As you will read in Chapter 7 of the Handbook, the success of the sports talk radio format began with the creation of WFAN-AM New York back in 1987. The amazing part of the evolution of this format is that it's really a Cinderella story...an underdog that overcame great odds. When Emmis Broadcasting purchased the rights to WHN (later changed to WFAN) in 1987, there really was no such thing as sports talk radio. Only one other radio station (KMVP in Denver) had ever attempted all-sports programming and that attempt failed miserably. In fact, when WFAN first began, critics and those with knowledge of the radio industry thought it would never last. The prevailing thought was that the topic of sports "was too narrow-that nobody would listen to sports all day." Well, almost 21 years later, WFAN is one of the most successful radio stations in history and the sports talk radio format is featured by hundreds of other stations all across the United States.
http://www.sportsline.com/cbssports/story/10230568
The article that I've posted isn't a controversial piece or even an article that really raises any issues. WFAN celebrated its 20 year anniversary last summer, a benchmark for a radio station that wasn't supposed to survive one year. Growing up in the suburbs of New York City, I have always been a loyal listener of the station. Last summer, I was interning at the FAN as they celebrated their 20-year achievement. I'm not old enough to remember/imagine a time when sports talk radio would not have been considered relevant. The point is, we as fans in this day and age, devote so much of our time to following the games we love and voicing our opinions in discussions and debates about games/players/teams/etc. The question is why? Just 20 years ago, this idea of around the clock sports coverage/talk was considered ludicrous. Yet, in a span of two decades, it has become an industry standard.
Again, the question I pose to the group is why? Sure we love sports and we're consumed by it as American fans. But why have mediums like WFAN and ESPN and all the other exclusive sports media outlets found so much success? In the current day the answer seems simple, but this idea was considered impossible a short time ago. How have we changed as a society to provide so much success for such an idea? No doubt we value sports in this country and take great pride in rooting for our teams...but all day every day? Why are we not more focused on other aspects of our lives or life in general? Or do we use sports as an excuse to avoid our problems...the ultimate procrastination method?
There are a lot of different ways to look at the evolution of the sports talk format. On the radio, it all began with WFAN 21 years ago...let's figure out why.
Monday, February 25, 2008
TV and Radio, ESPN Runs em Both
In September of 1999, the Chicago Tribune ran an article about long time ESPN sports anchor Dan Patrick and his move into radio. Patrick spent 10 ½ years behind the “SportsCenter” desk spewing one liners. He felt the need for a change and worked out a deal with ESPN so that he could get his own three hour time slot on ESPN radio.
Patrick, 42, seems to be going backwards in a time where most radio personalities want to get their faces on television. With the incredible success he has received from being on ESPN, Patrick saw the need to try something he had not done since he first got into the business. He started his career running religious tapes for a rock station in Dayton. His career has skyrocketed since then on the world’s biggest sports distributer.
The story behind this article is the fact that ESPN truly owns all sports media markets. They have made incredible strides in cable and the way sports are viewed on television today. In less than 30 years ESPN was able to create the market which no one dared to venture into and make it so successful that it was able to branch off into many different outlets in the sports world. The two subjects dealt with in this week’s blog are radio and television. These are two medians that ESPN has engulfed and taken over on the company’s journey to greatness.
What Dan Patrick was able to do with his companies great success was make a name for himself on television, then move to the radio market and use his fame from television to start his radio career. This is great proof of the power ESPN has generated in such a short amount of time. ESPN has many personalities from the radio chomping at the bit to try and join their staff and break into television. So Dan Patrick does the opposite and puts on the headphones after an illustrious career on screen. As long as ESPN continues their dominance in the sports they will forever be in control of the two most popular means of distributing sports, TV and radio.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=7&did=44405025&SrchMode=1&sid=4&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1203915078&clientId=8920
Patrick, 42, seems to be going backwards in a time where most radio personalities want to get their faces on television. With the incredible success he has received from being on ESPN, Patrick saw the need to try something he had not done since he first got into the business. He started his career running religious tapes for a rock station in Dayton. His career has skyrocketed since then on the world’s biggest sports distributer.
The story behind this article is the fact that ESPN truly owns all sports media markets. They have made incredible strides in cable and the way sports are viewed on television today. In less than 30 years ESPN was able to create the market which no one dared to venture into and make it so successful that it was able to branch off into many different outlets in the sports world. The two subjects dealt with in this week’s blog are radio and television. These are two medians that ESPN has engulfed and taken over on the company’s journey to greatness.
What Dan Patrick was able to do with his companies great success was make a name for himself on television, then move to the radio market and use his fame from television to start his radio career. This is great proof of the power ESPN has generated in such a short amount of time. ESPN has many personalities from the radio chomping at the bit to try and join their staff and break into television. So Dan Patrick does the opposite and puts on the headphones after an illustrious career on screen. As long as ESPN continues their dominance in the sports they will forever be in control of the two most popular means of distributing sports, TV and radio.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=7&did=44405025&SrchMode=1&sid=4&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1203915078&clientId=8920
Should Premium Sports Channels Make Fans Pay to Watch Their Favorite Teams?
As we read in MediaSport the way fans watch sports is changing all the time. From the failed idea in the 1990's of a premium channel called "The Baseball Network," to now "NFL Sunday Ticket," and channels such as "The NFL Network," "NBA TV," and the new "NHL Network." There are so many different ways to watch sports these days, but is this a good thing?
In 2006, "The NFL Network," which football fans can only watch if they have a premium cable deal began to exclusivly show one NFL game per week on their network beginning on Thanksgiving, going untill the end of the regular season.
The NFL was highly scrutinized by its fans for putting their games, which had always been on free national television stations (FOX, CBS, NBC, ESPN) on a channel that not even half of the country was getting in their cable plans, and would have to pay to get.
The last week of the 2007-2008 NFL season had the New England Patriots, who were 15-0 in New Jersey to take on the New York Giants. If the Patriots won this game, they would be the first team in NFL history to finish their regular season with a record of 16-0. This game was scheduled to appear on the "NFL Network," which at this point in time was available to 43 million cable and satellite homes. Because of the historical implications of this game and the high demand of fans who wanted to watch the game, the NFL made a deal to simulcast the "NFL Network's" broadcast on "ABC" and "NBC," which brought the game to nearly 60 million more homes for free.
The question I pose is should premium channels like "The NFL Network" or "NBA TV" be allowed to broadcast games exclusivly on their networks and make fans who want to see them pay in a "pay-per-view" fashion?
As stated earlier, the NFL games used to always be free on national television and now, fans sometimes will have to miss their favoite team's game because they are being shown on these premium channels that not many households get.
What do you think? Is this fair?...
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978169.html?categoryid=1011&cs=1
In 2006, "The NFL Network," which football fans can only watch if they have a premium cable deal began to exclusivly show one NFL game per week on their network beginning on Thanksgiving, going untill the end of the regular season.
The NFL was highly scrutinized by its fans for putting their games, which had always been on free national television stations (FOX, CBS, NBC, ESPN) on a channel that not even half of the country was getting in their cable plans, and would have to pay to get.
The last week of the 2007-2008 NFL season had the New England Patriots, who were 15-0 in New Jersey to take on the New York Giants. If the Patriots won this game, they would be the first team in NFL history to finish their regular season with a record of 16-0. This game was scheduled to appear on the "NFL Network," which at this point in time was available to 43 million cable and satellite homes. Because of the historical implications of this game and the high demand of fans who wanted to watch the game, the NFL made a deal to simulcast the "NFL Network's" broadcast on "ABC" and "NBC," which brought the game to nearly 60 million more homes for free.
The question I pose is should premium channels like "The NFL Network" or "NBA TV" be allowed to broadcast games exclusivly on their networks and make fans who want to see them pay in a "pay-per-view" fashion?
As stated earlier, the NFL games used to always be free on national television and now, fans sometimes will have to miss their favoite team's game because they are being shown on these premium channels that not many households get.
What do you think? Is this fair?...
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978169.html?categoryid=1011&cs=1
Monday, February 11, 2008
Getting too close to the action?
Posted on behalf of Kellan O'Neill:
In May of 2005, the Houston Chronicle takes a look back into one of the worst photojournalism moments of all time, the “Mistake By the Lake”. It is the story of Mike Gallagher, a reporter for a television station in Pennsylvania, who experienced a life changing injury in a Dec. 18, 1988 NFL game at the old Cleveland Stadium.
After attempting to capture the photo that would snag headlines and front pages of magazines and newspapers across the nation, Gallagher found out what it was like to be tackled by two professional NFL players. Too close to the action, Gallagher collided with two players in the back of the end zone, forcing him to have over 31 surgeries and spend thousands of medical bills.
Now we all have a laugh or chuckle at the expense of a sideline official, cameraman, or reporter being taken out by a player near the sidelines or the back of the end zones in an NFL game. It fairly humorous when their legs are cut out from beneath them, right? But when it is all said and done, what are the reporters and journalists really trying to do in the long run? They are trying to get that huge story or monumental photo that is on the cover of every magazine/paper on the newsstand the following morning.
The issue at hand is, are these reporters getting too close to the game to the point where one they put themselves in harms way, in addition to endangering the safety of the players? Do reporters on the sidelines ruin the on going play of the game itself? Is it truly worth it for these reporters to sacrifice so much for newsstand glory? And finally, as fans, is that all we look for in a magazine or newspaper article? Are the headlines and cover photos all that influence us to get up on Monday morning and read about the following games on Sunday?
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=4&did=830959961&SrchMode=1&sid=5&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1202744607&clientId=8920
In May of 2005, the Houston Chronicle takes a look back into one of the worst photojournalism moments of all time, the “Mistake By the Lake”. It is the story of Mike Gallagher, a reporter for a television station in Pennsylvania, who experienced a life changing injury in a Dec. 18, 1988 NFL game at the old Cleveland Stadium.
After attempting to capture the photo that would snag headlines and front pages of magazines and newspapers across the nation, Gallagher found out what it was like to be tackled by two professional NFL players. Too close to the action, Gallagher collided with two players in the back of the end zone, forcing him to have over 31 surgeries and spend thousands of medical bills.
Now we all have a laugh or chuckle at the expense of a sideline official, cameraman, or reporter being taken out by a player near the sidelines or the back of the end zones in an NFL game. It fairly humorous when their legs are cut out from beneath them, right? But when it is all said and done, what are the reporters and journalists really trying to do in the long run? They are trying to get that huge story or monumental photo that is on the cover of every magazine/paper on the newsstand the following morning.
The issue at hand is, are these reporters getting too close to the game to the point where one they put themselves in harms way, in addition to endangering the safety of the players? Do reporters on the sidelines ruin the on going play of the game itself? Is it truly worth it for these reporters to sacrifice so much for newsstand glory? And finally, as fans, is that all we look for in a magazine or newspaper article? Are the headlines and cover photos all that influence us to get up on Monday morning and read about the following games on Sunday?
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=4&did=830959961&SrchMode=1&sid=5&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1202744607&clientId=8920
Journalists Responsibility in the Steroid Era
As the steroid scandal in baseball continues to grow and evolve, one issue that is constantly discussed is what role the media has played throughout the Steroid Era. In many people's opinions, sports journalists are just as guilty as ownership and the commissioner's office in ignoring an epidemic that was right in front of them for years. This issue is an example that brings to question the legitimacy of calling "sports journalists" real journalists. After all, they are covering a game. The article I've posted discusses some problems sports journalists face and questions the roles of sports journalists to the American public: http://thephoenix.com/Article.aspx?id=8312&page=4
It is an interesting issue that has a variety of possible opinions. Some people simply want their sports reporters to supply them with information on their favorite teams. They could care less about what is going on in a player's personal life. Others want to know about such gossip, which would require a reporter to some investigative reporting.
Sports have grown into such an institution that it has an unparalleled impact on the economy and society as a whole. Based on this concept, it seems necessary for sports to be reported as closely as it is followed by die-hard fans throughout the country.
The passion fans feel towards their teams may be the reason why sports are covered so passively. Sports journalists are usually the biggest of sports fans. Therefore, they most likely would hate to uncover a scandal, such as steroids, that would tarnish the pastime they adore.
What responsibility do you feel sports journalists have when it comes to issues such as steroids, and do you think the personal lives of sports celebrities are newsworthy? How much if any blame do you place on journalists for leaving the story untouched for so long? How do you think you would perform under similar circumstances as a sports fan?
It is an interesting issue that has a variety of possible opinions. Some people simply want their sports reporters to supply them with information on their favorite teams. They could care less about what is going on in a player's personal life. Others want to know about such gossip, which would require a reporter to some investigative reporting.
Sports have grown into such an institution that it has an unparalleled impact on the economy and society as a whole. Based on this concept, it seems necessary for sports to be reported as closely as it is followed by die-hard fans throughout the country.
The passion fans feel towards their teams may be the reason why sports are covered so passively. Sports journalists are usually the biggest of sports fans. Therefore, they most likely would hate to uncover a scandal, such as steroids, that would tarnish the pastime they adore.
What responsibility do you feel sports journalists have when it comes to issues such as steroids, and do you think the personal lives of sports celebrities are newsworthy? How much if any blame do you place on journalists for leaving the story untouched for so long? How do you think you would perform under similar circumstances as a sports fan?
Photojournalist Billboards
In July, 2007 an article appeared in the Chicago Tribune describing a troublesome problem that they and other media are having with the NFL. The NFL has gone one step further in their quest for advertising space by requiring all photojournalists on the field to wear bright red vests. Doesn't sound so bad, the vests are good for security and other aspects of the game. However, these bright red vests are also an advertising scheme, with logos and sponsor names on them as well.
This move angered many people in the media. The photojournalists that are present at NFL games are not employed by the NFL. Therefore they do not feel as if they should have to wear these vests at all. Since they are independent photographers, they cannot be forced to wear a vest. However, if they or the contracted newspaper or magazine they work for choose not to wear the vests, then the newspapers and magazines will have to go without photography for their articles of the game.
The article states that most newspapers have strict ethics policies, saying that reporters and photographers cannot endorse any products. These policies seem fitting, in a world where objective journalism is valued. These newspapers do not want their reporters becoming walking advertising space.
In my mind there are two specific things that these rules could affect. First of all, Wayne Wanta states in the Handbook of Sports and Media that "Sports photographic coverage also is dominated by male athletes...photographs of male atheltes outnumbered photographs of female athletes by a 13:1 ratio". If these rules in the NFL continue to grow and the newspapers decide to go without having visuals in their reports of these games, then perhaps photographic coverage will be turned to other sports, including women's sports. The second aspect of sports that this could affect could be the entertainment factor. Young people are some of the most avid readers of the sports section, but without visuals, it can somtimes be a lot to handle. Some young people may be turned off by the lack of visuals in NFL coverage, and turn to other sources of media for coverage instead.
The article is posted here... http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=02-08-2013&FMT=7&DID=1307725151&RQT=309&cfc=1
As a young person interested in sports, how do you feel this will specifically affect the wide world of sports, especially football? Do you think that this is just the beginning and that more sports will catch on to the advertising space on the backs of photographers? Finally, do you agree with what the NFL is doing, and how do you think the ethics of it play into objective and fair journalism?
This move angered many people in the media. The photojournalists that are present at NFL games are not employed by the NFL. Therefore they do not feel as if they should have to wear these vests at all. Since they are independent photographers, they cannot be forced to wear a vest. However, if they or the contracted newspaper or magazine they work for choose not to wear the vests, then the newspapers and magazines will have to go without photography for their articles of the game.
The article states that most newspapers have strict ethics policies, saying that reporters and photographers cannot endorse any products. These policies seem fitting, in a world where objective journalism is valued. These newspapers do not want their reporters becoming walking advertising space.
In my mind there are two specific things that these rules could affect. First of all, Wayne Wanta states in the Handbook of Sports and Media that "Sports photographic coverage also is dominated by male athletes...photographs of male atheltes outnumbered photographs of female athletes by a 13:1 ratio". If these rules in the NFL continue to grow and the newspapers decide to go without having visuals in their reports of these games, then perhaps photographic coverage will be turned to other sports, including women's sports. The second aspect of sports that this could affect could be the entertainment factor. Young people are some of the most avid readers of the sports section, but without visuals, it can somtimes be a lot to handle. Some young people may be turned off by the lack of visuals in NFL coverage, and turn to other sources of media for coverage instead.
The article is posted here... http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=02-08-2013&FMT=7&DID=1307725151&RQT=309&cfc=1
As a young person interested in sports, how do you feel this will specifically affect the wide world of sports, especially football? Do you think that this is just the beginning and that more sports will catch on to the advertising space on the backs of photographers? Finally, do you agree with what the NFL is doing, and how do you think the ethics of it play into objective and fair journalism?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)