Essays

A topic that seems to be gaining steam among writers and columnists currently is the excess of opinion and dearth of fact expressed on the Internet. Partially due to the newness of the medium and partly due to the exuberance shown by individuals who finally got the chance to express their own egos, views, and perspectives on issues, the Internet is a relatively inexpensive way for any citizen to read and post either fact or opinion on a topic. As with the adoption of most new mediums, we as individuals must display patience as we try all the features of our new "toys," ending either from boredom, a discovery of something even newer, or simply incorporating it into our ho-hum daily routine. Once our testing period filled with trial and error has been taken from one extreme to the other, the pendulum - so to speak - hopefully comes to rest more or less back at middle. That is of course until we start the ride all over again with the next great "thing."

In the case of too much opinion versus a lack of facts on the Internet, I have optimism that the same ultimate balance will occur. This statement does not take into account the larger and perhaps more important argument concerning who owns the channels and access to information on the Internet. Focusing solely upon individual citizen users, I feel we will soon come to realize that we must balance the freedom to read and write whatever opinion we feel on a given topic with the rational choice to maintain areas that provide researched, edited, and fact-checked information. It is rational if for no other reason than to not waste our precious time looking up information always wondering whether it is correct. The obvious example for this discussion is Wikipedia. It is a wonderful resource that should remain as is; however greater literacy education must be employed to teach the population both the pros and the cons of using such a resource.

Opinion should not leave the Internet. This space will be needed in the future if or when too much of the Internet is controlled by powerful groups with vested interests to censor or manipulate what the general populace thinks and converses about. This article itself is merely an opinion about the topic of opinion versus fact displayed on the Internet. While not the most important piece of text ever uploaded to it, I hope it is an example for when opinion can be first clearly defined and ultimately useful in the public discourse.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2nd Essay

If You Hate Sports, You Just Won't Care

If You Love Sports, Schreiber is a Breathe of Fresh Air

 

While I am in no way an expert on television sports networks, I was pleasantly surprised to find out that ESPN employs an ombudsman currently filled by columnist Le Anne Schreiber. She was hired by the network in the spring of 2007. Let's face it folks - its only sports. They can be wonderful contests of athletes pushing themselves and delighting fans with their physical prowess and at times acrobatics. In the end however, they are not curing cancer, solving global warming, ending poverty, or healing the racial problems in the U.S. So why even bother to devote an entire essay to this topic? Because when we as spectators and fans need a diversion or have earned some recreational time to enjoy sports, it can be a wonderful thing. Over the past almost thirty-years one entity has redefined the televised broadcasting of mainstream and sometimes not so mainstream sporting events - ESPN. It can be debated whether sports reporting even needs to follow traditional hard news journalist ethics, accountability, and codes of professionalism. For the sake of this essay, we will assume it should. ESPN, similar to CNN took the previous short-form news or sports broadcast and made it a twenty-four hour cable channel. A constant stream of reports about games, players, and news items concerning games, players, and leagues that encompass these sports comprised the structure of the network. However, as it became successful and profitable, the network was bought out by Disney and together follows a synergistic corporate business strategy that frankly fatigues the fan.

Le Anne Schreiber's columns in her role as ombudsman are excellent but I wonder if her corporate bosses use the role as a serious critical check between the network and the public or simply as a symbolic post to assuage fears from critics that ESPN is more interested in selling ad time and paying off rights fees than simply reporting on sports. For while I read her columns seemingly displaying solid observation, critique, and suggestions for either maintaining ESPN's reputation or restoring it; at the same time, watching ESPN content seems to show little change and honestly an increasing sense of frustration and fatigue from anchors who find little ways to unenthusiastically promote the channels and its marketing goals. Worries surface when she quotes such insiders as Vince Doria, ESPN senior vice president and director of news. Doria was quoted as saying in response to the topic of cross-promotion, “they [the audience] have been told by critics that they should be offended." If Doria is a director of news, he shouldn't be making an argument grounded in blaming media critics for telling an audience what to value, but rather root the argument in the principles and ethics of reporting versus advertising and marketing department goals. Once the wall between the two departments is broken, forever will your audience question your journalist [or lack thereof] intentions. While this is a trend in every newsroom in every newspaper, online paper, television studio, etc. does not necessarily make it the correct path to tread.

Finally, the most obvious and simple example of this possible conflict of interest at the network is promoting oneself as a sports reporting network while at the same time buying rights to broadcast games. The Monday Night Football program is the most pronounced example of this slippery slope of synergy. For right or wrong, the National Football League is probably the most popular sport viewed within the United States . The ABC network has always broadcast the Monday Night Football program. Disney bought ABC and ESPN. Disney switched the program from ABC to ESPN. Now, Monday ESPN programming, both “legitimate” sports reporting content and promotional pieces are blurred into one as a set-up advertisement for that evening's game broadcast. What's more, the anchors the game itself are used during other programming to give their opinions and commentary about the game. At times I wonder if they even try to present themselves in different roles or just resign themselves to being a personality that appears in differently titled programming blocks. When you keep in mind that for these particular games, it is the ESPN broadcasting crew who controls and selects the shots recorded of the game, then ESPN has total control of the pre-game hype/promotion, total control of the game broadcast itself, and complete control of the post-game rehash with complete access to commentators, footage, interviews, etc. When you wrap this inter-ESPN synergy with its corporate parent a la “live from Disneyworld ”! with “special guests from ABC's primetime show lineup”! you can begin to see that non-sport overload is eminent. ESPN's troubles began when they decided to focus on the “brand” rather than “sports”.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3rd Essay

If It Works in a Restaurant, Why Not Cable TV?

 

Sure, everyone likes a big menu but we also like ordering what we want too. If you're one of the millions who pay for cable television, you get a big menu but not really what you want. Whether you define your displeasure by the amount you pay or the lack of programming you're interested in, there is a lot to be desired when it comes to cable television. Fortunately, there is a very easy solution for you – the average citizen. It is a la carte channels. Just like when you are just in the mood for the burger but not the fries and the 64 oz soda, wouldn't it be nice and logical to just order say, ESPN, CNN, the History Channel, and Disney without the other 120 channels? Of course it would, but channel owners and cable companies don't like the idea because the truth is these cable packages act very much like your local mall. Sure, you're glad the mall has everything from Sears to the Jewelry Hut but the truth is you and I would probably not take the time to drive all the way over if it only had the Jewelry Hut and not Sears. These flagship stores provide the foundation for the mall. The big channels in your cable package provide the foundation for the package. Otherwise, all the little channels would probably shrivel up. This can be a good or bad thing.

It is bad of course if the channel provides quality programming that has a loyal audience. We of course would want to support such a channel so that it survives. However, if you look at a majority of the channels offered, they are usually not some really cool, unique, or interesting channel that offers new programming. Usually it is just a dumping ground for companies' old programs. While I like the next guy really enjoy watching great old reruns, do I really want to pay that much each month on cable to have dozens of these channels just for reruns? What you have to know about the business of these television channels is that the rerun shows are already paid for – they're done – it's a product already manufactured just sitting in inventory. So they like the channels because they get to sell new advertisement time during this old inventory. It is smart business but I would rather it not be at my expense. Especially since most of this old programming is now available if I want it on DVD.

Another practice that is occurs is double channels. By double channels I mean you click to say channel 44 and it is the “outdoors” channel, yet when you also click to channel 225 it is also the “outdoors” channel. Now, I don't mean non-HD and HD programming – that I understand and it makes sense in anticipation of the conversion. Rather, I pay a cable company for two identical products of which I only get one use value from. That is like going in to buy a hammer that will last you years and the salesmen saying you have to buy two and he'll charge you for two. At least let me buy a hammer and screwdriver set – that way if I'm going to spend the money I'll get greater value from the purchase. One contemporary argument against a la carte options is that since everyone is using a DVR nowadays, we can just record and watch what we want. True, but I still am paying every month for the full package that I'm simply not interested in using.

I have seen some research that states on average people only really watch about 15 different channels out of the hundreds they pay for. Wouldn't it be nice to ask or demand from your local seller of cable packages that they offer a new product for sale: a la carte channels? Heck, you could even change it up every couple of months – dropping two channels here, and adding three different to keep it fresh. It's $0.99 for a song, what is a cable channel worth?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACK TO TOP