• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

ESPN talking heads 'May' say what they really believe

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
jwinslow;1215948; said:
I actually like screaming smith at times for his entertainment, but he should not be the mortensen/Clayton level expert to turn to with every nba rumor or upcoming game.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but even Clayton and his scripted "conflict" with Salisbury is unwatchable. Clayton the reporter is every bit as good as Mortensen. Clayton as line reader/actor is terrible.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye Nut;1215938; said:
Do you work for or at ESPN? If not then it's second hand info at best and I will forever be skeptical of info that isn't first hand.
Click to expand...

I don't work at ESPN but I know two Anchors who currently do (ESPN News and ESPN U).... lets just say that Jax isn't that far off.

ESPN is like the WWE of broadcasting.
 
Upvote 0
IronBuckI;1216117; said:
Agreed, but even Clayton and his scripted "conflict" with Salisbury is unwatchable. Clayton the reporter is every bit as good as Mortensen. Clayton as line reader/actor is terrible.
Click to expand...
very true. Clayton, a great reporter without any football pedigree (I'm assuming), and Salisbury, without a keen brain-cell anywhere. Clayton talks a good game about Salisbury's specialty, and Salisbury fails miserably at Clayton's.
 
Upvote 0
Surprise - Bob Griese just said something worthwhile.

He said "Mark May would have gone to Purdue, but he couldn't get in, so he went to Pitt."
 
Upvote 0
Hmmmm, scripted. Don't you think that guys would come to the stage with some things written out in advance? Does that make the show scripted? The news is scripted. Good reporters have a who, what, where, when to set up an interview and have some initial questions written out in advance. They also have an opinion that gets expressed at some point, sometimes through the very questions they ask. Why wouldn't that be a component in sports journalism too? Is that scripted, or are you saying there's not much difference between ESPN and Guiding Light?

I'll tell you what, put yourself before a mic and a camera and take off and do a ten minute synopsis of the Big 10 season, or Todd Boeckman, or Ferentz, Tiller, JoPa and the firing squad. And don't script it in advance. Ever hear 10 seconds of dead air?

I have no doubt that the guys are paid to be controversial. Look at just about any college football thread on THIS site. Controversy is easyily located. Does controversy mean that this site is scripted? Is it possible that the ESPN crew have some differing opinions on everything from the strength of Big 10 football to how the Heisman is/or should be chosen?

As for Herbie, in one setting Herbie is being asked to be a Buckeye analyst in the other he is being asked to be a national college football analyst. Is it intellectually impossible to have a different point of view within the bounds of those distinctly different assignments? I don't think it is.

I think what I am actually hearing when I read complaints about ESPN, Keith Jackson, Mark May or Herbie is what happens when your source of OSU news is the Columbus Dispatch, where the job is to be a hack for the Buckeye's and nothing critical dare be spoken. Add to that all the local NFL, MLB or the NBC team covering Notre Dame, where the "reporters" are paid to be "Homers."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
cincibuck;1216855; said:
Hmmmm, scripted. Don't you think that guys would come to the stage with some things written out in advance? Does that make the show scripted? The news is scripted. Good reporters have a who, what, where, when to set up on interview and have some initial questions written out in advance. They also have an opinion that gets expressed at some point, sometimes through the very questions they ask. Why wouldn't that be a component in sports journalism too? Is that scripted, or are you saying there's not much diference between ESPN and Guiding Light?

I'll tell you what, put yourself before a mic and a camera and take off and do a ten minute synopsis of the Big 10 season, or Todd Boeckman, or Ferentz, Tiller, JoPa and the firing squad. And don't script it in advance. Ever hear 10 seconds of dead air?

I have no doubt that the guys are paid to be controversial. Look at just about any college football thread on THIS site. Controversy is easyily located. Does controversy mean that this site is scripted? Is it possible that the ESPN crew have some differing opinions on everything from the strength of Big 10 football to how the Heisman is/or should be chosen?

As for Herbie, in one setting Herbie is being asked to be a Buckeye analyst in the other he is being asked to be a national college football analyst. Is it intellectually impossible to have a different point of view within the bounds of those distinctly different assignments? I think it is.

I think what I am actually hearing when I read complaints about ESPN, Keith Jackson, Mark May or Herbie is what happens when your source of OSU news is the Columbus Dispatch, where the job is to be a hack for the Buckeye's and nothing critical dare be spoken. Add to that all the local NFL, MLB or the NBC team covering Notre Dame, where the "reporters" are paid to be "Homers."
Click to expand...

Personally, I just don't believe it's possible Mark May and Lou Holtz picked opposite teams in every single game last year randomly. That would be one hell of coincidence.

If you believe these guys are taking opposite sides just to debate, then yes, these guys are spewing trash they don't believe.

In regards to Herbstreit, he picked PSU to win the Big 10 on College Gameday Live. On 1460 the fan he picked tOSU but said PSU would give them all they could handle. That was within 24 hours of each other. Did he have a change of heart, or just play himself to whatever audience he wanted to satisfy?

And yes, I've seen several times on live shows, one side of the debate have a sheepish grin, and make a comment like "I don't know how I got this side of the debate".

When PTI became widely popular, ESPN decided it was time to use that format in every stinkin' show. To have a debate, you need two sides too argue. Sometimes you get the side of the argument you want,other times you play your role.

One last comment on all of this...Cowherd blasts OSU pretty hard for their championship game meltdowns and taking advantage of a watered down Big 10. But I'll always give him a pass, because during the Mo C fisaco, he consistently said he wasn't going to beat tOSU up just for ratings based on the word of a criminal. He actually said he got into hot water for not blasting the program, and staying neutral on the subject. ESPN wanted him to kick us while we were down for national ratings....Imagine that?
 
Upvote 0
In all honesty I don't pay that much attention to who says what. Other than the games themselves, I probably don't average more than an hour on college TV coverage, so to dispute your arguments would be disingenuous (a word I have little or no idea of how to spell)((and I don't have the spell check program loaded on this computer))

But, yeah, Herbie has two distinctly different jobs, and I don't fault him for saying one thing as Buckeye analyst and another for being a NATIONAL analyst.

Again, put a stop clock in front of yourself and do an unscripted 10 minute analysis on the 2008 Big Ten season and just see why they script. They'd die if they didn't. Few things harder than filling live air space with coherent, spontaneous, conversation.

Is it dishonest to have one pick one team and the other the opponent? Who cares? I don't notice it and they need it to present at least a modicum of balance. On the games I watch it seems to me that they go out of their way to try and present a balanced report (the notable exception being NBC's Notre Dame games where homering is expected and demanded.) When they have three or more 'experts' they seem to follow their convictions.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top