http://www.foxnews.com/enterta...g-on-air-talent.html

I guess this will give these pandering douchebags more time to demonstrate to the world how "progressive" they are.

Remember when sports channels used to talk about sports? Now it's all about giving awards to Bruce Jenner's sister. Disgusting, and good riddance, you freakin' ridiculous halfwits.

Just one question. When did ESPN have "On Air Talent"?

Too many high priced talking heads.
ESPN is a drag on overall Disney performance.

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny 3eagles:
Just one question. When did ESPN have "On Air Talent"?

Or talent period?

interesting because ESPN was seen as a cable success story not that long ago.

They were #1 in the ratings, I think including right now.

Sports networks were said to be responsible for much of cable TV's profit.

Oh well. no loss.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
interesting because ESPN was seen as a cable success story not that long ago.

They were #1 in the ratings, I think including right now.

Sports networks were said to be responsible for much of cable TV's profit.

Oh well. no loss.

ESPN still draws a crowd for its game broadcasts and always will. Where they've lost a step or ten is their sports news and editorial programming. Ratings have plummeted for those segments. Part of that is the availability of the same content online, but I think part is also their insistence on introducing social commentary into the sports arena.

I remember when Sportscenter was must-see TV. The anchors were entertaining (even Craig Kilborn), game highlights were the soul of the show, and there was no social agenda being pushed. Now it's like watching a Malcolm X sponsored Hallmark after school special with the occasional game clip thrown in. I can watch the Cubs highlights on my phone without having to sit through all of the fluff.

It's my understanding that the largest factor in ESPN's decline is not viewer interest, but rather it's just cord-cutters. ESPN charges about $7 per subscriber for their service. That's everyone that has the basic cable package. That fee goes up if start adding the other ESPN channels. So you've got a bunch of people out there are supporting ESPN even though they never watch it (like I used to). When I ditched cable and went to internet tv only (netflix, hulu), ESPN lost $84 that year just from me. A whole lot of people are getting rid of cable tv and that really, really hurts ESPN's operating budget.

quote:

Originally posted by jaaron11:
Now it's like watching a Malcolm X sponsored Hallmark after school special with the occasional game clip thrown in.

I couldn't have said it any better myself!

Yep, everyone thinks that espn is fully supported by it's own subscribers but technically most cable/satellite customers are subsidizing most if not all sports channels.

quote:

Originally posted by KDR:
It's my understanding that the largest factor in ESPN's decline is not viewer interest, but rather it's just cord-cutters. ESPN charges about $7 per subscriber for their service. That's everyone that has the basic cable package. That fee goes up if start adding the other ESPN channels. So you've got a bunch of people out there are supporting ESPN even though they never watch it (like I used to). When I ditched cable and went to internet tv only (netflix, hulu), ESPN lost $84 that year just from me. A whole lot of people are getting rid of cable tv and that really, really hurts ESPN's operating budget.

Ed Werder is the only name on the "on-air" list that I recognized. I doubt seriously that the networks moves signal any kind of course correction--just a few different people toeing the same old "progressive" line.

quote:

Originally posted by lkdr1989:
Yep, everyone thinks that espn is fully supported by it's own subscribers but technically most cable/satellite customers are subsidizing most if not all sports channels.

quote:

Originally posted by KDR:
It's my understanding that the largest factor in ESPN's decline is not viewer interest, but rather it's just cord-cutters. ESPN charges about $7 per subscriber for their service. That's everyone that has the basic cable package. That fee goes up if start adding the other ESPN channels. So you've got a bunch of people out there are supporting ESPN even though they never watch it (like I used to). When I ditched cable and went to internet tv only (netflix, hulu), ESPN lost $84 that year just from me. A whole lot of people are getting rid of cable tv and that really, really hurts ESPN's operating budget.

My cable company has a package without ESPN. It's $30-$40/month cheaper so I have that Mid-January to Late August. Once football season starts, I get the top package. This gets me more actual football games. I don't give a crap about sports center and talking heads who are trying to fill the air on 5 ESPN channels, SEC Network, and B1G Network.

To many people pro sports is a great distraction from politics and the day to day grind. ESPN's decision to inject a good deal of leftist politics into their programming has hurt them. Sure people cutting cable TV and going to the internet for entertainment is a factor but ESPN's politics is a factor too.

I'm at the point where I won't support, view or give clicks to media outlets I hate. Full ban. I'd rather be uninformed than misinformed.

I love all these excuses as to WHY they are effed: "cord cutters!" "Millennials don't watch TV!" "Our broadcast fees are rising!"

Ummm...no. You douchebags tried to go left and also ditch your core demographic (white males, GASP!) while pandering to transgenders and America-haters.

I cant even spell ESPN...

Fuck them. Never watch it, never will. They wont miss me because I've never been there

quote:

Originally posted by jaaron11:

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
interesting because ESPN was seen as a cable success story not that long ago.

They were #1 in the ratings, I think including right now.

Sports networks were said to be responsible for much of cable TV's profit.

Oh well. no loss.

ESPN still draws a crowd for its game broadcasts and always will. Where they've lost a step or ten is their sports news and editorial programming. Ratings have plummeted for those segments. Part of that is the availability of the same content online, but I think part is also their insistence on introducing social commentary into the sports arena.

I remember when Sportscenter was must-see TV. The anchors were entertaining (even Craig Kilborn), game highlights were the soul of the show, and there was no social agenda being pushed. Now it's like watching a Malcolm X sponsored Hallmark after school special with the occasional game clip thrown in. I can watch the Cubs highlights on my phone without having to sit through all of the fluff.

this. the demand for the games will always be there. but espn's editorializing and general dumbassery has lost them viewership. and to answer the above joking question, yes, espn did have good on-air talent. they had a lot of genuinely entertaining people on the show (dan patrick, kenny mayne, stuart scott, craig kilborn, and even keith olbermann were all very good at what they did then.) sportscenter was funny and was an actual sports highlight show, rather than the op-ed, SJW, staged-argument fest that it has become.

cord-cutters have hurt their business somewhat, but espn is also what really keeps cord-cutting services like sling profitable.

and the other thing is that espn has ridden this sports bubble for awhile and it is going to burst at some time. they have ridden the wave of demand to have EVERY game at all times, airing 40 or 50 (more?) college football games per week over 7 or 8 different channels and streaming online. all of that production costs a lot of money. when the bubble bursts, they're left with all of the employees it takes to produce one of those broadcasts that now, nobody cares enough to watch.

what I hope happens is that colleges and teams decide to record and distribute their own content. that's the best a la carte I can think of. I'm sure most of them are not far off from being able to do that.

Didn't they have to do the same thing about three or four years ago?

And is that douchebag Stephen A Smith gone yet?

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Didn't they have to do the same thing about three or four years ago?

And is that douchebag Stephen A Smith gone yet?

stephen a smith is the personifcation of EVERYTHING that is wrong with ESPN.

Another industry pricing itself out of business, both the cable companies and the content providers.

I have a friend at ESPN, I hope he's in the clear, he's got enough problems lately without losing his job too.

I can't hear about ESPN without thinking of their giving of an award to Bruce Jenner for being a "hero".

Yeah, if Jenner had tried this "I'm a woman" horse shit in, say, 1977, then he could rightly be called courageous, because he would have been done. Let's say that shortly after coming to notoriety in the 1976 Olympics, Bruce Jenner the clean-cut all American gold medal athlete, called a press conference and declared to the world that he was changing his name to Tiffany because he feels pretty.

Now that would have taken balls.

quote:

I can't hear about ESPN without thinking of their giving of an award to Bruce Jenner for being a "hero".

Yeah, if Jenner had tried this "I'm a woman" horse shit in, say, 1977, then he could rightly be called courageous, because he would have been done. Let's say that shortly after coming to notoriety in the 1976 Olympics, Bruce Jenner the clean-cut all American gold medal athlete, called a press conference and declared to the world that he was changing his name to Tiffany because he feels pretty.

Now that would have taken balls.

Para that last line is classic!