Today's sports blogging must-read comes from Jason Chung, a fellow at The Project on Law and Mind Sciences at Harvard University Law School. Blogging at The Situationist, Chung, a native of Quebec, Canada who has written extensively about the intersection of sport and law, takes a hard look at the deleterious effects of the NHL ending its television relationship with ESPN, and how the end of that business relationship has led the "worldwide leader" to purposely reinforce the notion that the league is failing:
The reduced exposure on ESPN can only be harmful to the NHL. By minimizing coverage and highlights, the network is effectively reducing the imprint of the game on Americans’ collective sports consciousness. Worse still, several ESPN writers and commentators have gone out of their way to emphasize the demise of hockey. Le Ann Schreiber recently noted that during the NHL’s regular season, hockey was only mentioned on-air if there happened to be “some egregious brawl” or if it was being “dissed” for its invisibility and irrelevance.
In sharp contrast to the treatment of the NHL, ESPN favorites such as NASCAR face little scrutiny and massive hype. Once a niche sport with limited appeal, NASCAR is ESPN’s new hot property and has found itself to be the chief beneficiary of the network’s downgrading of hockey. Northwest News Group columnist Kevin Kaduk notes that since ESPN’s purchase of NASCAR broadcast rights, the network has been force-feeding the sport to its readers via its various news outlets. Indeed in January 2007, ESPN senior vice president Jed Drake explicitly promised as much. Unlike its coverage of the NHL, ESPN has shown remarkable patience with NASCAR as evidenced by its burying or putting a positive spin on negative NASCAR news such as that of falling TV ratings for the sport.
Later, Chung notes that ESPN's actions are having a deeper and far more corrosive effect on the sport:
Surely, ESPN’s attitude towards hockey influences its audience. Herbert C. Kelman of Harvard University notes that there are three source characteristics necessary to persuade others and change their attitudes: the source’s (1) expertise, (2) trustworthiness, and (3) power. Of course, ESPN scores a hat trick by (1) regularly hosting a series of experts on various sporting subjects, (2) hosting several hard-news sports programs, and (3) attracting sports’ heavy hitters to its airwaves. Thus, ESPN can exert informational and normative social influence on sports fans who, like the rest of us, seek consensus and conformity far more than we realize.
No kidding. Over the past number of months, we've seen this conformity play out in the press over and over again, as news of the NHL's low television ratings get repeated weeks after the end of the Stanley Cup Finals, in the repetitive columns of Norman Chad or the on-air rantings of ESPN's Tony Kornheiser.
So what's the solution? For one, as others have noted before, it's always a good time to note the downside of ESPN's absolute dominance over televised sports. At the end of the day, what we're talking about above are simply the techniques that ESPN is using to attack the NHL and run it down in the eyes of the American sports fan. Why do that? Because every fan that can be convinced that Versus is too hard to find, or that hockey is the sport of the past -- despite the fact that more Americans are playing the sport today than ever before -- means more sports fans who can be force fed whatever ESPN might be fronting at the time -- be it MLS, Poker, or even the WNBA.
Here's an idea -- why not treat ESPN personalities like Mike Greenburg who run down the sport the same way we ought to treat anybody who has too much power?
Fight the power. Question authority. Think for yourself. Watch hockey.
Thanks to old sports blogging hand Michael McCann for the pointer.
People forget the chain of events with the NHL and ESPN but ESPN first relegated the NHL to ESPN2 in the final year of the NHL's contract with ABC and ESPN until the Conference Finals. ESPN then went ahead and canceled NHL2nite in the middle of the season.
After the season was over ESPN flat out refused to put any games on ABC (this was when ESPN was taking over the ABC Sports department) and signed a two year deal with the NHL with an out clasue after one season.
The lockout hit and after the NHL announced their return, ESPN exercised their out clause and tried to seriously lowball the NHL.
Personally, I don't blame the NHL for saying enough is enough and going to a channel "as hard to find as Versus is."
Secondly, like all great empires, ESPN is crumbling from underneath their own weight. More and more sports fans are becoming fed up with their New York Centric coverage and hype. 10 years ago wasn't a good time to challenge ESPN but right now ESPN is ripe for the picking.
Could Versus be that challenger and can the NHL provide the vehicle? It remains to be seen but why should the NHL settle for being treated like a red-headed step-child just because they're ESPN? Look at the coverage the MLS gets from ESPN. They too are relegated to ESPN2 and all throughout last week's D.C. United-Colorado Rapids game we were treated to in game updates on the NBA Draft (which was on ESPN) and the commentators started talking about the NBA and NBA players during an MLS game. Why should any league put up with that?
http://www.ericmcerlain.com/offwingopinion...7668.php#007668
