|
ElwoodCuse posted:willing to work for $22,000 After a few raises, maybe
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:I can't imagine they are laying off anyone you'd ever see or notice, or anyone who can't be replaced (if need be) by someone out of journalism school willing to work for $10/hr for 25hr/wk FYP.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Ehh they'll just start a "Reader Reporter Section" and get some rubes off the Internet to write articles for a billion dollar entity for free.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
haljordan posted:Ehh they'll just start a "Reader Reporter Section" and get some rubes off the Internet to write articles for a billion dollar entity for free.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
AlleyViper posted:After a few raises, maybe It's an internship and it lets you build connections and get real world job experience  imagine having ESPN on your résumé
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:They will call it NosebleedsReport, and will credit their authors with breaking scoops even after they've been broken by three other sources first. Ahh good ol' Rick "SAY I BROKE THIS FIRST ON TWITTER EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T" Reilly. Also Steve Young looking like he was about to take a swing at him on live TV.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Some updates on those firings:quote:A reader writes that ESPN's "Denver Office in the Denver Tech Center was shut down yesterday. All 20 staff members were let go." A second source told us the same thing about the Denver office. quote:The majority of the layoffs today and tomorrow are in Technology...something like 40 people, at least that's what I've heard. All three HR people assigned to Technology are handling layoffs today and tomorrow. No idea what is going on in the other departments. I was told ESPN was forced, by Disney, to do the layoffs due to profit margins. The end numbers / percentages, may not be exactly what they're telling us as we're being laid off. The last time there were layoffs, ESPN used it as an opportunity to get rid of older, higher paid workers, while continuing to fill jobs, including the same jobs of people who were laid off (Supervisors in Operations, for instance). I haven't quite figured out why they didn't try salary reductions, or at least offer salary reductions as an option / alternative to being laid off. It doesn't seem like they're quite the people caring company they'd have people believe they are. Also, 2 weeks ago Disney's stock hit an all-time high.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:Some updates on those firings: Well yeah but I mean it can still go higher, right?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:I can't imagine they are laying off anyone you'd ever see or notice, or anyone who can't be replaced (if need be) by someone out of journalism school willing to work for $22,000 It says the biggest hit is tech staff so probably not.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
leokitty posted:It says the biggest hit is tech staff so probably not. If my wife's work is any indicator (she's healthcare IT so it's probably not), a ton of companies are transitioning to contract employees for all their IT needs, so they can hire and fire the low level call-center and help desk folks as needed. Hardly ideal, but the alternative was Microsoft's strategy, put a bunch if people on contracts indefinitely and never permanently hire them, until a court told them to knock it off.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Apparently they're cancelling the ESPNU late night show they debuted a few months back. Also: quote:An ESPN source tells us that all departments "are under review." As The Big Lead is reporting, layoffs today (and more tomorrow) are concentrated in sales and technology. Production layoffs "will occur once the review is done," says our source. "Some departments started their review before others so that all the layoffs didn't occur at the same time." So, the bad news is going to continue for at least another week.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Tech in this case is probably not IT, it is more likely people working at NOCs, programmers, etc. E: they'll probably outsource some of that to Eastern Europe once they realize they need them to do stuff though.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
It looks like ESPN's cutbacks have finally killed off Playbook, the shuffling zombie that used to be Page 2.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
The last article I read there was Jim Caple complaining that "hipsters" were wearing throwback MLB caps, and whining that the Orioles still had the paneled alternate cap.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
morestuff posted:It looks like ESPN's cutbacks have finally killed off Playbook, the shuffling zombie that used to be Page 2. Was there ever any point in keeping any Page 2 derivatives around when Grantland exists?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Super Jay Mann posted:Was there ever any point in keeping any Page 2 derivatives around when Grantland exists? Delicious Page Views
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Now this here is a read.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Texas Monthly is such a great magazine. I wish I had the scratch to subscribe to it. Anyone who hasn't read The Innocent Man, Part One and Part Two Might as well just take the time now.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Yes, read that. I was pointed to that article, maybe through this thread, and it's incredible. Prepare to have at least an hour or two ripped away, and feel all the emotions.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
LARGE THE HEAD posted:Texas Monthly is such a great magazine. I wish I had the scratch to subscribe to it. Anyone who hasn't read The Innocent Man, Part One and Part Two Might as well just take the time now. It was a great piece, but I don't see the connection to Sports Journalism...?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
The B_36 posted:It was a great piece, but I don't see the connection to Sports Journalism...? The post right above it was about a Texas Monthly article which was re-published on Deadspin
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/62978/what-happened-to-phil-jackson-the-zen-master This guy's level of anger/disappointment at Phil Jackson for daring to be funny and interesting is hilarious
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Could anyone recommend some good (professional) basketball blogs that have a focus on analytics?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Could anyone recommend some good (professional) basketball blogs that have a focus on analytics? Zach Lowe's archive at Grantland is a good place to start. His articles use advanced stats heavily, but take more of an all-inclusive approach. Hickory High also does a lot of stat-focused stuff. If you're looking for more in-depth analysis, you can try the Basketball Prospectus. It's out of date at this point, but the capsules on each player give a good snapshot. Many of BP's authors are now writing full-time for ESPN.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
SI has a great interview with ESPN's new ombudsman http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20130527/espn-ombudsman-robert-lipsyte-paul-finebaum/?sct=hp_wr_a2&eref=sihp Here's the money section: quote:SI.com: You have been a critic of jock culture throughout your professional career. Do you consider ESPN to be emblematic of a jock culture on air? Sounds like a good hire. I look forward to his work.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
This Lipsyte character seems pretty good to me based on those two paragraphs. Who knows if he'll do anything, but I like that someone with that network isn't either apathetic or infuriating.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
I have no problem with the idea of debate in sports analysis but the problem is that ESPN has created caricatures who constantly espouse incorrect and ignorant talking points and end up spending hours upon hours proselytizing their intentionally controversial talking points. The point that was getting missed by ESPN, and it seems like this new guy kind of "gets it", is that debate is not allowing two people to be intentionally antagonistic to each other and being allowed to say whatever they want without any facts to back anything up. And more importantly, it's probably not even in ESPN's best interest to 'fix' the problem. Contemporary media is about page views and getting the public to talk about the product and since there's no such thing as bad publicity, they really don't care how stupid or ignorant their talking heads come off because it still keeps people talking about their shows, which leads to people tuning in because they want to hear what other stupid crap these people are going to say. I read a lot about how people like Skip Bayliss are 'idiots' but honestly guys like Skip are tremendously intelligent people. Their brand isn't built on them being knowledgeable, just their skill at getting people to a) talk about them and b) get people really angry. In the current media climate, for better or for worse, that skill is immeasurably valuable.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Skip came off as very well read and an actual god honest journalist in "Pony Excess". Skip's not an idiot. The character he and ESPN created? Completely different story. I agree with the debate topic though. If there was a debate show featuring top journalists, figures, etc in athletics debating legit topics such as Title IX, Gay Athletes, the Financial impact of hosting a major sporting event (whether it's positive or negative), than yeah that would make an interesting TV show to view. When it's two cartoon character figures supposed to be mimicking the worst of sports talk radio, and that format has spilled into every part of your broadcast though? That's terrible. ESPN has made viewing sports almost like watching some jock-filled version of the E! network. I'm not saying I'm expecting enlightment when viewing a sporting event or watching the drat channel, but god, please stop with this faux-debate garbage, and start covering sports. FuzzySkinner fucked around with this message at 00:36 on May 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
PTI was pretty good back in the day. A debate show doesn't need to have a formal setting or tackle "important" topics to be entertaining, informative and not insulting.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
morestuff posted:PTI was pretty good back in the day. A debate show doesn't need to have a formal setting or tackle "important" topics to be entertaining, informative and not insulting. Yeah, I watched it religiously the first few years. That format was fresh at the time and it indeed was entertaining. It's still not bad compared to other debate shows, but I guess the stigma of Kornheiser on Monday Night Football and Wilbon doing NBA studio stuff has taken it's toll.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Kornheiser and Wilbon have genuinely always had pretty bad opinions, they just have really really good chemistry and generally have the sense to actually have fun with the format and not act like they're debating something ultra important. Not going out of their way to antagonize the audience helps too.
MourningView fucked around with this message at 02:07 on May 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I agree with the debate topic though. If there was a debate show featuring top journalists, figures, etc in athletics debating legit topics such as Title IX, Gay Athletes, the Finical impact of hosting a major sporting event (whether it's positive or negative), than yeah that would make an interesting TV show to view. There is actually an NBA show that's sort of like this. I mean, I don't think Charles Barkley is a thought leader exactly, but it's interesting to hear what seems to be a bunch of dudes having a good-faith discussion about issues, even when I think they're idiots. The "good faith" portion of that sentence is what's missing from ESPN. Once you realize that Skip Bayless is just a character trying to be as wrong as possible to generate phony outrage, there's no point left to interacting with anything he says whatsoever. It provides less value than reading Rhabuf posts, because at least sometimes smart people reply to Rhabuf and you learn something. But of course, ICT is right that providing quality analysis is the exact opposite of "good business sense" at the moment. It's not as if ESPN is the only "news" station doing the same thing. The market has spoken and, shocker of shockers, it's telling us to go gently caress ourselves and die.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
I thought Wilbon was better in the past before he became obsessed with being friends with every athlete. I also agree with Mornacle, I enjoy the TNT show because it feels real to me. Whether I agree with them or not, I truly believe that's their opinion. On ESPN it feels like people playing characters for the camera.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
LARGE THE HEAD posted:Texas Monthly is such a great magazine. I wish I had the scratch to subscribe to it. Anyone who hasn't read The Innocent Man, Part One and Part Two Might as well just take the time now. I legit subscribe to Texas Monthly despite living in such Texan places as New England and Washington, DC.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I agree with the debate topic though. If there was a debate show featuring top journalists, figures, etc in athletics debating legit topics such as Title IX, Gay Athletes, the Financial impact of hosting a major sporting event (whether it's positive or negative), than yeah that would make an interesting TV show to view. Costas's show on HBO used to be kind of like this, at least at times. He's apparently got a new one on NBCSN but in between I learned to hate him because of his SNF halftime things so I haven't watched it. As an aside I just reminded myself. I almost never purposely watch Real Sports on HBO but if I ever happen to catch it I'm usually pretty interested for an hour.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
I CHALLENGE THEE posted:I have no problem with the idea of debate in sports analysis but the problem is that ESPN has created caricatures who constantly espouse incorrect and ignorant talking points and end up spending hours upon hours proselytizing their intentionally controversial talking points. The point that was getting missed by ESPN, and it seems like this new guy kind of "gets it", is that debate is not allowing two people to be intentionally antagonistic to each other and being allowed to say whatever they want without any facts to back anything up. I became keenly aware of this in 2010 during Joey Votto's MVP season. Colin Cowherd spent a week saying that Joey Votto wasn't really that good and his numbers were inflated because he played in a small ballpark. This would make sense if it weren't for the fact that every single one of Joey Votto's offensive numbers in 2010 were better on the road. I was living in Cincinnati at the time and it pissed a lot of people off, but I guarantee it got ESPN 1530 a ton of listeners. It became pretty clear that he just decided to espouse a terrible sports opinion to stir the pot.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
I don't know, Colin Cowherd might actually be that stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I agree with the debate topic though. If there was a debate show featuring top journalists, figures, etc in athletics debating legit topics such as Title IX, Gay Athletes, the Financial impact of hosting a major sporting event (whether it's positive or negative), than yeah that would make an interesting TV show to view. Best I've heard was Bomani Jones' podcast. Felt like he did the best job of anyone I've heard when it comes to treating athletes as human beings and sports as a business. Problem is, he can't talk sports on his podcast anymore as part of his new contract with ESPN.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Wilbon and Kornheiser were pretty good before they started thinking they were TV stars and basically started caring more about acting like they were important than they did about actually putting effort into their work.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:Wilbon and Kornheiser were pretty good before they started thinking they were TV stars and basically started caring more about acting like they were important than they did about actually putting effort into their work. If I remember the ESPN book, PTI was basically how they talked with each other every day. Someone wanted to make it into a show and Tony said "that's terrible, no one would watch that."
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 16:18
|
|