isn't programming related.)

[IceCap]

Does that make Brett Favre Hulk Hogan?

[Kevin W.]

If it does, who did he leg drop to turn heel?

[The_Admiral]

Not sure I agree 100% with where BBTV is coming from with regard to sports journalism. Maybe like 60%. I like the "there is no sportswriting, just writing" axiom. While no one has any business covering day-to-day sports stories with the gravity of war or politics or anything, that's not a free pass to write the whole thing off as just bald-faced promotional fluff of no intrinsic value. There are plenty of intelligent and meaningful things to be said about sports.

I don't think it's fair to compare ESPN to the RSNs, which are team-owned and thus fully expected to be biased, money-making house organs. NESN aspires to nothing greater than making money for the Red Sox. ESPN established itself as a leading sports news operation long before it got in bed with the leagues as a promotional arm, so people still expect them to do more with their resources than navel-gaze and whip up imaginary frenzies.

[IceCap]

If it does, who did he leg drop to turn heel?

He already did. Think about it.

His stint with the Falcons was like Hogan's stay in the AWA.

Most of his Packers career is like the Hulkamania era of the WWF. People loved him, despite questionable drug use.

His last few years with the Pack were like Hogan's first WCW run. Still doing the same routine, but people are getting tired of it.

His tenure with the Jets is like the brief period Hogan had between abandoning his face persona and joining the nWo where he still wore red and yellow, but paired it with black gloves and a black bandana while making veiled allusions to OJ Simpson. People aren't sure whether to hate or like the guy.

Favre joining the Vikings is like Hogan joining the nWo. His first season in Minnesota is like Hogan's inaugural nWo run. It was a success, a re-invigoration of his career. His second season with Minny is like tail end of the nWo story. He became stale, slow, tired, unable to do what he once could, but so over-exposed that people celebrated him being off tv.

The only things left are for him to return to the Packers for a nostalgic, yet meaningless, run before becoming the player coach of a UFL or Arena team.

[Lights Out]

I see where you're coming from, BBTV, but there's a big difference between presenting various angles on a story (which happens in "regular" news, as well) and actually insulting the players, coaches, and owners you're supposed to cover impartially.

It's one thing to say "LeBron needs to take charge more often in the 4th quarter". It's a whole different thing to say "OMG LOLOLOL LEBRICK LEBRICK LEBRICK THE QUITNESS HEY QUEEN JAMES WHERE'S YOUR CROWN?" every time LeBron does anything. The former is a valid critique, while the latter is unwatchable, annoying jealousy in action, magnified by the fact that Skip Bayless tells the same old jokes a million times every morning on First Take. That's why people can't take ESPN seriously despite their lame, half-hearted efforts to promote themselves as a serious news outlet.

And it's not just the negative angles that ESPN runs into the ground, too. Their Tebow obsession was so ridiculous, it came unmoored from reality. ESPN started talking about Tebow like he was freaking Montana in his prime, when in reality, he's a sub-mediocre system quarterback at best. Was his run of comeback wins compelling and fun to watch? Yes... until ESPN got their hands all over it, and turned it into a joyless, frustrating exercise immediately. (I don't have the same qualms about their Jeremy Lin coverage, because Lin is actually good.)

[infrared41]

Not sure I agree 100% with where BBTV is coming from with regard to sports journalism. Maybe like 60%. I like the "there is no sportswriting, just writing" axiom. While no one has any business covering day-to-day sports stories with the gravity of war or politics or anything, that's not a free pass to write the whole thing off as just bald-faced promotional fluff of no intrinsic value. There are plenty of intelligent and meaningful things to be said about sports.

I don't think it's fair to compare ESPN to the RSNs, which are team-owned and thus fully expected to be biased, money-making house organs. NESN aspires to nothing greater than making money for the Red Sox. ESPN established itself as a leading sports news operation long before it got in bed with the leagues as a promotional arm, so people still expect them to do more with their resources than navel-gaze and whip up imaginary frenzies.

As is often the case, the Lt. Commander has hit the nail squarely on the head. Well said.