Face it, no one likes to be criticized…especially the people on TV, especially the people on ESPN!…As Ken Fang of Fang’s Bites said at the just recent Boston University sports journalism seminar, “We got ratings, we don’t care (what they say?)”…”We”, of course, is ESPN and for the most part, while they are the acknowledged leader in sports (news) television, even they had to blanch at the negative publicity they got after Britt Mchenry‘s much publicized outburst ….
While the initial reaction to the McHenry video was all negative, suddenly we’re hearing a different viewpoint…considering the New York Post article of April 17th…And then there was this from Joe Concha on Mediaite…Legendary sportscaster Howard Cosell was famous for his line “Say what you want about me, just spell my name right”…Maybe it’s that simple…
Robert Lipsyte has been writing media criticism for a long time….A distinguished author, he just wrapped up his eighteen month tenure as the Ombudsman or ESPN recently…Joining Fang at the seminar, Lipsyte embraced the “watchdog” role and wondered what was expected of him, “Are we here to be investigative reporters, are we here to embrace and pleasures of the game?…If you’re in a small market or any kind of market where the local team or local college team is important, you know how you have to cover it.” Good advice for young journalists about to head out…
Unquestionably, these columns are scrutinized as much by the people they are about than by the readers/viewers but, in this writers opinion, they have their place…It remains to be seen who the next watchdog will be at ESPN but both Lipsyte and Fang think there’s a need, “Someone has to hold them accountable. I think they’ll admit the need to be challenged, said Fang. Not just ESPN but the other networks and the print organizations too.”
But remember, as Lipsyte agreed, It’s the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network. “There was no journalism DNA built into their system.” And as I said in the seminar, you can always change the channel…
15 Comments
Kelly Landrigan posted on April 21, 2015 at 1:39 pm
This was an interesting seminar to me. I’ve never considered going into the “media criticism” field, and after the seminar, I still don’t think I would. However, I do understand the importance of it in the media world. It’s necessary to keep the media in check. I don’t mean censoring what a journalist wants to say, write, etc. as it relates to the topic he or she may be covering. As journalists, especially as on-air talent, you open yourself up to the idea that you’re now a public figure. While you may not have the clout of a celebrity, you are still in the public eye, and therefore, you need to be cognizant of your actions and words.
We’re constantly told in our classes about how everything you put out on the internet is open to criticism. Everything you publish, whether is a 1200 word feature story or an Instagram from a college party, is a reflection of your character. Sometimes, I think journalists forget about that. Take this Britt McHenry situation as an example. Would I have been extremely angry if my car had been towed and then I was given trouble when I tried to get it back? Absolutely. I’m sure I wouldn’t have been the nicest person either. However, she needs to be more aware of her situation.
Reading the articles in the post above kind of angered me. Yes, I understand that there is another side to McHenry’s story, and it definitely seems that this towing company exhibits regularly sketchy behavior. However, I disagree with both writers who feel she shouldn’t have been suspended. I think in this situation, ESPN would have been damned whether they suspended her or not. Unfortunately for McHenry, even if she was just simply defending herself (however nasty it looked), she’s still going to be viewed as the wrong party because she’s the one whose face is on TV daily.
When Fang brought up that “someone needs to hold them accountable,” I immediately left the sports realm and thought of the UVA rape-Rolling Stone scandal. Columbia Journalism Review did a great in-depth piece on what went wrong in the reporting. It was a lengthy, but well-written criticism of the initial Rolling Stone article. I thought it was strange that Rolling Stone decided to keep both the reporter and editor on staff, without any sort of punishment. For me, keeping them both on staff will always raise doubt in terms of the content they produce. They needed to be held accountable in my opinion, and Rolling Stone’s decision made me cast serious doubt on the credibility of their reporting.
I think what was interesting that both Fang and Lipstye brought up was the fact that other people outside of those being criticized themselves and the rest of the media read these stories. Unfortunately, people love to see public figures fall and make mistakes. Whether you’re the lead anchor of Worlds News or the newest reporter for the PAC-12 Network, you need to remember that your life is subject to public criticism. I think this seminar really hit that point home.
Pat O'Rourke posted on April 21, 2015 at 11:40 pm
I think media criticism could be the hardest job there is within the industry. I don’t know how you can honestly critique your peers when you have relationships with many of those you’re critiquing, or in the case of Robert Lipsyte — working for ESPN — getting a paycheck from a particular organization.
It’s certainly not a job for everybody. But there are many in the industry who have perfected the craft. Of course there’s Lipsyte and Ken Fang, who are two of the best. In Boston, you have Bruce Allen, who runs the Boston Sports Media Watch blog, as well as Chad Finn, who is a columnist for Boston.com who writes a media column every Friday in the Boston Globe. Both are fair in their critiques, have good connections within the market, and know the market’s audience well enough to know what listeners are looking for.
That said, it’s not for everybody. I don’t think I could be a media critic. I’m just not comfortable telling my colleagues how they should be doing their jobs. But like Kelly said, it’s certainly important to have. It gives the masses a voice, to an extent, as the media critics will express concerns and views that many in the audience, who don’t have a column, hold. It keeps the industry honest.
Alex Hirsch posted on April 22, 2015 at 10:16 am
I find media criticism to be very interesting. I find myself thinking a multitude of things. The first thing I find myself thinking is that I would welcome the critique. Another person weighing in on how I can better myself is just great advice. And it is free. But, that could be the student in me that is still eager to learn. I do not know how I would react if I was a professional. But, for the time being I say bring it on. All the criticism is going to do is help me become a better journalist.
The next thing that I think is who are these people to criticize me. I have never heard of half of the critics out there and nor do I know what certifies them to be able critique me. How am I supposed to know where they got their education? It is different than a teacher critiquing me, because that is what the teacher is suppose to do. But, how do I separate the people that know what they are talking about, like Robert Lipsyte, from the fools out there? Anyone can critique anyone, but that does not mean they all know what they are talking about. As much as I welcome the criticism, I could see myself getting very frustrated with the average joe critiquing me out of spite or jealousy.
Then I find myself thinking, well who is holding them accountable? Just because their job is media criticism or the ombudsman, does not mean they are always entirely right either. Who is going to be criticizing them to make sure they are not crossing the line? The problem with that is then there is a never ending chain of criticism and we start to get away from what our job is; journalism…not critiquing.
It is important to have a watchdog. There is no doubt about that. Maybe, I am just fuzzy on the details, but I would love to know how these people are hired and where they learned to critique. Just because you were hired or run a successful business does not always mean you know what you are talking about.
Nicholas Picht posted on April 22, 2015 at 3:35 pm
I literally had not given media criticism an ounce of thought before this seminar. Not only that, I didn’t even think media criticism was a profession until last week. And maybe that’s a little ignorant. But listening to Robert and Ken talk about their jobs went a long way to show me how important media critics are in order to, as Ken said, “hold them accountable.”
Of all the things they said last week, the most eye-opening stuff came from Robert when he discussed being Ombudsman for ESPN. Once again, before this seminar, I didn’t know what being an Ombudsman really meant. But, after hearing him, he sounded like the perfect candidate for one – a guy who can see through the BS, so to speak, and can really assess a situation for what it’s worth. And clearly, according to him, there’s not much journalism going on at the Worldwide Leader. I was really impressed with how open and honest he was with aspiring sports reporters, some of whom want to end up working at ESPN one day.
Another point that Robert made that I’ve always stood behind is that sports journalism is important because sports are important to American life. It teaches young children values (camaraderie, courage, etc.) that will help shape the kinds of people they become later in life. Maybe that’s why ESPN disappoints me so much and why his points resonated the way they did. I am so passionate about sports and the lessons they teach that I feel like they should be covered as thoroughly as news.
But like Robert mentioned, there are some dark forces at play in sports. It’s only human nature to want to get an edge, one way or another. Look at the Kris Bryant case; look at the college athlete issue. They are all ways for executives to manipulate the athletes to get ahead. Those stories NEED to be told, and they are told extremely half-heartedly (or not at all in regards to the NCAA issue) by ESPN. It really is a shame, considering all the knowledge and manpower they have.
The last piece I want to get to is the Britt McHenry video and subsequent suspension. I actually think ESPN made the right decision to suspend her, for other reasons than for her pulling the “Do you know who I am…I’m on TV” card (which makes me so sick to my stomach). Regardless of whether or not this towing company is corrupt, she knew she was being videoed. And as a member of not only the media, but the most powerful sports company in the world, you need to be way more conscious of your words and actions in that situation. That being said, the tow truck side of this story absolutely needs to be investigated as well.
keiko talley posted on April 22, 2015 at 3:41 pm
I found this seminar very interesting. I too never thought about the media criticism route. I think I never considered media criticism because I struggle with if it is journalism. To be honest I still don’t know if I consider media critics journalists. I’m just not sure what makes them qualified to be the “all knowing” when it comes to journalists and how they report things. In my opinion anyone can sit behind a computer screen and type up what they think was done right and wrong, but mostly wrong. The truth of the matter is that there will always be someone who will have something to say about you, so in that sense I would have to agree with Howard Cosell’s line.
The speakers for this seminar were interesting to say the least. I felt that Robert Lipsyte was a little too much for my taste, however he’s been a critic for a long time and seems to have a much larger opinion on things than Ken Fang.
In regards to Brit McHenry, I can read as many articles there are on the subject, but my opinion is never going to change. I don’t care how famous someone gets, getting your car towed happens if you’re Donald Trump or if your me. I’m sure that if Brit tried a nicer approach and the attendant knew who she was she might of gotten off for it, but instead of trying to be kind she threw a celebrity tantrum. I struggle with if being suspended for a week was even enough/fair. She wasn’t acting like that while being a reporter or on camera; she was just being a civilian when it happened. But the fact that she knew that she was on camera and told the attendant that she is on TV she had to of known that it would have been leaked.
Media critics do a good job, in my opinion, or attempting to hold people accountable for their actions. However, I don’t think that their line of work is journalism and still don’t think that I would venture down that road…even if I cant make it in this business.
Sara Varela posted on April 22, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I’m taking an arts criticism course this semester, and during the beginning of the Brian Williams (NBC) controversy, we talked a little bit about media criticism. When it comes to cases like Williams, which is very different from the Mchenry (ESPN) situation, I’m not sure if media criticism can prevent the situation or deter any wrong actions. As a journalist, it’s the reporter’s responsibility to provide accurate information to the audience and follow a set of ethical guidelines. That doesn’t mean journalism reviews aren’t needed, they just don’t always handle the day-to-day reporting that goes on in a newsroom. Performance reviews are just as necessary as journalism reviews because on tv there’s often a higher level of confidence and trust given to reporters. At ESPN, Lipsyte focused on how the organization reported news rather than their on-air performances, which is more of what Fang’s criticism examines.
One thing I learned from my arts criticism course and this seminar is that being a critic takes a lot of practice. Most critics have been writing for years and become skilled at noticing things the average viewer might not see or hear but could be influenced by. Journalists need to remember how much influence on public opinion and knowledge they have, and media criticism is a way reminding them. I think media criticism is beneficial for the audience because people are still watching poor segments on ESPN and have no idea there’s something wrong. A lot of critics, arts or otherwise, don’t like to be called a critic because of the negative connotation, but critics don’t always have negative things to say. Fang said multiple times that he tries to be fair in his reporting, and I think the same goes for others. Other journalists have to open to the media critic and see them as a resource rather than an annoyance.
Dylan Haines posted on April 22, 2015 at 8:42 pm
Media critics keep the media in check to an extent. This is needed to make sure that journalists and organizations maintain some standards when producing work. The seminar showed me that there are two types of critics for me. One type is a hired watchdog like an ombudsman. The other type makes a living off of mistakes in the media.
Because of this second type of critic, I think people who may not be qualified can be a “journalist” by poking fun at others who make a mistake. Fang stated that he worked as a news reporter before sports journalism so I understand that he has work experience in journalism. Despite this, I can fathom the thought that some critics may just wake up each day and watch tv waiting for a mistake to make a blog post about. It is an easy hobby to have.
As for the ombudsman position, I think the idea of an organization hiring a person to watch over it is a smart move. This allows for a credible person to be hired to critique the work of people in the organization. The criticism is coming from a respected voice that reviews all that is said in and around the organization. I think it also gives the audience some assurance that a major organization is not perfect and that it can take heat from one of its employees, on top of its audience.
As for being a media critic, I don’t think I will pursue that path, but knowing about critics will remind me to be accurate in my work. It is good to know that critics are out there, some for entertainment, others for more serious reasons.
Nick Garrido posted on April 22, 2015 at 10:37 pm
I first started reading sports media criticism articles a year ago, when I read that Matt Zemek started writing tennis articles for Awful Announcing. I found it very interesting at the time and still find the articles I read over on Awful Announcing to be super interesting. Zemek tackles a lot of the issues of why tennis falls behind all the major sports in terms of its coverage, and the mistakes that are made in terms of how they stack the material in the broadcasts.
There is definitely a role for media critics in sports. Both the guests we had last week are great at what they do, they’re both confident in what they report, and what they decide to write on. I have never thought about being a media critic personally, but I have a lot of respect for media critics, and the fact that they put themselves out there by holding people accountable.
This seminar was important because i’m sure there were a lot of people in the class that have never really thought about media criticism as a profession, as in criticizing ESPN and other sports journalists on a full time basis. I don’t think this seminar necessarily changed people views on becoming media critics but it was necessary for the class to hear that there are people in the business holding sports journalists accountable. Its not to necessarily scare us when we do become journalists, but it was good for us to hear how the business is like from two very successful individuals.
ESPN is an enormous empire and they don’t make the morally correct decision all the time. All their suspensions of employees have been all over the place when it comes to the length of them and the reasons why. I’m glad people were calling ESPN and putting pressure on them, asking them for comment. It forced them to act quickly on the McHenry situation. Just because they’re this big empire in sports journalism doesn’t mean that they should be exempt from criticism. There should always be checks and balances.
Katie Peverada posted on April 22, 2015 at 11:13 pm
When we were discussing whether or not ESPN would be taking on another Ombudsman, I thought to myself that they don’t really need one. In today’s society, we’re all critics (especially of ESPN!) I think the reaction of people to recent ESPN transgressions is, in a way, accountability. We’re all already media critics. I think Robert Lipsyte really pointed this out when he said “Why should we pay someone to do it when we have these guys do it for free?” ESPN doesn’t need to pay anybody to criticize them – fans around the world are doing it right now. However, I think it’s important that the criticism also comes from an accomplished and valid person, such as Lipsyte, so that ESPN can’t just pass it off as an angry fan. Which brings me to a point Alex made in his post: how do we know they’re qualified or how do we know they’re not crossing the line? Well, maybe a media critic doesn’t necessarily have to be an award-winning journalist, they just have to present the argument in a fair manner. As Ken Fang said, being on the inside at various points gave him the enlightenment he needed. He knows what works and what doesn’t work. So while I haven’t read a ton of Lipsyte’s or Ken Fang’s stuff, but I doubt it’s that far removed from what any one of us would have said on that matter.
In terms of if criticism is fair or not, I think Lipsyte saying “If you call someone a liar, you need video of his pants on fire. You’ve got to back it up” is as simple as it gets. Criticism – of a particular piece I write or of the way ESPN runs it’s ESPNw website – is fair as long as it is backed up. If someone has an issue with something I write, fine. If they tear my argument apart, fine. My ego will hurt, sure, but if they have something valid to back up their argument with then how is that different from what I did? It’s just a matter of how we take it – how ESPN can take criticism and use it – that can make a big difference (unfortunately I think ESPN is in the high position where it doesn’t really matter what they do, even if we do change the channel).
Finally, let me be clear: what Brit McHenry did was a wrong, abhorred act of selfishness celebrity. But what Brit McHenry did was in no way related to her journalism; she didn’t cross a journalistic line. McHenry crossed a line as a human being and as such is now seeing both her journalism and humanism criticized. So, in that vein, why do I feel like this is receiving much more attention then when Stephen A. Smith said that women are responsible for provoking men in cases of domestic violence/rape because of how they dress or act. Smith said that when he was ON AIR being a journalist. Yes, he got suspended, but I really don’t think his egregious “journalism” got a lot of attention, or at least not as much as McHenry is getting. I’m at a loss as to why that is, so perhaps someone else can enlighten me…
Conor Ryan posted on April 22, 2015 at 11:59 pm
For hundreds of years, journalism has served as the fifth estate, operating as a watchdog to keep multiple facets of society in society in check.
When it comes to the world of sports journalism, writers and broadcasters have operated in a similar vein, harping on athletes and franchises that run amok or operate on the wrong side of morality.
However, a recent trend has seen sports journalists turn their attention to the media itself, focusing on disturbing trends and faulty hot takes that spill out on the internet, in newspapers, through the airwaves and on TV sets.
It can be easy for some to be skeptical of media criticism within sports. For some, the main function of sites like Deadspin and Awful Announcing essentially equate to nothing more than pandering to crowd-sourced witch hunt, attacking other members of the sports industry that are simply looking to stake their own claim in the market.
While it can be easy to look down on media criticism, the simple fact of the matter is that it has become a necessary presence in this evolving content-heavy world.
Sports writers, broadcasters and personalities now need to be accountable for their words, rants and actions because in this age — in which these people can constantly cram their own content, stories, and highlights on multiple media outlets — there needs to be someone on hand to knock these people down a peg if they get too brash or ridiculous with the way they do their job.
As Robert Lipsyte noted, while everyone involved in sports journalism became enthralled with the idea of sports and competition growing up, but as we mature, we realize that some individuals within sports — whether they reside on the field or up in the media booth — that have less-than-reputable intentions.
It’s up to sports media critics to call them out on their poor product. With media juggernauts like Skip Bayless and Colin Cowherd only continuing to grow in influence and sway, it only serves as the logical thing to do.
Lee Altman posted on April 23, 2015 at 12:27 am
“I was there,” Brian Williams said. But he really wasn’t and the military publication Stars and Stripes called him out and made have pay dearly for it. Williams was guilty of more than simply embellishing; he had lied to the people.
The world of journalism is now a democracy. As much as we like to think that the Rupert Murdochs and John Skippers of the world control what we think and how we feel, the truth is actually quite the contrary. The people decide what will be the news. As Lipsyte alluded to, when the people wanted Tebow stories, they got Tebow stories. One can argue that Tebow mania became redundant and lifeless after a certain point but the viewership, readers and ratings acted as life support pumping oxygen into its lungs and keeping its heart beating. “ESPN is pragmatic,” Lypsyte said.
In the ever-evolving world of journalism, the consumers of media have also become its gatekeepers. It seems that Brian Williams failed to understand that you no longer have to be “there,” to have the story. For many media consumers, it makes no difference if they hear the latest news from someone at the scene, or from someone in their mother’s basement. After all, John Clayton reports from a study in his house. He could broadcast without pants on and viewers would be none the wiser.
Burgeoning websites such as Twitter and Buzzfeed represent the new age of journalism. The topics that appeal to consumers become trends and aggregate to the top of the newsfeed. In the traditional forms of journalism, information was disseminated according to the editorial judgment of a few. The increased access to countless sources of news, however, has given the people the power. Individuals can follow multiple news sources simultaneously and access any information they find interesting or appealing. Furthermore, the comment sections and “like” counters on website pages, and Facebook, Instagram and Twitter posts allows people to give feedback- whether it be praise or criticism.
In this sense, information has truly become democratized. For instance, say a news source makes an editorial decision to run three stories as headliners: Dwight Howard Dunks; Tyson Chandler gets dunked on; Tyson Chandler blocks Dwight Howard. If these stories receive equal weight and distribution on the original posting site, then it can be assumed that the views of each story should more or less be equal. However, if an individual on Twitter has one thousand followers and chooses to repost only one of the three stories on his or her own Twitter account, then the viewership of that specific story increases by 1,000.
Since everyone is now a media critic, the question is whether the “professional” media critics and ombudsmen have become obsolete. At the end of the day, the credentials of the media critics seems to be the only thing that sets them apart from everyone else. Media critics such as Lipsyte have the experience to back up their opinions. As Brian Williams would say… “They were there.”
Josh Schrock posted on April 23, 2015 at 10:14 am
The question that I’ve always had about media critics is what qualifies them to critique someone else? In Lipscyte’s case can you really fairly critique an organization that is signing your checks? Hearing Lipsyte discuss his time at ESPN and how doing good journalism isn’t something that they care about because it doesn’t affect the bottom line, which is making money. That was interesting to me because a lot of us in this program aspire to one-day work for an organization that doesn’t prioritize or care about the skills we are trying to sharpen and hone. After the seminar I asked Lipsyte if he thought ESPN would ever make a concerted effort toward doing really good journalism and his response was “no because they don’t have any need for it and probably won’t because people watch regardless.” I guess that’s why it’s called the Entertainment Sports Programming Network. Following the seminar I did feel like I had a better understanding of the need for a media critic. I think it’s important to have someone telling you that you covered the Aaron Hernandez story from the wrong angle or have been to slow or soft on concussion issues, the only question I was left with was do they effect change in the coverage?
Joe Weil posted on April 23, 2015 at 2:10 pm
I found it interesting to hear Ken and Robert talk about their roles in the sports journalism world. It’s easy to say these “dogwatchers” aren’t necessary within this field, but the truth is they are. We’re interested in issues regarding coverage, sports personalities, etc. One reason why the Britt McHenry thing is getting so much press is because she IS a sports media personality.
I’ve been an on-and-off reader of Awful Announcing for a couple years now and I like the content they put out. It’s relevant, informative, and sometimes pretty funny. For instance, I enjoyed their criticism of a very “hot-takeish”(if that’s a word) column by Skip Bayless from a couple years ago. The internet and websites like this allow for a fair checks and balance system. If an outlet like ESPN is going to let Skip express his opinions in an outlandish way, that gives people like Ken and Robert every right to criticize him and ESPN.
I don’t think I could ever be in this niche field, but I give credit to these guys. To be good you have to be fair and that’s tough considering the brotherhood within sports journalism. Networking is huge in our field and it takes balls to call someone out or have a difference in opinion. For instance, when ESPN suspended Bill Simmons in September, I was strongly against it. But when I asked Robert about it, I was shocked at how much I agreed with him by the end of his argument. I still love Bill Simmons, but he’s right: What other media member would get away with daring his bosses to suspend him? I respect Robert a lot for having that viewpoint.
My only problem with the “dogwatchers” is that the content they put out is mostly negative. That’s why I enjoy reading Richard Deitsch from Sports Illustrated. While he critiques on sports media in generals, he also links well-written articles and gives praise when need be. I hope more people in the sports media criticism world can be like him.
Karly Finison posted on April 23, 2015 at 2:22 pm
Though I was unable to attend the discussion on media criticism, it seems as though it was very timely given the recent Britt McHenry situation.
Sure McHenry’s comments were morally wrong. They were insulting. But even with them being so disrespectful and for most of us, cringeworthy, they are still giving McHenry publicity, though critical.
Katie says, “what Britt McHenry did was in no way related to her journalism; she didn’t cross a journalistic line. McHenry crossed a line as a human being and as such is now seeing both her journalism and humanism criticized.” I would argue that McHenry’s comments did cross a journalistic line. As a public figure in the media, professional and personal life have the potential to be one. Besides, much of McHenry’s rant was comparing her journalism career to the parking attendant’s career. She says, “I wouldn’t work at a scumbag place like this. Makes my skin crawl even being here.” And goes on to say, “’cause I’m on television and you’re in a (expletive) trailer, honey. Lose some weight, baby girl.”
At the end of the day, the majority of America knows McHenry as an ESPN sports reporter. Thus, to separate her “journalism” and “humanism” seems impossible in this situation. With that said, even given the disgusting and entitled behavior McHenry displayed, “scandal” is something media industries crave. And McHenry will be back just in time for the NFL Draft.
Katharine Huntley-Bachers posted on May 5, 2015 at 8:39 pm
The concept of media criticism was one that I had never really thought of before. I found it extremely intriguing that ESPN would hire someone to critique themselves. I do see why it is necessary because it ensures at least a little bit of checks and balances. However, for anyone who has been in the business it has to be difficult to critique peers. I can’t imagine having to critique the writing or broadcasting of my peers on a public level.
As it does have to be a very difficult job, I think it would be hard to abandon reporting directly on the news of the day. I can imagine that it becomes grating not being able to create your own media after spending years of doing it. However with the instance of Britt McHenry, the role of media critics became EXTREMELY important. For a member of the media to treat a member in the service community like that is abhorrent. But that is just one of the many questionable things surrounding ESPN. As is well documented, they are not an organization that is concerned very terribly on journalistic principles, but apparently sports fans aren’t concerned with that.