Did Schefter care when he posted pics of Pierre-Paul’s x-Ray?I've never heard that point of view from any journalist. They care, some more than others; oftentimes depending on their circumstance.
Did Schefter care when he posted pics of Pierre-Paul’s x-Ray?I've never heard that point of view from any journalist. They care, some more than others; oftentimes depending on their circumstance.
I don't know - why don't you ask him.Did Schefter care when he posted pics of Pierre-Paul’s x-Ray?
Assisted <<<
-> … And so these latest rumors went racing down social media channels to the delight or frustration or general curiosity of a fan base. Discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday with numerous people in and around the UConn athletic operation yielded nothing substantially new on the topic, reaction ranging from “haven’t heard a thing” to “it’s all a continuation” and “nothing has changed.”
A lot more with-in the article ^^
That’s not what happens at all.Sr Editors/Executive Editors decide what is assigned to writers and what is ultimately published. Corporate leadership exerts "guidance" to the Sr Editors/Executive Editors. To say journalists decide what is written is just not accurate.
Ok, you have seen what you have seen and I have seen what I have seen (a handful of big news media companies).That’s not what happens at all.
Maybe sports is different. But Woj don’t give a xrao about what Jimmy Pitaro thinks. Pitaro got no role in day to day.Ok, you have seen what you have seen and I have seen what I have seen (a handful of big news media companies).
espn is in the entertainment business, not the news business. I am pretty sure all stories are spun to espn's liking. Or the authors get canned.That’s not what happens at all.
That seems like a very corporate structure. Journalists brings stories to the editors. Editors help frame, refine it, then push to get it elevated in the publication.
Just go to a budget meeting at any local newspaper. Editor in conjunction with writer decide what to write and how to write it .
Like, my editor at the old JI would say - go cover the game.
When a player got arrested, it was John, we having a story on that? Not, go do a story.
No that isn’t it. Lol.espn is in the entertainment business, not the news business. I am pretty sure all stories are spun to espn's liking. Or the authors get canned.
Just like the “news”espn is in the entertainment business, not the news business. I am pretty sure all stories are spun to espn's liking. Or the authors get canned.
espn is in the entertainment business, not the news business. I am pretty sure all stories are spun to espn's liking. Or the authors get canned.
That’s not what happens at all.
That seems like a very corporate structure. Journalists brings stories to the editors. Editors help frame, refine it, then push to get it elevated in the publication.
Just go to a budget meeting at any local newspaper. Editor in conjunction with writer decide what to write and how to write it .
Like, my editor at the old JI would say - go cover the game.
When a player got arrested, it was John, we having a story on that? Not, go do a story.
Thank you for your service!As a former neighborhood news carrier for the Courant in the morning and JI in the afternoon during middle school and HS, let me ask you this.
How did JI decide to cut up space in the sports section for how much print each section got and what was the process for determining which ads went in which sections and how much the JI would charge for ads based on location?
It's been about 40 years since I last slung the JI around and I may still having lingering trauma from the Thanksgiving Day edition of the JI.
I think we can all agree that espn played a major role in destroying the Big East, however way you want to call it. Has there been one news article written and published by espn placing blame on espn? That was and continues to be a major news event. How has espn the great news center reported it?No that isn’t it. Lol.
Blame? No one forced schools to get greedy. There was no need for these huge television contracts and realignment.I think we can all agree that espn played a major role in destroying the Big East, however way you want to call it. Has there been one news article written and published by espn placing blame on espn? That was and continues to be a major news event. How has espn the great news center reported it?
Blame? No one forced schools to get greedy. There was no need for these huge television contracts and realignment.
Blame the schools.
Yeah, I'm not sure that that's the point you think it is John. If ESPN doesn't bankroll the evisceration of the big east, the conference that we all know and loved still exists. The fact that they did bankroll the evisceration of the big east and didn't carve out a spot for the university of Connecticut has literally, Connecticut taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Your point is essentially like saying don't blame the drug cartels, they don't make anyone take drugs.Blame? No one forced schools to get greedy. There was no need for these huge television contracts and realignment.
Blame the schools.
Oh the ironyBlame? No one forced schools to get greedy. There was no need for these huge television contracts and realignment.
Blame the schools.
I watched a youtube video with the former President of ESPN (the cocaine user) and he was basically laughing about it.I think we can all agree that espn played a major role in destroying the Big East, however way you want to call it. Has there been one news article written and published by espn placing blame on espn? That was and continues to be a major news event. How has espn the great news center reported it?
I am not gonna disagree on the culpability of the people with money.Yeah, I'm not sure that that's the point you think it is John. If ESPN doesn't bankroll the evisceration of the big east, the conference that we all know and loved still exists. The fact that they did bankroll the evisceration of the big east and didn't carve out a spot for the university of Connecticut has literally, Connecticut taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Your point is essentially like saying don't blame the drug cartels, they don't make anyone take drugs.
It's more complicated than this. You are correct, companies can now measure which articles are read and how long people stay on the page, but that is not necessarily how reporters are allocated. One of my friends who is a reporter at a large newspaper that has a union told me it is very difficult to fire the writers that don't get read. The union reporter salaries are capped by the union contract so many of the popular writers will leave for a better opportunity if they can. Those that don't have better opportunities stay. I asked how the most popular writers stay and he told me the very top writers are promoted to management (like asst editor,...) so they can be paid a higher salary.Writers get canned when no one reads their material.
That's the corporate element to news media as a business.
In the "old days" it was tougher to decide how much each section of a paper was read and how much each inch of print was read. And how much each of that was worth for revenue compared to cost to print.
You could go by phone calls and letters to the editor, or mess around with advertisements to see if moving ads to different locations drew more business for advertisers.
Internet blew up that model. In a few seconds any bean counter can not only tell how many people read each article but how much time they spend reading it. They can also check how many times readers click on ads embedded in those articles.
It's more complicated than this. You are correct, companies can now measure which articles are read and how long people stay on the page, but that is not necessarily how reporters are allocated. One of my friends who is a reporter at a large newspaper that has a union told me it is very difficult to fire the writers that don't get read. The union reporter salaries are capped by the union contract so many of the popular writers will leave for a better opportunity if they can. Those that don't have better opportunities stay. I asked how the most popular writers stay and he told me the very top writers are promoted to management (like asst editor,...) so they can be paid a higher salary.
Fully agree that the school presidents opted in what they thought was in their best interest, just like addicts opt in to get their next high. But it is indisputable that ESPN has been a, if not, the prime mover in the conference realignment that we all despise. That they did so in a manner that cost Connecticut taxpayers literally hundreds of millions of dollars, should never be forgotten. Had they decided not to screw over the university in the state that they occupy, the university whose sports were actually the central part of their original business plan, we would not be on the outside, looking in right now and what was indisputably far away the best basketball conference in the country would still be in existence.I am not gonna disagree on the culpability of the people with money.
But while I get the metaphor I think you are really downplaying the power the presidents have here. The power isn’t in espn hand. It is in the conferences hands because espn wants the content.
Maybe presidents should have thought about the sport than about their bloated budgets.
football was always so decentralized. The consolidation was never thought out. You got leagues fighting each other and we get stupid conferences that make no sense.
This is odd. So when networks started offering huge sums of money, the schools should have been like, "no thanks"? We just agreed to pay our men's BB coach more per year than the entirety of our TV contract. College sports has been big business for a very LONG time.Blame? No one forced schools to get greedy. There was no need for these huge television contracts and realignment.
Blame the schools.
Bubble leaking…
I think we can all agree that espn played a major role in destroying the Big East, however way you want to call it. Has there been one news article written and published by espn placing blame on espn? That was and continues to be a major news event. How has espn the great news center reported it?
I am not gonna disagree on the culpability of the people with money.
But while I get the metaphor I think you are really downplaying the power the presidents have here. The power isn’t in espn hand. It is in the conferences hands because espn wants the content.
Maybe presidents should have thought about the sport than about their bloated budgets.
football was always so decentralized. The consolidation was never thought out. You got leagues fighting each other and we get stupid conferences that make no sense.
Same reason many individuals are not. I forget where I saw the article but basically most people and in this case universities spend all their money. So no matter how much they make they are still always broke. New facilities, equipment, staff they will always spend it all in the arms race.So even Ohio state, one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country with all that big 10 money coming in are not making enough to support their revenue producing sports and need to trim the fat? I don’t understand how they aren’t solvent with all the revenue they have coming in
Blame the junky, not the dealer. Actually, blame them both.Oh the irony