Sean Keeley: ESPN has made a really conscious decision to be a tastemaker in the U.S. and that doesn’t mean just in the realm of sports. They’ve very clearly extended their reach into entertainment, world news and politics. Because of how they envision themselves, it would be impossible for them to ignore events and issues surrounding the biggest news story in the country this entire year: the Presidential election. So in that sense I’m not surprised to see them wade into the discussion.
Also, its good to remember that even though issues like Black Lives Matter and police shootings are “political” in the sense that politicians discuss them and liberals/conservatives draw lines in the same around them, those issues are not strictly political. They are both about Americans being hurt or dying on a scale that affects all facets of our society. So if you think about it in that way, of course ESPN is going to cross paths with that. The NBA players’ speech at the ESPYs and Michael Jordan’s column for The Undefeated are not political, per se, even if the issues they’re covering are major politicial talking points. You’re allowed to see both sides of that.
As for what ESPN should do, I think it is important for them to recognize when they are taking a stand on an issue because they believe it is just to do so and when they are taking a stand (or perceived stand) in order to appease a certain portion of their viewership. Are they using an even hand when dishing out punishment for employees who make “conservative” remarks versus those who make “liberal” remarks? Are they allowing the full story to be told or picking out the parts that appeal to certain demographics in their audience in order to maintain a narrative?
I don’t think ESPN has to change anything they’re doing necessarily, but I think they would be wise to doublecheck and triplecheck their messages anytime it comes close to the political arena. They’re not always going to get it right but they do need to learn from the times they’ve gotten it wrong.
Ian Casselberry: I don’t think ESPN should be at all involved in the upcoming Presidential election, if it can be helped. That’s not to say I don’t think its personalities should touch on politics with their social media outlets or even columns. As I’ve written, those in the opinion business shouldn’t be expected to just stick to sports. They have to acknowledge the world we live in and what informs their views.
But in terms of the on-air product, sports is still an escape for most of us. Some prefer not to pay attention to politics at all and just want their games. Me, I’m a politics junkie and consume that stuff, but want a place where I get away from it. Having either of the candidates intrude on that would be irritating, even if Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump was asked about how to speed up baseball games. I was in favor of Bill Simmons talking to Barack Obama in 2008, but that’s because his podcast was an ideal forum for a longform interview. However, then you get into the sludgy territory of equal time for the other candidates. It’s a mess that ESPN is just better off avoiding.
Phillip Bupp: For one thing, it’s impossible for ESPN to completely back away from politics. This election, for better or worse, has seeped into everything that we talk about now and sports is no different. As much as many viewers want ESPN to get away from politics because they use sports as an escape, it’s unrealistic and impossible to get away from it now. When WNBA players wear “Black Lives Matter” shirts or you have the NBA moving the All-Star Game away from North Carolina because of HB2, it reinforces that politics is a part of sports and vice versa as it has been since the beginning of sports. And ESPN cannot ignore that even if they wanted to.
The question now becomes whether or not ESPN should go all-in in being political or remain what they have been doing and frame politics in more of a sports context/fluff pieces. I look at it like this. When I watch the news, I’m expecting it to be reported by someone who at least knows enough about what they’re talking about that they can frame it in a way for the viewer to understand. For ESPN to go all-in on politics, they need people who know what they’re talking about or else it’s going to look embarrassing for both the network and the anchor.
Also, if ESPN wants to go all-in on politics, they need to know when and when not to do that. While it was more of an ABC News program, the town hall meeting with President Obama on gun violence was a good example of ESPN going all-in. It gave viewers fair warning that there was going to be a very serious discussion on a political hot button issue and those who wanted to watch, could. And those who didn’t want to watch, didn’t have to. I would have more of an issue if ESPN had Chris Berman interview Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump about how they would handle gun violence during halftime of Monday Night Football. One, it’s blindsiding the viewer because they’re in the middle of watching a football game and then immediately we’re talking about something as serious as gun violence before then going back to the game. And two, discussing serious political issues with presidential candidates in that context would make it seem like ESPN is making light of the issues when wedged in between a football game.
So when it comes to deciding if ESPN should go all-in in politics or stick with what they have been doing in previous elections, there’s a time and a place for ESPN to be able to do both. ESPN just needs to know and realize when and where that is.
Matt Yoder: I can understand the strategy – both from the candidates and from ESPN – for interviewing the candidates on the eve of the election on Monday Night Football. It’s one last chance to make a positive impression on voters in front of the largest audience on that night.
And while I didn’t necessarily have a big problem with Chris Berman throwing home run derby softballs to Barack Obama, John McCain, and Mitt Romney… it would seem really out of place and really tone-deaf this year considering the weightiness of this election.
Yes, every presidential election is hugely important and a hugely serious matter. But in Clinton and Trump’s case we have allegations of the Russian government hacking into a political party’s e-mails and it seems like another ordinary day in the election cycle. That’s insane! And given the gravity surrounding the 2016 choice, seeing Chris Berman ask Donald Trump about his good friend Tom Brady would be facepalm-inducing.
With that in mind, on top of all the criticism that has come ESPN’s way in the past year for not giving a fair deal to the left and right, it makes all the sense in the world to sit this election out and forego the interviews of the candidates. That’s different than allowing their employees the freedom to speak their mind, and it’s different than taking a stand on social issues or covering hot-button topics from a solid journalistic base.
From the macro-level as a network though, it might be best to let this cycle pass by without the four letters being dragged into the constant mud-slinging over the next 100 days.
Comments are closed.