ESPN, sports media need to refocus

In its weekly “Who’s Hot, Who’s Not” segment last week, Sports Illustrated singled out ESPN’s “single-player telecasts.” According to the magazine, ESPN was at fault when it “dropped everything to present Tiger [Woods]’ first shot” at the Masters before interrupting coverage again to highlight Stephen Strasburg’s first minor league start.

While Sports Illustrated merely pointed out this problem, I’d like to explain why the increasing focus on specific athletes is problematic for our digestion of American sports.

First things first, ESPN—the premier network for sports—is more closely emulating the mainstream media with each new day. The 24/7 news cycle has hit the sporting world as well, and just like standard news outlets, ESPN will often amplify the impact or coverage of small news items. This phenomenon is especially prevalent when there is a “slow news day” in the sporting world.

In fact, ESPN’s new branch in Los Angeles has allowed the channel to produce even more updated versions of “SportsCenter” and crank out stories about late games long after the East Coast operation has gone to sleep for the night.

Don’t get me wrong, this article is not meant to criticize or diminish “SportsCenter” in any way—yes, it is a gift from God.

But when the network behaves like a news outlet, reporting on minute details and minuscule stories and singling out specific athletes for increased coverage and attention, it can have its negative effects as well.

In the same way that news stations influence public opinion, ESPN has the ability to draw attention to certain athletes who may not deserve it. And because ESPN is the main source of sports news and information on the airwaves, its opinion is unrivaled and of paramount importance.

Of course, Tiger Woods is arguably the best golfer ever, and his recent ethical troubles made his performance at the Masters even more intriguing. But when ESPN “interrupts this broadcast” to bring you a freakin’ tee shot on the first hole of 72, it sends a message that he is the only important aspect of the tournament. It’s as if the Masters were being played just for Tiger Woods to win it.

The same thing goes for Stephen Strasburg. He’s a kid in the minor leagues. Let him develop and we’ll check him out when, or should I say if, he gets to the majors. Covering his outing disrespects the thousands of other players in the minor leagues, as well as every player that made it to the major leagues. How many times have we seen prospects that don’t pan out?

On the other side of the coin, there is only a finite amount of airtime available, and expending valuable time on individual athletes takes coverage away from other athletes who are perhaps more deserving of the country’s attention. Phil Mickelson is a classy guy, a family man, and someone who works hard in the community. Why wasn’t his tee shot featured? His performance at the Masters was totally overshadowed by Tiger Woods, and the attention was still on Tiger even when he finished his final round and was clearly out of contention for the championship. What kind of message does that send?

Similarly, fans are constantly complaining about the behavior of deviant athletes who don’t respect their sport or their status as cultural icons. So why give the Ron Artests of the world so much airtime? I rarely see segments on hospitals that athletes build or children that teams visited in the hospital.

There’s no doubt that sports are made by star players who generate the most attention and income. When Albert Pujols hits a homer or LeBron James dunks over four opposing players, I want to see it. But, as Sports Illustrated correctly points out, I don’t want ESPN to cut to Lebron running the floor every time he has the ball, or only show Pujols’ at-bats during the course of a whole baseball game.

Any true fan knows that the beauty of any sport comes in the intricacies of the game, the little things that the common fan doesn’t notice. And this is especially true in team sports where teams win and lose together, regardless of how the star does.

While the message may be inadvertent, this sort of coverage argues that the outcome and excitement of sporting events are only made by the best players in the league and that all other parts of the game (and all other players) can be largely ignored in favor of following one player.

Is this not the very message—the “no ‘I’ in team rule,” albeit in disguise—that we attack every day when our children are playing Little League? If it is, let’s hope our sports networks start behaving like it.