I believe the word you are looking for is "synergy."
Refresh my memory:
Who is showing the women's basketball selection show?
Who isn't showing the men's show (well, they have one, and it used to be on at the same time as the official one, but CBS/TNT threw a fit or something, as now it is delayed by an hour)?
What company owns the network airing the women's championship game?
What company owns ESPN?
What company doesn't own a network airing any games in the men's tournament? ESPN is advertising its product.
espn buying the rights in the first place and paying actual money for it is another example of this to begin with(pandering to appease certain critics)ESPN is advertising its product.nah, that may be a *little* of it, but it certainly can't account for much of it. Because the juice just isn't worth the squeeze.....even with disproprtionate advertising given the interest level the numbers are still miniscule. Nevermind the fact that
Another reason I know that's not all of it is because other entities do this as well. Yahoo sports browser always opens automatically on my laptop and I'll see front page stories on womens basketball as well there. That's how I know that some chycknamed Kaitlin(sp?) hit a game winner for some team this weekend lol......
So I logged on to espn today(I know I know....) and the front page is
filled with articles on the women's basketball tournament coming soon. Including fascinating headlines like who are the last four women teams
out, and which lower seeds could make a surprise run.
Is this defensible? I'm asking the question for two reasons: ESPN is
part of a public company, and journalism defenders like to pretend that journalists have certain special place in society with rights and responsibilities to go along with that(I realize thats a far broader discussion)
So given the above, and given that NOBODY IS INTERESTED in reading these articles giving detailed breakdowns of who will get an 11 seed in the
women's tourney(lol)........is it defensible for companies like espn to do this?
On the one hand you could say "well it's their right to put whatever they want on the front page". I guess that's true, but if that's the case
then don't give me this crap about how journalists "have an vital responsibility to serve blah blah blah...."
We know what this is- it's flagrant pandering to not be attacked by the ardent women's equality in sports types(the christine brennans of the
world). They want to show that they do care about and respect female
sports like college basketball, and pretend that there is an audience
that wants to read this.
In that respect it goes against the idea of trying to serve the sports
news consumer. It goes against the idea of trying to serve and respect stockholders(which as a public company one would think they should)
we would *never* see espn do this for a mens sport that doesn't fall into
the pc protected class. espn had to be dragged kicking and screaming
into covering MMA in any real way. Would they ever write front page
articles on MMA if it had the same following and interest level as womens college basketball nationally? Of course not.....
So which is it- is it defensible that espn gives this sort of a coverage
to a sport with this little true interest? Or is it indefensible?
Also note that I say 'true interest' because it's important not to misinterpret a certain type of echo chamber between sports media entities as interest.
I believe the word you are looking for is "synergy."
Refresh my memory:
Who is showing the women's basketball selection show?
Who isn't showing the men's show (well, they have one, and it used to be
on at the same time as the official one, but CBS/TNT threw a fit or something, as now it is delayed by an hour)?
What company owns the network airing the women's championship game?
What company owns ESPN?
What company doesn't own a network airing any games in the men's tournament? ESPN is advertising its product.
Oh, and if you want something to laugh about: Disney is going to great
pains to advertise: "Hey, we're showing the women's championship game on
ABC for the first time in the tournament's history! Never mind that we're
not mentioning that it's being played in the afternoon, presumably
because we're not about to pre-empt American Idol for this!"
There's only two reasons left for women's sports in this country, other than prurient:
To rip transgenders and because the law requires women's sports to exist.
There's only two reasons left for women's sports in this country, other than prurient:
To rip transgenders and because the law requires women's sports to exist.I must have missed where it says in either the Constitution or the United States Code that the WNBA has to exist.
It's probably right next to the parts where it says (a) the Congress has the unilateral authority to overturn an electoral college vote once it has taken place,
and (b) someone "constitutionally ineligible to be President" can become President, but only by being Speaker of the House.
IIRC, the WNBA was formed for one primary reason; for NBA team owners who also own the arenas they play in to have something to put in those arenas in the summer. The Harlem Globetrotters (and Ringling Brothers & Barnum & Bailey Circus, before itfolded) can only fill so many dates in each city.
Why does the WNBA still exist? I think it's one of two reasons - probably a combination of both:
(a) Somebody thinks there's a chance that, someday, this thing is going to turn a profit, because thinking like that worked so well for the old USFL and arena football;
(b) Somebody is afraid of the backlash. If ESPN/ABC were to announce, "We're not renewing our contract with the WNBA," I expect NBC/Peacock to reply, "We'll start showing the WNBA - and hope the NBA remembers this when ABC/ESPN's NBA TV contractexpires." I'm sure that ABC airing the WNBA had "nothing whatsoever" with the NBA moving from NBC...no, I can't say that with a straight face, either.
There's only two reasons left for women's sports in this country, other than prurient:
You know better than that. Unless you want to declare Title IX unconstitutional (and I give that about 24 months, putting it on the back of trans athletes, but it gets done something conservatives have wanted done a long time...).To rip transgenders and because the law requires women's sports to exist.I must have missed where it says in either the Constitution or the United States Code that the WNBA has to exist.
replace Agnew before Nixon resigned) for the Speaker of the House.and (b) someone "constitutionally ineligible to be President" can become President, but only by being Speaker of the House.There is a provision to prohibit a direct ascension of an ineligible from VP to President (by disallowing them from becoming VP in the first place). There is no such provision (because a two-step ascension has > never occurred (Ford was confirmed to
folded) can only fill so many dates in each city.IIRC, the WNBA was formed for one primary reason; for NBA team owners who also own the arenas they play in to have something to put in those arenas in the summer. The Harlem Globetrotters (and Ringling Brothers & Barnum & Bailey Circus, before it
That's almost certainly true, but you have to wonder when the lawsuits would start otherwise.
There's only two reasons left for women's sports in this country, other than prurient:
Title IX doesn't apply to the WNBA, unless the NBA accepts federal funding that I am not aware of.You know better than that. Unless you want to declare Title IX unconstitutional (and I give that about 24 months, putting it on the back of trans athletes, but it gets done something conservatives have wanted done a long time...).To rip transgenders and because the law requires women's sports to exist.I must have missed where it says in either the Constitution or the United States Code that the WNBA has to exist.
Besides - if the WNBA has to exist, then why isn't there a WNFL?
replace Agnew before Nixon resigned) for the Speaker of the House.and (b) someone "constitutionally ineligible to be President" can become President, but only by being Speaker of the House.There is a provision to prohibit a direct ascension of an ineligible from VP to President (by disallowing them from becoming VP in the first place). There is no such provision (because a two-step ascension has > never occurred (Ford was confirmed to
Do you mean this law:shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President."
"If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives
This is Title 3, Section 19(a)(1) of the United States Code - but section 19(e) says, "Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution." Translation: ifyou are ineligible to be President, then you are ineligible to be "acting President" as well. Looks like somebody already fixed that loophole you claimed existed.
folded) can only fill so many dates in each city.IIRC, the WNBA was formed for one primary reason; for NBA team owners who also own the arenas they play in to have something to put in those arenas in the summer. The Harlem Globetrotters (and Ringling Brothers & Barnum & Bailey Circus, before it
That's almost certainly true, but you have to wonder when the lawsuits would start otherwise.Lawsuits on what grounds - and why aren't there any equivalent lawsuits in other sports that don't have women's leagues?
In fact, there is a case which several are trying to jam-job into this Supreme Court that Trump needs to be immediately reinstalled because the 2021 Congress failed to investigate allegations of fraud which were signed on to by dozens of Republicans.
Look up "Brunson vs. Adams"
michael anderson <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
So I logged on to espn today(I know I know....) and the front page is filled with articles on the women's basketball tournament coming soon. Including fascinating headlines like who are the last four women teams out, and which lower seeds could make a surprise run.
Is this defensible? I'm asking the question for two reasons: ESPN is
part of a public company, and journalism defenders like to pretend that journalists have certain special place in society with rights and responsibilities to go along with that(I realize thats a far broader discussion)
So given the above, and given that NOBODY IS INTERESTED in reading these articles giving detailed breakdowns of who will get an 11 seed in the women's tourney(lol)........is it defensible for companies like espn to do this?
On the one hand you could say "well it's their right to put whatever they want on the front page". I guess that's true, but if that's the case
then don't give me this crap about how journalists "have an vital responsibility to serve blah blah blah...."
We know what this is- it's flagrant pandering to not be attacked by the ardent women's equality in sports types(the christine brennans of the world). They want to show that they do care about and respect female sports like college basketball, and pretend that there is an audience
that wants to read this.
In that respect it goes against the idea of trying to serve the sports news consumer. It goes against the idea of trying to serve and respect stockholders(which as a public company one would think they should)
we would *never* see espn do this for a mens sport that doesn't fall into the pc protected class. espn had to be dragged kicking and screaming
into covering MMA in any real way. Would they ever write front page articles on MMA if it had the same following and interest level as womens college basketball nationally? Of course not.....
So which is it- is it defensible that espn gives this sort of a coverage to a sport with this little true interest? Or is it indefensible?
Also note that I say 'true interest' because it's important not to misinterpret a certain type of echo chamber between sports media entities as interest.
Your first mistake is confusing sports writing with journalism.
--
“I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian, liberal personality.” — Altie
In fact, there is a case which several are trying to jam-job into this Supreme Court that Trump needs to be immediately reinstalled because the 2021 Congress failed to investigate allegations of fraud which were signed on to by dozens of Republicans.
Look up "Brunson vs. Adams"I found it - twice:
(Supreme Court of the United States) Order List - January 9, 2023
22-380 BRUNSON, RALAND J. V. ADAMS, ALMA S., ET AL.
Petition for writ of certiorari is denied. (Translation: we're not hearing the case.)
Order List - February 21, 2023
22-380 BRUNSON, RALAND J. V. ADAMS, ALMA S., ET AL.
Petition for rehearing is denied. (Translation: what part of "stop wasting our time" did you not understand the first time?)
Look up "Brunson vs. Adams"I found it - twice:
(Supreme Court of the United States) Order List - January 9, 2023
22-380 BRUNSON, RALAND J. V. ADAMS, ALMA S., ET AL.
Petition for writ of certiorari is denied. (Translation: we're not hearing the case.)
Order List - February 21, 2023As I said, they are trying to jam-job it.
22-380 BRUNSON, RALAND J. V. ADAMS, ALMA S., ET AL.
Petition for rehearing is denied. (Translation: what part of "stop wasting our time" did you not understand the first time?)
TRIED to jam-job it - and failed miserably, as it takes at least six justices to deny certiorari.
The court will not hear the case - end of the discussion.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 437 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 187:02:47 |
| Calls: | 9,135 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,429 |
| Messages: | 6,034,908 |