I wonder if ESPiN is motivated by reducing the cost of researching stories? I suppose its possible but I think it is a conscious decision to create a unique blend of entertainment and sports. That is actually a good thing and, up until a couple of years ago, I quite liked watching their programming.
The problem that I have with ESPiN did not begin with the tragic dance around the "where's the money, Mommy" strategy. I simply started to get annoyed with the constant ill-formed opinions that were foisted on viewers as truth. Entertainment content, actually sensationalized entertainment content, started to overwhelm news and become really annoying. Everything was reduced to black and white, good cop, bad cop and one couldn't any longer feel that the news and views were being presented factually.
The Clarett affair has illustrated painfully to Buckeye fans just how ethically bankrupt the ESPiN strategy is. ESPiN's problem is that they have to keep moving on and finding new "scandals" to keep the model alive, as some of the examples in this thread show.
ESPiN needs to go back to the drawing board and explore this business model. One could argue that ESPiN would benefit greatly by asking a media consultant to explain media dependency theory. Avoiding the academic jargon, the theory says that people depend on the media to help construct their identity and meaning in life. The more gratification of one's central needs, the more important media becomes and the more it is consulted. However, if media is at variance with central needs and values, it becomes less important, less trusted and less frequented. Hence, the theory would predict that the more important being a Buckeye is to a fan, the less likely that the fan wil visit ESPiN, believe ads flighted on ESPiN or buy products associated with ESPiN.
ESPiN seems to believe Marshall McLuhan's assertion that the media is the message. McLuhan didn't mean that media is all-powerful or central. In that sense, the media isn't the message. People are becoming more critical every day in the way that they perceive media.
Are you a Buckeye? Whether you answer yes or no, you still illustrate the importance of Buckeye sports as an element of who you are and the things you consider to be important and meaningful things in your life. If you are a Buckeye, like to do a lot of shopping in Michigan? Think about Woody and the empty gasoline tank. Social identity is a strong determinant of media usage and consumer behavior, as witnessed by hundreds of research studies.
The ESPiN strategy will get short-term attention from viewers by attacking issues, teams and players, but at the same time the theory holds that an attack such as we have endured is an attack on the very issues, teams and players that Buckeye fans consider to be important in their lives. OSU and UM fans will tune in, for different reasons, but everyone will sense the lack of fairness and honest reporting.
ESPiN would be very wise to apologize and help the Buckeye athletics overcome the damage they have done. The NCAA report will be a final time to say, hey folks, we're very, very sorry. The Smith debacle was only a temporary reprieve for Friend and the other professional journalists at ESPiN. Each story, like this one at USA Today, will call the integrity of ESPiN into question. The disgusting indecency with which they attacked tOSU will become a scar that haunts their integrity for a long time unless they apologize at their earliest opportunity.
They also would be wise to revisit their business model, which looks to be fatally flawed in the light of what I am posting here, while they still have such a good competitive position in the electronic sports marketplace.
I like the fact that BP has such an extensive archive facility. In a few years time, we'll be able to revisit these discussions and discuss the survival or demise of ESPiN in college sports.
It's hard to predict what will happen at ESPiN but one could guess that they probably won't heed the "broadcast rights dissipation light" blinking in their eyes and they will continue down the road they are on, having to become more and more sensational. They'll lose us and a few other major programs and then increasingly be marginalized over coming years. If it does indeed go this way, we'll see them disappear from college sports.
Seem impossible? Remember when the three networks ruled the roost and laughed at CNN? The seeds of tomorrow always exist in today.
