Want More Proof the Media Sets The Message?

[Nostical]

If I asked you which NBA team is #1 right now with a winning percentage of .786--- far and away the best record in the League---- would the San Antionio Spurs leap into your mind? I asked several sports savvy folks tonight and no one mentioned them. It's understandable. You never hear about them. The talking heads only seem to mention the Lakers, Kobe, The Clippers, Carmelo, The Heat, LeBron, The Thunder, Garnett, etc. Meanwhile, The Spurs remain underappreciated, and obscure.

This isn't a revelation for most of us but if the media wants to promote ND football, it does. Bad mouth The Big East, it can. Just imagine how it would have resonated had there been headlines and lots of commentary about the fact that the team with the most Senior Bowl invites other than Alabama and Georgia was UConn--(tied with Fla St). Just imagine reading articles in SI, Yahoo Sports, or ESPN On Line, about UConn's amazing but unheralded Defense-- and reveling in all the mentions during the broadcast. (Newsflash: It wasn't mentioned once).

Perceptions get changed when the opinion makers grab hold of a story and promote it. Shame on the CT media and our own athletic folks for not blowing our own horn at such a critical time in our conference. Those press tweets should have been filling the inboxes of all the media types that make a difference. Without any buzz you're sadly deemed less relevant or even worse, relegated to being ignored. Just ask The Spurs.

 

[Adios]

You may be correct about the media but it does appear the media touts UConn in other conferences' markets when it comes to realignment.

 

[uc1974]

This goes on in everything the media does, not just sports. I don't watch ESPN unless there is a game on primarily because they are promoters with a financial interest rather than reporters. I wish I could get just the crowd noise for games and cut out most of the announcers except McD, Bilas, Rafferty but the technology isn't available yet. Some day. Anyway, I don't watch Sports Center or any other nonsense. I do read espn.com if the article appears to report rather than promote.

 

[firstnline]

Let the official boycott of Channel 3 and ESPN begin. I'm all in

 

[Doggie Style]

Let the official boycott of Channel 3 and ESPN begin. I'm all in

+1

 

[coachcap]

This goes on in everything the media does, not just sports. I don't watch ESPN unless there is a game on primarily because they are promoters with a financial interest rather than reporters. I wish I could get just the crowd noise for games and cut out most of the announcers except McD, Bilas, Rafferty but the technology isn't available yet. Some day. Anyway, I don't watch Sports Center or any other nonsense. I do read espn.com if the article appears to report rather than promote.

The technology has been available for decades, but it's blocked by the networks. When my sister & brother-in-law first moved to Raleigh, N.C. in the mid-90s, one of the first appliances installed was one of those pre-Direct TV satellite dishes in their back yard. I remember visiting & staying up late sampling the stations received. Think every channel in the U.S. & Eastern Canada up through Newfoundland. I watched an NBA direct feed of a Seattle Supersonics game. It included the crowd noise microphones, but not those of the announcers.
Those big old dishes were rendered useless once the networks decided to scramble the signals & charge to descramble them, & also the advent of Direct TV.

 

[Nostical]

The point isn't to mute the broadcast voices. Then nobody wins. With the obvious games that are played with promoting various points of view, it's incumbent on institutions to maximize the dissemination of information that puts you in the best light, to the right people, at the right time, in multiple ways. I actually posed this issue to WM who replied that try as we might, we can't control what Networks or talking heads want to run with. I say we need to be more proactive in whatever ways we can.

 

[uc1974]

I respect your premise but do not agree with you. Most announcers/talking heads talk to hear themselves talk rather than disseminate useful and factual information. I often turn off the sound on sporting events not because I disagree with what is being said but because the announcers prattle on and on about nothing of consequence. I dislike constant talking when I watch a televised game. I don't care about the fullback's mother or 95% of material not directly related to the game itself. I may be an exception in this 21st Century world. Ordinary nonsense is constantly elevated to some level of importance by both sports and news outlets and I am just not interested.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I agree with you general premise but the example is bad. The Spurs are usually at the top of the standings but they have fizzled in recent playoffs. Most don't consider them real title contenders. Last year's series vs. OKC is still fresh in many minds.