Can a boycott make a difference?
Would any of us really be upset if this was responsible journalism? If they gave OSU a chance to know the charges that would be levelled before asking for an on-camera rebuttal? This is journalism at its worst.
Of course, it's a formula! Clarett didn't twist anyone's arm at ESPN and some small time reporter isn't responsible. This was a decision of editorial management. Management bought in because they thought this would boost their bottom-line.
And they have moved away from pure sports to trash sports. I'm sick of paying for hours of trash sport (which costs them nothing to show) to see something worthwhile.
What effect would a boycott have? Especially if you could only motivate a percentage of Buckeyes to support you?
Advertisers buy two things: audiences and conducive media environments. Do the Buckeye faithful have the necessary consumer power to motivate the Buckeye faithful to hit the bottom line at ESPN?
You may think we have little power but hit ESPN's numbers just half a percent this time of year and its big-time revenue that slips off their sales line.
Lost magazine subscriptions hurt sales and ad revenues because the price of ads must go down due to declining circulation.
Fewer visits to espn.com also mean fewer advertising dollars.
Of course, the real hit is TV ad revenue from declining audiences. You don't have to miss OSU, just choose to watch other things that aren't essentials.
If you decide to do this, then you should write and tell them that you are and why you are. You also should write the leading ad agencies so that they know and can advise their clients. This lets them know that ESPN is no longer a conducive media environment for hitting one of the largest identity groups in America.
Just a 1000 letters would have a tremendous effect. Don't fool yourself, ask anyone managing a large brand in the US. You don't want this kind of viral marketing response to you. They will respond.
The poll on their website shows that they already know what a bad decision it was to print this rubbish. They want to monitor directly what the Buckeye Nation is saying and also give people a place to sound off so that they won't sound off elsewhere.
So, the choice is really to each of us to decide how to communicate true intent to ESPN. Personally, I have stopped visiting their website and will not watch them on TV except for essential things (OSU!).
CharlotteBuck-I said:
Why is ESPN to blame for this? This is their job. If this was Notre Dame or Tennessee or Miami, we would all be loving it, but it's not. They have statements from several ex-buckeyes to the effect that they received inappropriate benefits while playing for Ohio State. They are journalists and have an obligation (in their eyes) to report this. It's not as if they are creating quotes from MoC and Marco Cooper etc... These are acusations from individuals that were much closer to the program than anyone on this board. This is serious stuff regardless of whether or not it is based in fact or if it is the act of a few players looking to make a name for themselves at the expense of Ohio State.
ESPN would only be to blame if:
(a) almost every bit of this had been alleged previously by Clarett and investigated by OSU and the NCAA with the conclusion that it is untrue,
(b) their investigation did not appear to have been conducted openly or transparently in a way designed to reveal the truth. If this was so, then reasonable people could well conclude it was possible that the article had motives incompatible with newscasting and that those motives might very well include a sensational article meant to increase audience, even if it would harm OSU's image.
(c) they knew that these allegations were investigated, in the main, and rejected as untrue, yet printed this as breathlessly new revelations anyway.
(d) If they knew the central character of the story was not exactly the poster child for morality and ethics, then chose ex-players with obvious motives against OSU, and dubious histories, to parade around as credibility for him.
If you conclude that this is the case, then you would be reasonable to hold them accountable for irresponsible journalism and to consider that they have acted in this manner with the intent to damage one of the finest universities and football programmes in America.
So, what do you think?
