Championship Drive Show

[Doppelganger]

I'm done participating in worthless banter that serves no purpose in this thread.

This is the second time you've said bye.

Nobody believes you this time either.

 

[Doppelganger]

So are you objecting to the fact that the person on the picture was a "disgusting fat man" or that it said "this shouldn't be allowed"?

I'm saying that your claim that ESPN was hypocritical is not true.

And your understanding of this issue is very remedial.

And that companies like ESPN err on the side of inclusion because they want to draw wide audiences.

And "conservative" opinions are generally more vile and exclusive by nature.

 

[Doppelganger]

What are your thoughts on Disney employing the Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson? Should they be concerned that on "Ballers" he is constantly sleeping around with random woman, popping pain pills, and dropping the f-bomb in every other scene? How do you think that the people that you claim Disney doesn't want to alienate feel about that?

So now art is being compared to Curt Schilling's political beliefs.

Comical.

And desperate.

You're lost. Just as I concluded after reading your first post.

 

[Hurracanes]

You're either cutting the cord or you aren't and tell me that most dudes 10 years ago or more would be willing to do so if it meant losing ESPN.

And cord-cutting causes every traditional carriage network to lose subscribers.

So why is this much hay being made about ESPN?

Ironically, because of the political agenda of old white men and networks like Fox Sports who want ESPN to fail.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but what does "cutting the cord" mean? I have not heard that expression.

 

[Genghis Cane]

Of course cord cutting has had an impact on ESPN cable viewership, but to deny the possibility that ESPN’s strongly perceived increased political slant has something to do with lost viewership, especially when it comes to its non-sports programming shows, is just not realistic.

Don't even try anymore. This guy is delusional. The fact that some people are not watching ESPN anymore because of the promulgation and interjection of politics into sports is foreign to him. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to analyze polling data and surveys. But, judging by this guy's comments, it is clear he leans left, which is fine but don't insist your argument is the only one with any merit or substance to it. There is a bottom line: many people watch sports to escape the world of politics, so when this is no longer possible, people stop tuning in.

 

[Hurricanemike32]

How is it that you are not hypocritical to say that Jemele Hill said something on Twitter and not on air so it shouldn't affect my viewing habits. Schilling puts something on Twitter that he didn't discuss on air and your stance is that it was a "disgusting caricature" and that it could potentially alienate some of ESPN or Disney's audience so his firing was justified.

Because they didn't commit the same act.

You now don't seem to even know what hypocrisy means.

I am sorry but because one tweet posted a picture of an overweight person and one did not has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of it. They both voiced a political opinion, one was in line with ESPN's political views and one was not. Just because you have an issue with overweight people doesn't make it any less hypocritical just because you say so.

I couldn't help but notice how you skimmed right over the Linda Cohn example. Was her tweet accompanied by an offensive picture of an overweight person or did you choose to ignore that point because it didn't fit your agenda? That seems somewhat hypocritical as well.

 

[Doppelganger]

Of course cord cutting has had an impact on ESPN cable viewership, but to deny the possibility that ESPN’s strongly perceived increased political slant has something to do with lost viewership, especially when it comes to its non-sports programming shows, is just not realistic.

Again, important point.

ESPN hasn't lost viewership per se.

They've lost subscribers. Just like every other carriage network.

I don't deny any possibility.

I just know that there's as much a political movement against ESPN as there is the existence of one on their network.

If it was even 10% of the subscriber loss I'd b shocked.

 

[Genghis Cane]

So are you objecting to the fact that the person on the picture was a "disgusting fat man" or that it said "this shouldn't be allowed"?

I'm saying that your claim that ESPN was hypocritical is not true.

And your understanding of this issue is very remedial.

And that companies like ESPN err on the side of inclusion because they want to draw wide audiences.

And "conservative" opinions are generally more vile and exclusive by nature.

Lol, says who? You? Get a grip, man.

 

[DrStrange]

Are you somehow insinuating that both Disney and ESPN should be ok with alienating people with conservative viewpoints?

No, again. You don't even have a surface understanding of this issue.

It isn't a conservative vs. liberal thing.

It's an opinion vs. a vile opinion thing.

Curt Schilling didn't get fired for posting a conservative opinion.

Once you finally come to grips with that then you'll understand the issue. Until then you'll keep getting it wrong.

So, do you consider calling the sitting President of the United States a white supremacist to be an opinion or vile opinion? Just curious to hear the logic behind how you characterize a view.

Calling the sitting president of the US a white supremacist is a fact that can be fully supported with evidence.

 

[Doppelganger]

So, do you consider calling the sitting President of the United States a white supremacist to be an opinion or vile opinion? Just curious to hear the logic behind how you characterize a view.

No, I consider that to be an observation that is very supportable by evidence.

Curt Schilling claimed that transgender people are akin to fat men in drag (which isn't the same thing) and should be excluded from bathrooms.

The former is not a vile picture and/or caricature. The latter is.

 

[HurricaneVision]

It's an interesting debate which- for the most part- was kept civil. Honestly, the world we are living in has devolved into a world where the lines for sports, social issues, politics, and personal agendas tend to get mashed up into one big blob.

Many people want to use sports to escape this reality and just be entertained. The individuals on the field, of course, are human beings no different than the rest of us, and are therefore using their platform to further whichever agenda interests them. The individuals speaking on the topics are doing the same.

Like most issues, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. There probably is truth to the belief that women having opinions on sports is uncomfortable to many men based on the fact this is new to them, the individuals speaking have never experienced what is occurring on the field, and are therefore viewed differently by many. This is why so many lump race into the equation as well, since the practice of characterizing individuals based on outward differences is essentially the same with racism, sexism, partisan affiliation, or any other generalizations that occur.

For me, ESPN is dying because all forms of media are changing. The world is no longer setup to have certain groups controlling information. When so many places have a seat at the table- however small it might be- the overall capacity for any one entity shrinks. People get their opinions in so many places, they are not forced to get it at a set time, on a set channel, given by individuals predetermined for them. Add to that with so many options and human nature tending to gravitate towards the opinions that validate their own, and it's a recipe for what you see now. An industry filled with niche media biting away at the power conglomerates.

Let me be the first to tell you; I am a nobody. I do not expect to ever be a somebody. My background is in Finance. I was successful in that world to the degree I was running a global billing department for a Fortune 200 company. Required to understand international commerce for the exchanging of billions of dollars a year. Now I'm trying to write about sports because it's what I enjoy. I have a voice because of the internet and all of the outlets to be heard. Thirty years ago that wouldn't have been possible for me.

You're seeing the same thing happen on a larger scale for places like ESPN because they have no choice but to change or be left behind.

 

[Doppelganger]

Lol, says who? You? Get a grip, man.

Of course me.

Who else would post it under my handle?

This is simple even for political science novices. Heck, even a random observer can understand that conservative opinions are generally more exclusive.

In fact many of the conservatives giving those opinions are proud of that fact.

Seriously, this is news to you?

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

Of course cord cutting has had an impact on ESPN cable viewership, but to deny the possibility that ESPN’s strongly perceived increased political slant has something to do with lost viewership, especially when it comes to its non-sports programming shows, is just not realistic.

Again, important point.

ESPN hasn't lost viewership per se.

They've lost subscribers. Just like every other carriage network.

I don't deny any possibility.

I just know that there's as much a political movement against ESPN as there is the existence of one on their network.

If it was even 10% of the subscriber loss I'd b shocked.

Well, yes, they actually have lost viewership. Please read. Lost viewership.

Jemele Hill Controversy Magnifies Troubles at ESPN – Variety

 

[Doppelganger]

The fact that some people are not watching ESPN anymore because of the promulgation and interjection of politics into sports is foreign to him.

Again, you can't even get simple things right.

ESPN's ratings are not down. Their subscribers are down.

That's because of cord-cutting.

If even 10% of it was due to angry white men cancelling their cable subscription it would be shocking.

But I bet it isn't even that much.

 

[Genghis Cane]

Are you somehow insinuating that both Disney and ESPN should be ok with alienating people with conservative viewpoints?

No, again. You don't even have a surface understanding of this issue.

It isn't a conservative vs. liberal thing.

It's an opinion vs. a vile opinion thing.

Curt Schilling didn't get fired for posting a conservative opinion.

Once you finally come to grips with that then you'll understand the issue. Until then you'll keep getting it wrong.

So, do you consider calling the sitting President of the United States a white supremacist to be an opinion or vile opinion? Just curious to hear the logic behind how you characterize a view.

Calling the sitting president of the US a white supremacist is a fact that can be fully supported with evidence.

The definition of a white supremacist is the following:

a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.

Tell me what evidence you have that substantiates this definition.

By the way, I'm not even a Trump supporter — ****, I didn't vote for the guy, but the over the top rhetoric is insane.

 

[QuattroCane]

Are you somehow insinuating that both Disney and ESPN should be ok with alienating people with conservative viewpoints?

No, again. You don't even have a surface understanding of this issue.

It isn't a conservative vs. liberal thing.

It's an opinion vs. a vile opinion thing.

Curt Schilling didn't get fired for posting a conservative opinion.

Once you finally come to grips with that then you'll understand the issue. Until then you'll keep getting it wrong.

So, do you consider calling the sitting President of the United States a white supremacist to be an opinion or vile opinion? Just curious to hear the logic behind how you characterize a view.

Calling the sitting president of the US a white supremacist is a fact that can be fully supported with evidence.

Do tell...

 

[Doppelganger]

But, judging by this guy's comments, it is clear he leans left, which is fine but don't insist your argument is the only one with any merit or substance to it. There is a bottom line: many people watch sports to escape the world of politics, so when this is no longer possible, people stop tuning in.

I don't insist that.

It just looks that way because the opposition to me is so feckless and inarticulate.

 

[Genghis Cane]

Lol, says who? You? Get a grip, man.

Of course me.

Who else would post it under my handle?

This is simple even for political science novices. Heck, even a random observer can understand that conservative opinions are generally more exclusive.

In fact many of the conservatives giving those opinions are proud of that fact.

Seriously, this is news to you?

Depends on what you would classify as a "conservative" view or policy.

 

[Doppelganger]

There is a bottom line: many people watch sports to escape the world of politics, so when this is no longer possible, people stop tuning in.

This hasn't been demonstrated though which is basically where this thread has gone.

There's no evidence that ESPN programming is liberal and that it's impossible to watch without politics being involved.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

“Sports Media Watch reported in March that viewership three months after the launch of “SC6” — as the 6 p.m. show was rebranded — was down 4%.”

“Its ratings have faced an even steeper decline, with average total viewers falling 19.2% from 2014 to 2016.”

Viewership declines, from previously linked Variety article. Pretty much every reputable source out there agrees they have significantly lost viewers.

You need to take a knee on that part of your argument.