Fake News thread on BI. Cool

Bobo the clown at it again

Jeff82;842837214 said:

---

I feel very lucky that I saw the writing on the wall in the early 90s, and got out of journalism when I was young enough to switch to an alternative career path. The reality is that journalism as a career is dead, because the means of paying for it, advertising, is also mostly dead, and the consumers so far haven't been willing to pay enough directly for the product to allow practitioners to earn a living. Therefore, journalism is basically a hobby someone has to do on the side, as in the operators of BI, or something that is subsidized as a charity, a la Pro Publica or the Center for Investigative Reporting. Fortunately, I figured out 25 years ago that if a journalistic entity makes money, it mostly goes to management or stockholders, never to the people that actually produce the product, whereas the cuts always fall on the reporters. I think the only way to possibly make money now as a journalist is to go to some type of specialty publication whose audience is loyal enough to pay for it via subscription. As an example, a fairly well-known former Southern California sports columnist who got laid off now works for a magazine about trains.

---

A couple of years ago, my daughter (graduating college) asked me if I had any job search advice for her friend graduating with a degree in Journalism. I suggested that he a) don't take his degree and try to switch majors real quick and b) slap his parents for living in a cave for the last 30 years.

BeachedBear;842837438 said:

---

A couple of years ago, my daughter (graduating college) asked me if I had any job search advice for her friend graduating with a degree in Journalism. I suggested that he a) don't take his degree and try to switch majors real quick and b) slap his parents for living in a cave for the last 30 years.

---

I think the skills you learn in journalism, writing, researching, analyzing, drawing conclusions from facts, are good skills, you just have to use them in another line of work. I now work in the public policy field, because my entire journalism career was spent covering local government. Basically, I got my public policy degree one City Council meeting at a time. Your daughter's friend may be able to do the same, or he may want to work for a few years and then look for a graduate degree at the Goldman school, for example.

BeachedBear;842837438 said:

---

A couple of years ago, my daughter (graduating college) asked me if I had any job search advice for her friend graduating with a degree in Journalism. I suggested that he a) don't take his degree and try to switch majors real quick and b) slap his parents for living in a cave for the last 30 years.

---

Really, unless you're a business or engineering major (or other specialized majors), aren't most degrees pretty much useless?

No, I mean they *are* useful.

My point is that an undergraduate liberal arts education is aimed more at expanding your intellectual thought, than in having you become specialized in something. I mean, if you major in something, you're taking like 8 classes in one subject. That doesn't doom you to a certain life.

I majored in psychology, but no way am I close to being a psychologist.

I know English majors who work for Silicon Valley tech companies. There's one poli sci major I used to know who's a manager at Google.

A journalism degree can be used to work in PR or crisis communication -- look at all the companies struggling in that area.

There was one UC Berkeley alum who majored in philosophy. Really, what are you going to do with a philosophy degree? Well, that UC Berkeley alum last year bought Julia Roberts' Hawaiian home for $16 million... [URL="http://variety.com/2016/dirt/real-estalker/julia-roberts-sells-hawaiian-estate-mike-fleiss-1201920939/"]http://variety.com/2016/dirt/real-estalker/julia-roberts-sells-hawaiian-estate-mike-fleiss-1201920939/



[/URL]

gobears725;842837405 said:

---

Personally I agree that ESPN has been politicizing sports way too much but its just not the reason why this is happening.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-espn-apos-layoffs-aren-191032019.html

"For sports channels in particular, the outlook is just as dire. In October and November 2016, when ESPN lost those million-plus subscribers, just three of the sports cable channels that Nielsen monitors each month ― the NFL Network, the Golf Channel and BeIN Sport Espanol ― gained subscribers. The rest ― everyone from NBC Sports to the MLB Network and NBA TV ― suffered, with many of them taking proportionally larger hits than ESPN.

The fate of Fox Sports was no different. Over those two months, Fox Sports 1 lost 573,000 subscribers, according to Nielsen. Fox Sports 2 lost 1.4 million. In February of this year, ESPN lost 422,000 subscribers. FS1, which was already in fewer homes, exceeded that drop, losing 565,000. FS1 had spent much of the last few years gaining on ESPN, but that trend reversed itself recently: February was the third consecutive month in which FS1 lost more subscribers than ESPN (though FS2 has been gaining subscribers). And over the last two years, Fox Sports has undertaken multiple rounds of job cuts itself.

In other words, cable networks that aren’t allegedly seeking to spread the liberal gospel through sports are losing too.

The company, which charges cable providers roughly $7 a month per subscriber just to carry its flagship channel, derives as much as two-thirds of its annual revenue from subscriber fees, so the departure of those subscribers is a direct hit on its bottom line. Advertising rates are also falling. Meanwhile, ESPN is paying more to broadcast live sports. It will spend $7.3 billion on broadcast rights fees to major sports leagues this year."

---

I feel like ESPN has politicized it's sports coverage as well. Saw a major shift during the Kapernick stuff and seemed like it didn't let up. I rarely go to ESPN.com anymore. However I see a lot of sports sites doing the same thing. SI does it as well. It's really hard to find straight sports news anymore without all the added clickbait stuff.

okaydo;842837464 said:

---

[URL="http://variety.com/2016/dirt/real-estalker/julia-roberts-sells-hawaiian-estate-mike-fleiss-1201920939/"]


[/URL]

---

Why didnt you click that last link (duplicate story), but included it in your screen shot...

Just asking because its the first think I noticed...





To the "liberal" commentary on ESPN: I agree that politics is invading everything, but thats not the problem with cable networks losing customers. Availability of the same information at a lower cost is. The future is choosing specific channels, or the end of cable.

Phantomfan;842837569 said:

---

Why didnt you click that last link (duplicate story), but included it in your screen shot...

Just asking because its the first think I noticed...





To the "liberal" commentary on ESPN: I agree that politics is invading everything, but thats not the problem with cable networks losing customers. Availability of the same information at a lower cost is. The future is choosing specific channels, or the end of cable.

---

I took the screenshot before starting the post. Then posted. Then forgot I wanted to include the screenshot, and added it a few minutes later.

Here's another great article on liberal arts majors...
https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2016/06/01/why-i-was-wrong-about-liberal-arts-majors/

MinotStateBeav;842837502 said:

---

I feel like ESPN has politicized it's sports coverage as well. Saw a major shift during the Kapernick stuff and seemed like it didn't let up. I rarely go to ESPN.com anymore. However I see a lot of sports sites doing the same thing. SI does it as well. It's really hard to find straight sports news anymore without all the added clickbait stuff.

---

Yea all the political stuff certainly hasnt helped sites/channels that report sports, not to mention that it is clear that ESPN has had an agenda towards the liberal side. Bottomline is that is 50% of the country that doesnt agree with that political viewpoint. It's one thing to talk politics freely (mostly) as we do on this site, it would be quite another if BI were pushing one side or the other onto the posters here which is what ESPN does.

The reasoning though for the losses ESPN is facing still how cable companies bundle their channels. Consumers are tired of it and more options are becoming readily available online. I think its really people that dont really watch sports. Before they had to buy espn with their cable package. Now they can just have netflix or slingbox or whatever.

gobears725;842837583 said:

---

Yea all the political stuff certainly hasnt helped sites/channels that report sports, not to mention that it is clear that ESPN has had an agenda towards the liberal side. Bottomline is that is 50% of the country that doesnt agree with that political viewpoint. It's one thing to talk politics freely (mostly) as we do on this site, it would be quite another if BI were pushing one side or the other onto the posters here which is what ESPN does.

The reasoning though for the losses ESPN is facing still how cable companies bundle their channels. Consumers are tired of it and more options are becoming readily available online. I think its really people that dont really watch sports. Before they had to buy espn with their cable package. Now they can just have netflix or slingbox or whatever.

---

55% of eligible voters voted and of that, 46% voted for Trump.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/espn-layoffs-future/524922/

One of the Outkick the Coverage guys talks about ESPN's politics shift in detail. It's pretty good listen if you got time. (46 mins long)
[video=youtube;lgABZmaj6Cc][/video]

One thing I learned that I thought was funny...only 3 NBA players have made over 30 mil/year in the history of the NBA....Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and........Memphis Grizzlies Mike Conley lol, he basically scored a massive deal due to ESPN paying the NBA over a billion bucks during his contract...he hit the lottery basically.

MinotStateBeav;842837659 said:

---

One of the Outkick the Coverage guys talks about ESPN's politics shift in detail. It's pretty good listen if you got time. (46 mins long)
[video=youtube;lgABZmaj6Cc][/video]

One thing I learned that I thought was funny...only 3 NBA players have made over 30 mil/year in the history of the NBA....Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and........Memphis Grizzlies Mike Conley lol, he basically scored a massive deal due to ESPN paying the NBA over a billion bucks during his contract...he hit the lottery basically.

---

I watched a few minutes. It's sad to me that people would watch this and think it's a "good listen".

grandmastapoop;842837661 said:

---

I watched a few minutes. It's sad to me that people would watch this and think it's a "good listen".

---

A few minutes..of a 46 minute podcast...well nice job trying I guess.

MinotStateBeav;842837662 said:

---

A few minutes..of a 46 minute podcast...well nice job trying I guess.

---

I watched ten minutes of an unprepared guy constantly looking at cue cards/notes off camera, while making arguments I found to be lacking in factual support. Give me a summary, if you care to. I gave up when he seemed to connect ESPN's supposed shift to liberal politics (a premise I don't agree with, but seems essential to his argument) with the fact that ESPN invests a lot of money in the NBA, which he claims (without evidence, citation, or even a claim to citation) is a largely black audience.

The dumbest part of this argument, and I believe okaydo addressed this above, is the thought people cancel cable subscriptions because they think ESPN is too liberal. That is non-sensical. They MIGHT stop watching ESPN, but the numbers don't seem to bear that out, and ESPN gets its money from subscribers, not viewers. ESPN is losing money because people are fed up with bundled cable/satellite packages. Period. Politics have nothing to do with it.

grandmastapoop;842837663 said:

---

I watched ten minutes of an unprepared guy constantly looking at cue cards/notes off camera, while making arguments I found to be lacking in factual support. Give me a summary, if you care to. I gave up when he seemed to connect ESPN's supposed shift to liberal politics (a premise I don't agree with, but seems essential to his argument) with the fact that ESPN invests a lot of money in the NBA, which he claims (without evidence, citation, or even a claim to citation) is a largely black audience.

The dumbest part of this argument, and I believe okaydo addressed this above, is the thought people cancel cable subscriptions because they think ESPN is too liberal. That is non-sensical. They MIGHT stop watching ESPN, but the numbers don't seem to bear that out, and ESPN gets its money from subscribers, not viewers. ESPN is losing money because people are fed up with bundled cable/satellite packages. Period. Politics have nothing to do with it.

---

The part you missed was that he was equating ESPNs failure was tied to the fact that it's largest fanbase was essentially SEC fans where 75% of those guys are trumpers, meaning 25% was left learning. So by switching to a left agenda they were cutting off their nose to spite their face. Then he went on to say compound its declining viewership to the fact that ESPN vastly overpaid for content to try to dominate the sports market came back to haunt them. In terms of pure business ..what ESPN did was absolutely stupid. People didn't watch ESPN for the political commentary..they watched it because it was an escape for people (this guy termed it as dessert). Travis thinks the decline really started in 2011 during the Catelyn Jenner stuff..who knows tbh but it was still an interesting take. He goes on to explain how he's not conservative or left..but more middle of the road. He seems more right leaning tbh..but he is pretty moderate in his views from what I've heard so far.

MinotStateBeav;842837665 said:

---

The part you missed was that he was equating ESPNs failure was tied to the fact that it's largest fanbase was essentially SEC fans where 75% of those guys are trumpers, meaning 25% was left learning. So by switching to a left agenda they were cutting off their nose to spite their face. Then he went on to say compound its declining viewership to the fact that ESPN vastly overpaid for content to try to dominate the sports market came back to haunt them. In terms of pure business ..what ESPN did was absolutely stupid. People didn't watch ESPN for the political commentary..they watched it because it was an escape for people (this guy termed it as dessert). Travis thinks the decline really started in 2011 during the Catelyn Jenner stuff..who knows tbh but it was still an interesting take. He goes on to explain how he's not conservative or left..but more middle of the road. He seems more right leaning tbh..but he is pretty moderate in his views from what I've heard so far.

---

Right, I didn't need 46 minutes to hear that point. I knew where he was headed, and it's wrong. Again: ESPN does not make its money from viewers/ads. It makes its big money from SUBSCRIBERS. They are losing money, yes. But not because they've alienated anyone due to "politics". They still crush Fox Sports in the ratings, for example. In fact, the guys who have left ESPN for Fox have NOT seen their viewers follow them. ESPN is still the go-to for sports fans. However, people ARE cutting cable/satellite altogether ("cord-cutters"), and that DOES cost ESPN a lot of money. So unless you think "SEC fans" are canceling cable/satellite en masse, pardon me while I chuckle, then his argument comes from a false premise. And, like I said, its therefore not a "good listen".

grandmastapoop;842837666 said:

---

Right, I didn't need 46 minutes to hear that point. I knew where he was headed, and it's wrong. Again: ESPN does not make its money from viewers/ads. It makes its big money from SUBSCRIBERS. They are losing money, yes. But not because they've alienated anyone due to "politics". They still crush Fox Sports in the ratings, for example. In fact, the guys who have left ESPN for Fox have NOT seen their viewers follow them. ESPN is still the go-to for sports fans. However, people ARE cutting cable/satellite altogether ("cord-cutters"), and that DOES cost ESPN a lot of money. So unless you think "SEC fans" are canceling cable/satellite en masse, pardon me while I chuckle, then his argument comes from a false premise. And, like I said, its therefore not a "good listen".

---

To drive home the point: There used to be 100 million cable-subscribing households a few years ago, each paying $7 a month for ESPN, whether they watched it or not.

Now there are 90 million.

And of those 90 million, a small percentage actually watch ESPN.

What is ESPN's premiere property? Monday Night Football, which ESPN pays $1.9 billion for, or more than $100 million per (terrible) game.

How many people watch Monday Night Football. Well, according to Wikipedia, just 16.8 million watched Brett Favre vs. Aaron Rodgers, which is huge for cable TV (but, again, a tiny percentage of the cable-subscribing audience).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_Night_Football#Nielsen_ratings

MinotStateBeav;842837659 said:

---

One of the Outkick the Coverage guys talks about ESPN's politics shift in detail. It's pretty good listen if you got time. (46 mins long)
[video=youtube;lgABZmaj6Cc][/video]

One thing I learned that I thought was funny...only 3 NBA players have made over 30 mil/year in the history of the NBA....Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and........Memphis Grizzlies Mike Conley lol, he basically scored a massive deal due to ESPN paying the NBA over a billion bucks during his contract...he hit the lottery basically.

---

Clay isn't one of the Outkick Guys -- he's *the* Outkick Guy. It's his website, which was picked up by Fox Sports.

About 5 years ago, Clay Travis made the claim that racism was over. That it wasn't possible to exist.

Increasingly, his shtick became "I am an Obama guy, a liberal who went to Martin Luther King Jr. High in Nashville. I'm so liberal you like to call me a "gay Muslim." I am really, really, really liberal. And yet I, a liberal, agree with you white conservatives, especially on issues of race."

Clay denounced Donald Sterling losing control of the Clippers.

He defended the Confederate flag.

He took the "conservative" view in many cases from the perspective of "I'm a liberal." It feeds his SEC audience.

He went off on Kaepernick.

He found a soulmate in Jason Whitlock.

He thrives on trolling...he loves to be hated..

okaydo;842837667 said:

---

To drive home the point: There used to be 100 million cable-subscribing households a few years ago, each paying $7 a month for ESPN, whether they watched it or not.

Now there are 90 million.

And of those 90 million, a small percentage actually watch ESPN.

What is ESPN's premiere property? Monday Night Football, which ESPN pays $1.9 billion for, or more than $100 million per (terrible) game.

How many people watch Monday Night Football. Well, according to Wikipedia, just 16.8 million watched Brett Favre vs. Aaron Rodgers, which is huge for cable TV (but, again, a tiny percentage of the cable-subscribing audience).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_Night_Football#Nielsen_ratings

---

great numbers okaydo. further illustrates the point. It's not about politics according to the stats even if the politics arent appreciated by a lot of people. I will say this though, I know ESPN is looking to try to move in a new direction. I think they are going to hurt their ability to get new subscribers on their streaming content if they keep it up the politics agenda. Even if you agree with their politics, it gets tiresome. I feel I'm well aware that we have race and LGBT issues in this country today. I dont think I need the daily reminder from ESPN.

I don't know about all this politics talk because I don't watch much ESPN any more but I do want to challenge the statements that advertiser revenue isn't critical to ESPN. According to 30 seconds of google fu, as recently as 2014 the split was 60/40 in favor of subscribers and I wouldn't be surprised if that number has shifted as subscribers have come down. While that is a majority, the advertising revenue isn't peanuts. That of course doesn't mean that losing subscriber revenue isn't a problem, but it does mean that selling ads is a huge focus - no one ignores a segment that makes up 40% of their revenue (well except the federal government which tends to ignore every state that isn't a battleground).

Unit2Sucks;842837769 said:

---

I don't know about all this politics talk because I don't watch much ESPN any more but I do want to challenge the statements that advertiser revenue isn't critical to ESPN. According to 30 seconds of google fu, as recently as 2014 the split was 60/40 in favor of subscribers and I wouldn't be surprised if that number has shifted as subscribers have come down. While that is a majority, the advertising revenue isn't peanuts. That of course doesn't mean that losing subscriber revenue isn't a problem, but it does mean that selling ads is a huge focus - no one ignores a segment that makes up 40% of their revenue (well except the federal government which tends to ignore every state that isn't a battleground).

---

So the question are:

What has happened to ad revenue since 2014? - if subscriber fees go down but more people are watching (because the new political content is so compelling), then it might go up. That's theoretically possible and seems doubtful, but it appears that is ESPN's strategy?

What has happened to total viewership? Subscribers could go down, but viewership remain constant because those left behind as subscribers are the same people who have always watched.

What has changed in viewer demographics? Not all viewers are equal - key demographic is 18-54. Maybe that is ESPN's strategy - support revenue by pandering to the key demographic? But outside of the Berkeley bubble, is the key demographic really that left-leaning? If anything, millennials don't even watch TV anymore.

I can only speak for myself. I still subscribe to ESPN so I can watch live sports - so the amount they pay for TV rights is well spent as it is probably the ONLY thing keeping me and I suspect many others. Occasionally I watch 30 for 30s, which are well done. But the shift to politics has left me with no desire to watch sports center or other "news" programming. I never have and never will watch any of the opinion shows they broadcast. If I want highlights/news, I turn to MLB/NHL/NBA network or use the internet.

Random question: I wonder what the profitability is of ESPNW? That is probably the true test - because the cuts on that side seem relatively light.