The AA Q&A: Former ESPN Ombudsman Robert Lipsyte

AA: In an offshoot of that, you mentioned you think Simmons is an entertainer, but what do you think of him as an entire entity? Were you surprised at how big he is at ESPN?

RL: I was surprised at why ESPN was so enthralled to him. I think he’s an engaging, talented writer. He’s very knowledgeable about basketball. I think that when he gets credit for 30 for 30 which I think it’s a fine series, he didn’t invent (sports documentaries). I’m not sure HBO even invented the sports documentary. I remember Howard Cosell did Run to Daylight. We kind of lose our history, but (30 for 30) was very good and who else had the kind of money and access to hire really great directors to tell compelling stories? That was really great.

And Grantland? That’s not the first literary magazine that has ever been created. I think Grantland is o.k. I think it’s inconsistent, but I think it’s fine. I don’t think that Bill is a particularly good television talent and obviously he’s thin-skinned and has a lot of growing up to do, but why criticize him? He’s very good at what he does.

AA: Did you receive e-mails from people inside ESPN about your articles?

RL: Now and then. The relationship with Simmons became intense towards the end and I think he was angry at my criticism. He’s angry at criticism.

Because I had worked at ESPN, I did have sources within the company who called or I called, but I don’t think there was a lot of interaction.

The most interaction was with the audience. I got 1,000 e-mails a month and I read them all. It took up a lot of my time, but it was very interesting and it was great insight, besides the standard complaints, “Why is Ray Lewis, that murderer on the air,” or “Why do you hate hockey,” “Why do you hate the Red Sox?” I mean stuff like that.

The continual thread was from Southeastern Christian families who saw ESPN as a kind of sanctuary from the real world where they could sit as a family and enjoy something that did not have what they called “societal issues.” There would be a flare for example when Michael Sam was drafted and The Kiss, “not that we have anything against homosexuality,” they wrote. “Why are we assaulted with these societal issues in our living rooms?” My first reaction was, “Hey, get over it,” but then you think about it, and you think about who the audience is for ESPN, who is this big support, and if only 20% (of the TV audience) really watch sports, these are the people. That was really interesting. I think they really try to be responsive.

AA: Where do you see ESPN heading in the future?

RL: Well, they’re very good at what they do. Look at the moves that they’re making, going into soccer, going into Latin America, kind of broadening their horizon. I think unquestionably they are the most important sports media company in the world. So I wonder why can’t they be the most important media company in the world? Now maybe this is scary, I don’t know, I guess News Corp. (owner of Fox) is bigger now as a general media company, but I think ESPN with its reach and its power, I think can start covering news. I think there a lot of things it can do.

In my last column, I thought they should strengthen their journalism and spin it off and separate it. I also suggested, which I got no traction whatsoever, that they would be in a marvelous position to offer high schools around the country an outreach program about sports journalism, print and broadcast, digital, whatever, in which they can do this enormous service, because you think about sports is kind of the first portal for young people who become news consumers. So wouldn’t it be great particularly in minority high schools, women, poor neighborhoods, to offer the opportunity to learn how to do sports journalism? There’s always this talk we need more African American, minorities .. well, go get ’em! Go teach ’em. Bring them in. I think that was one of the things they really didn’t like at the end.

AA: What was the one thing that surprised you about ESPN when you went in?

RL: I think it was to a certain extent of just how business-oriented American businesses are. I’ve been around a long time, but I kind of lived a closeted life. Coming of age in a time where if you’re a kind, white boy with an education, America is going to take care of you and being in places that had really high standards. They didn’t always meet them, but they had really high standards, the New York Times for most of my career, CBS, NBC, PBS where I had my own show. And in all these places, I met people who considered themselves stewards of American ideals and heritage. I never worked in a real corporation before and that’s what happened at ESPN. ESPN is a real corporation. Owned by Disney, kind of dedicated to the bottom line and to shareholders, so many of their decisions are about making money and it’s kind of shocking to be as old as I am and to just come to realize that.

AA: As you go to the next phase, are you looking to do more sports media criticism?

RL: No. The 18 months at ESPN was the only time in my career that I covered coverage, I’ve always been a reporter, go out and do stories and that’s what I think I want to do, go back out, do stories, offer my opinion. I want to find a way to use what I learned at ESPN, not necessarily to write about ESPN per se, but as a jumping off point to write more about sports, sports media of course would be part of it, but about sports itself which has changed tremendously in my time.

We thank Robert Lipsyte for taking the time to talk with us. For more information on Robert Lipsyte and his future plans, you can visit his website here.