Last week Aaron Rogers, star quarterback of the Green Bay Packers, did something many sports fans would like to do. More specifically, he called out the absurdity of sports “experts” who build their career doing nothing more than finding extreme and shocking ways to build their audience and increase their ratings. Rogers specifically called out one of the more polarizing ESPN talking heads, Skip Bayless, claiming that his comments are purposely outlandish, specifically designed to get people to tune in to the program.
Today’s sports media landscape could easily consume several chapters in an introduction to sport psychology textbook, as there seemingly as many experts and television/radio shows as there are athletes and sports teams. In addition to the growing number of sports programs for fans to check out, there’s also a behind-the-scenes battle amongst these experts to drive ratings. It is at this sad juncture where Aaron Roger’s calling out of Skip Bayless makes perfect sense (and was long overdue).
Why all the negativity, anyway?
The media business is dependent on ratings in order to attract sponsorship for advertising. So how do you increase ratings? One way is to be as extreme, controversial, and argumentative as possible. The more obnoxious the better it seems, as sports fans seem to pay more attention to sports entertainers like Bayless, Jim Rome, Stephen A. Smith, and the Sports Reporters crew than they do the propeller head analysts with far less flare (John Clayton anyone?).
Aaron Rogers said what a lot of people would like to say if they only had the voice, even if he made his comments in a rather subtle way. Rather than come out and call Bayless a jerk (interestingly, he didn’t even name Bayless), Rogers merely pointed out the absurdity of how desperate Bayless (and ESPN as a network) is to drive ratings, so much so that it only pays today to find the silliest, strangest, or most controversial angle to every story. One can presume from Rogers’ comments that he would prefer less flash and flare from guys like Bayless, and instead more substance focused on the stories. Unfortunately, that approach doesn’t seem to attract as many viewers in the minds of the folks in the think tank at ESPN.
More problems – or just more people reporting the problems?
Rogers comments may also serendipitously shed light on an even bigger question in sports today: Are there really more bad stories in sports today than in the old days? Prior to the ESPN generation of 24/7 sports, there were not media outlets to pounce on every transgression, ethical violation, and police arrest as there is today. Is it me, or does it seem as though the folks at ESPN sit around the police scanner anxiously awaiting the next athlete to do something dumb, wrong, or illegal so that they can jump all over it from the early morning (Mike & Mike show) through mid-morning (First and Ten) to later in the afternoon when LeBatard hands off to Rome who hands off the Around the Horn, wrapping up with PTI which then segues into ESPN SportsCenter.
As ESPN continues to fan the fire with their strongly opinionated experts, many of the stories they report seem to grow legs of their own, and in some cases become even bigger stories simply because of the increased media attention and absurd histrionics played up by the reporters who talk (scream?) about the stories.
Good for you, Aaron Rogers, for calling out the silliness of what some ESPN experts will do in order to attract viewers and corporate sponsorships (and at the same time make themselves relevant enough to remain on TV). Some fans have already grown tired of the played up theatrics from guys like Bayless, and it’s likely more fans will feel this way in the future as they try to keep up with sports stories while having to endure through the outlandish folks reporting the stories.
www.drstankovich.com
