My second first-round projection (mock draft) went up on Tuesday, and I held a Klawchat, in which some guy got mad at me for answering a question about my first-round projections by including that link, on Friday. It’s bad enough civility is dead, but must we continue to mutiliate its corpse?
My latest boardgame review for Paste covers the light detective/puzzle game Watson & Holmes, yet another game that uses those public-domain characters strictly for marketing purposes. It’s not a bad game, though, just a little too simple.
I’m told that Smart Baseball continues to sell well, although the sales figures I get mean nothing to me (since it’s my first book), but it wouldn’t hurt if you bought a dozen more copies to give out for Father’s Day to … um … your twelve fathers. Feel free to sign up for my email newsletter as well.
And now, the links…
- I tweeted this one earlier in the week but it’s worth a second boost: Child marriage is still legal in Florida and several other states. As I read the Delaware statute (note: I’m not a lawyer) I think it’s technically legal here too, whereas the author of that op ed is arguing for it to be explicitly banned.
- A professor at Evergreen State College has been the target of protests and threats of violence for challenging a campus tradition that, this year, asked white students and faculty to leave campus in a day of forced segregation.
- Tasting Table dissects the Philly staple, the roast pork sandwich, including the best of the breed, the version at High Street on Market, with house-made bread and fermented broccoli rabe.
- Why is east Africa starving while corn silos in South Africa are overflowing? Because most African countries, including hard-hit Kenya, ban imports of GMO corn. Fear of science is actually killing people.
- What is it about Haruki Murakami that mesmerizes people? I found his two best novels, The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle and Kafka on the Shore, to be just that – mesmerizing, like reading your way into a dream-state – but everything before and after those two has left me flat.
- The Ringer talked to the four actors who played The Kids in season four of The Wire.
- A study published last August found that some cases of ‘untreatable’ depression were tied to metabolic deficiencies and could be treated with supplements, some as common as folate.
- Legendary tech writer Walter Mossberg, who spent many years as the technology reviewer-critic for the Wall Street Journal, is retiring and wrote his final column for Recode.
- This Atlantic piece from a month ago is the best explanation I’ve found of ESPN’s layoffs and changing business model. Our revenues are driven by cable subscriptions, and as people cut cable, entirely or partially (me), it’s going to reduce the revenues of every cable station. So, no, this isn’t about the white nationalists’ claims that ESPN itself is a leftist entity.
- Into the swamp: Jared Kushner used a federal loan program aimed at helping poor, job-starved areas to build a luxury skyscraper.
- HHS Secretary Tom Price enriched himself by buying drug stocks and pushing policies to help those companies.
- The Administration appointed Nantworks CEO Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong to a health information technology advisory committee. He has a history of rigging donations to fuel the money back to his company and accused media reporting on his company’s revenue troubles of pushing fake news.
- Although this Washington Post story purports to discuss fake news coming from within the White House, I think the real message is how supporters of this Administration choose to believe only what they wish to believe. Anonymous sources are fine if they tell you what you wanted to hear; otherwise, they’re “fake news.” You see this with science deniers and conspiracy theorists (people who call themselves “truthers” withou a trace of irony) too.
- “Auntie” Maxine Waters has become a hero to the online (so-called) resistance, but they are conveniently forgetting her history of corruption allegations.
- How on earth did a prep school teacher work for four schools in six years despite accusations of sexual misconduct at three of them? Rhetorical question, of course: Schools didn’t and still don’t report this stuff to future employers.
- The New York Times axed its ‘public editor’ this week and, really, when they run garbage this puff piece on “wellness” charlatan Amanda Chantal Bacon, it’s hard to understand what that person was doing in the first place.
- An autistic writer penned this piece in February about the irresponsibility of speculation around whether Barron Trump is on the spectrum. I don’t think such speculation is remotely fair or warranted, but it resurfaced this week with the totally unverifiable story that Barron thought Kathy Griffin’s (offensive) photo of her holding a fake, bloody Trump head was real.
- I thought this story about Melania Trump and the wife of the Israeli President was a rare glimpse into the humanity of someone who, fairly or not, is painted as a mere trophy wife.
- Oklahoma’s budget crisis has many schools dropping to just four days a week of classes. Both Oklahoma and Kansas are run by far-right Republican Governors who’ve helped drive their states off the fiscal cliff, and who’ve widely expanded publicly-funded charter schools at the apparent expense of traditional public schools.
- This seems like a big deal – the FDA just approved the first cancer-fighting drug tied to a specific biomarker in the tumor. Previous cancer drugs were all targeted to a type of cancer – lung, skin, blood – defined by its original location in the body.
- I’ll end with this.
For some international perspective on the Paris Accord, this is from Australia's @theage. pic.twitter.com/lAnaxWKT1T
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 2, 2017
Great but sobering piece catching up on the kids from The Wire season 4. Life continues to imitate art: just like the alternative schooling program Bunny Olvin helped pilot, the show is universally praised by academic types but ultimately ineffectual in driving meaningful societal change. Not saying this is a fault of the show, of course- it’s just a tv show.
Hey Keith, not to nitpick but you wrote “An autistic writer penned this piece in February” while I think it would be best to say “A writer with autism”, which is an example of people first language. Helps prevent negative subconscious connections and help to define the individual as a person and not by their disability.
Obviously, I don’t think you intended anything negative but its worth noting.
Thanks
The piece on African corn crops doesn’t mention the reason(s) behind the GMO import bans, and I must admit that my own knowledge is shaky, but I am under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that some of these bans are motivated by the behavior of the companies (Monsanto being the most famous, but not the only one) that own the patents on these GMO corn varietals. Specifically, I recall reading about such companies suing farmers whose non-Monsanto (just to choose an example) crops cross pollinated with patented crops, resulting in a supposedly illegal use of the patented material. If this is indeed the case, such bans are understandable, if perhaps still ultimately misguided. I do think that the idea of a company owning the rights to a food supply to the extent that they can punish even those who end up with the crop on their land inadvertently does raise troubling issues, ones that I don’t see addressed when we talk about GMO and science-denialism.
That said, I could be totally wrong about all of this. It’s just something I seem to remember reading about.
If anyone is interested I found these two links on Amanda Chantal Bacon. Morbidly fascinating stuff
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/5/27/15698268/amanda-chantal-bacon-moon-juice
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2016/02/09/a-skeptical-mostly-non-mocking-look-at-amanda-chantal-bacons-diet/
I think we will know when ESPN has become the leftist utopia that they are being accused of, when they display the Washington football team without its nickname. I’m pretty sure “SJW”s are against the obviously racist team name, yet it is shown in graphics and the bottom line, as well as being mentioned by basically every person working there.
Agreed on Murakami. I loved Wind-Up Bird Chronicle and Norwegian Wood, so I devoured three more novels… and found them completely uninspired. The short stories I’ve read of his have been great, though.
“So, no, this isn’t about the white nationalists’ claims that ESPN itself is a leftist entity.”
Strawman. It isn’t just “white nationalists’ claiming this. Ordinary, sane, rational, and even intellectual people see ESPN along with quite a few other cable outlets as a cesspool of garbage and pushing what could be described as a “left-wing” agenda. It may be anecdotal at this point, but there is no shortage of people, in my circle, and whom I’ve encountered online who’ve “cut the cord” and named this as the primary reason. You don’t just get to dismiss legitimate criticism as being unfounded paranoia by racists.
You don’t just get to dismiss legitimate criticism as being unfounded paranoia by racists.
Then you need to provide some actual evidence – not the argument from personal experience (anecdotal fallacy) – that this is true, that people are cutting cable (including Fox News and its ilk) for political reasons, because I’ve seen none. People are cutting cable for reasons of cost. Money is the greatest incentive there is, and since it’s cheaper to use streaming services and keeps consumers from paying for channels they don’t use. Occam’s Razor says money is why people are cutting the cord. You need actual evidence to argue that there’s anything more to it.
I agree entirely with Keith here. There are many people who have cut the cord, and some of them even object to ESPN being liberal (as they see it). However, I’ve seen nothing persuasive that actually connects those two things.
Indeed, even if people SAY that ESPN’s liberal bias was the issue, I find that hard to believe. That would require someone to declare, “I’m going to give up ESPN, plus ALL of my other cable channels, in protest.” And if they sign up for a streaming service, like DirecTV now, or Sling, then they are full of crap, since those services both have ESPN (and MSNBC).
Isn’t the easiest way to at least start isolating variables here through ratings? If people were “forced” to purchase ESPN before, and that’s since changed or is changing to people who are more likely to watch it, wouldn’t ratings remain largely constant?
Daniel makes a good point here, and I believe the decline in ratings at least partially support the thesis that many people are tuning out for some non-monetary reason – be it political, just uninterested in the programming, etc. It may not be the overwhelming reason why, but I can guarantee ESPN is suffering from social/political forces.
I can guarantee ESPN is suffering from social/political forces.
Your guarantee is not worth anything as evidence.
Ratings are down across all cable networks because of cord-cutting. The onus is on you to show that ESPN is 1) suffering greater ratings drops than mere cord-cutting would indicate and 2) that “social/political forces” are a cause. Simply repeating that you believe this to be true is not sufficient.
I rarely watch ESPN anymore and it has nothing to do with perceived political bias. Growing up ESPN was invaluable to the sports fan in me to keep me up to date and informed. Now I have access to scores, highlights,
rumors and opinions at all times so I don’t need to wait around for SC to get to the stuff I’m interested in. If you told me ten years ago that I would not have cable, I wouldn’t have believed you because I would have thought I needed ESPN.
Now I have access to scores, highlights, rumors and opinions at all times so I don’t need to wait around for SC to get to the stuff I’m interested in.
Exactly. And you don’t even necessarily need ESPN to watch live sports. I watch very little television, period, because I now have access to the content I want, when and where I want it, without using cable. I could tell you it’s because I loathe Fox News, but that would be codswallop. It’s because I value my money and my time.
If ESPN’s ratings were down due to a political agenda and not cord cutting, shouldn’t the ratings of their main rival, FS1, be higher? They weren’t in April. ESPN’s all-day ratings were down 2% in April while FS1’s were down 15%. It is only one month of course, but it doesn’t help the political agenda argument. I wish the article also included NBCSN.
http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/fs1-primetime-viewership-takes-big-year-year-hit-espns-rises.html
“Your guarantee is not worth anything as evidence. ”
This probably won’t make a difference to you as your mind seems made up, but here goes. I cancelled my ESPN Insder subscription right after ESPN announced Caitlyn Jenner the winner of their courage award. I soon thereafter cancelled my entire satellite package based largely on the dissatisfaction of what ESPN was increasingly bringing to the table from a social/political standpoint. In my extended friend/family network, there have been 11 other households cancel (and completely abandon) cable/satellite during this most recent two-year stretch, and of those 11, seven indicated to me that ESPN and its increasingly political climate was the primary reason for their decision. So that makes eight of us. Now you may consider us an unrepresentative sample and the only six households in the world to make the decision and base it on that criteria, and that’s fine. All I said was, “I can guarantee ESPN is suffering from social/political forces.” Us eight households may be alone and only 0.00000001% or whatever of ESPN’s revenue base, and that’s fine, but we did cut primarily for the reasons indicated, and technically speaking, I am correct with my statement, however miniscule our “impact” may be. Feel free to poke holes all you want in my “anecdote,” but to dismiss it as casually as you have seems incredibly short-sighted. Granted, the area I live in and my friends/family probably lean more politically conservative than the US average, but it’s hard to ignore when 8 of 12 households cut their cable/satellite and will cite ESPN’s political “crusades” as the leading element in their decision.
seven indicated to me that ESPN and its increasingly political climate was the primary reason for their decision.
Seven households cancelled their ENTIRE cable packages because ESPN was too political? This doesn’t sound nonsensical to you?
I’m also morbidly curious why ESPN giving a transgender woman an award that the company itself made up would cause you to cancel Insider.
While you’re at it, can you explain how you’re not a bigot if you object that strenuously to someone being transgender?
Also, very classy to include “Dr.” in your name. I find myself skeptical that you’re actually entitled to that honorific.
“This doesn’t sound nonsensical to you? ”
I’m only telling you what their seemingly earnest opinions/feelings were on the subject. But one thing I’ve learned is to not just casually dismiss something because at first glance it seems “nonsensical.” A large part of me finds it “nonsensical” that quite a few people believe/believed that men like Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jung In, Kim Jung Il, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Nicolas Maduro, etc. are/were great leaders, worthy of admiration, etc. but the fact is they do and we have to deal with the reality of that. I’m not denying that general cord-cutting and the other things you mention isn’t playing the largest role in the shift we’re saying, just that the idea that ESPN may be alienating a not-so-insignificant portion of its viewer base with politicized programming may not be so silly.
“While you’re at it, can you explain how you’re not a bigot if you object that strenuously to someone being transgender?”
Way to completely misrepresent what I said. I do not “object” to Caitlyn Jenner or anyone else being transgender, nor did I say so above. What I objected to was ESPN’s ridiculous decision to give her a ridiculous award (an overtly political act, if you ask me). So, no, your bigot charge fails on all counts.
And yet, you apparently didn’t object to other winners of the award. What was different this time?
“just that the idea that ESPN may be alienating a not-so-insignificant portion of its viewer base with politicized programming may not be so silly.”
If the argument isn’t silly then you should have something other than anecdote. There are many articles out there that discuss the timeline of when ESPN began losing subscribers. At the very least you should be able to correlate lost subscribers to ESPN’s lurch left. To show causation would require showing ESPN was hit more severely by cord cutting than other cable companies. I’ve read a variety of articles on this and I’ve yet to see someone even attempt to use numbers to prove ESPN is losing subscribers because it is liberal. That’s probably because the numbers undermine the argument. For example, Caitlyn Jenner won the Arthur Ashe Award in June of 2015. ESPN had already lost several million (I think around 5-7 million) subscribers by that time.
The other reason this theory is unpersuasive is because ESPN doesn’t seem to give it any credence. I realize this is an appeal to authority, but if ESPN thought putting out conservative opinions or quieting liberal opinions would increase viewership, wouldn’t they do that? Instead, they have mostly fired beat reporters, writers, a few TV personalities and behind the scenes people. Those actions are consistent with a company that believes cord cutting is permanent and they need to cut costs.
If getting you and your friends back was simply a matter of looking and sounding more like Fox News and less like MSNBC, they would certainly do that.
Anecdotal evidence is evidence, otherwise it wouldn’t be called evidence. I’ve also encountered people who’ve cited ESPN’s supposed liberal bias as reason not to tune in. I believe they believe it to be true. I lack the resources to commission a study on the matter.
It’s true. Many people say that anecdotal evidence is the bigliest evidence. In fact, I’ve had people tell me that I am anecdotal evidence.
True – anecdotal evidence is evidence, of a type. But it shouldn’t be considered to be reliable (generally far too small/isolated a sample), and it certainly should not be used to extrapolate onto larger trends.
Tom Friedman’s Bangalore cab driver would beg to differ.
“The other reason this theory is unpersuasive is because ESPN doesn’t seem to give it any credence. I realize this is an appeal to authority, but if ESPN thought putting out conservative opinions or quieting liberal opinions would increase viewership, wouldn’t they do that?”
How many businesses throughout the history of mankind have eschewed seemingly obvious fixes/solutions to widely reported problems and continued down a path towards irrelevance, self-destruction, etc.?
You’re acting as if ESPN’s management might be immune to something that’s plagued untold companies throughout time. There are businesses failing on a regular basis were anyone with half a brain looking at their model from the outside can see they need to: “have more of an online presence,” “advertise better to their target market,” “not charge so much,” “hire friendlier, more knowledgeable people”….I think you get the idea. Some companies have even been known to “double-down” on failed ideas even after getting widespread feedback they might be on the wrong track.
You’re acting as if ESPN’s management might be immune to something that’s plagued untold companies throughout time.
You’re acting as if ESPN’s management is an independent entity. They answer to Disney. And Disney is the same entity that ordered the cost-cutting.
I see that “Doctor” Jack has neglected to answer my question, so I will post it again: If you’re not transphobic, then why were you just fine with ESPN giving out this award to others, and then wildly offended when she got it?
“I see that “Doctor” Jack has neglected to answer my question…”
I’m not answering your question, but I will respond to you, so as not to be rude and just ignore you. I don’t get the impression you’re interested in a good faith dialogue on the matter, and my personal beliefs, feelings, etc. should be relatively immaterial to you. Ultimately, then, I don’t see a productive conversation stemming from this, and I don’t think Keith would appreciate unproductive conversation sprayed all over the walls here.
Ultimately, then, I don’t see a productive conversation stemming from this, and I don’t think Keith would appreciate unproductive conversation sprayed all over the walls here.
Keith is right here, and would like you to answer CB’s question.
“You’re acting as if ESPN’s management is an independent entity. They answer to Disney. And Disney is the same entity that ordered the cost-cutting.”
You’re answering a different question and state something that isn’t necessarily germane to the point I was making to Tim. His basic point was, “Well, if it would be such a smart decision to do (fill in the blank) to stop the bleeding and make lots of money again, why don’t they do it?” All I was saying was that not all companies make the right call when at a crossroads as to what to do next and automatically pick the best path to get out of the hole they’re digging. My point wasn’t about who was calling the shots, just that we often see whomever that is make what looks like a poor decision in hindsight.
My point wasn’t about who was calling the shots, just that we often see whomever that is make what looks like a poor decision in hindsight.
You wrote that we were “acting as if ESPN’s management might be immune to something that’s plagued untold companies throughout time.” I just explained to you why this is a bogus argument. Now you’re moving the goalposts.
I trust everyone here can see through your efforts to make me into the bad guy while dodging my question. But there’s no avoiding the corner you’ve backed yourself into. ESPN gave out this award for many years, and you didn’t care. Then, according to your own accounting, they gave it to someone who is transgender and you canceled your ENTIRE cable package. Clearly, transphobia was at least PART of what dictated your response. If you had any alternative explanation, in which Jenner’s trans status was not germane, you would have already provided it.
“You’re acting as if ESPN’s management might be immune to something that’s plagued untold companies throughout time.”
I’m not acting as if they’re immune to mistakes anymore than you’re acting as if you’re friends are incapable of lying about why they are cutting the cord. I’m simply offering support for my argument as you have. It is certainly possible that ESPN/Disney management is missing what would appear to be a rather obvious solution to this alleged problem. It’s also possible that you’re wrong and your anecdotal evidence doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Sam,
Nobody is asking you to commission a study. What a laughable attempt to avoid providing any evidence or meaningfully respond to the various points made here. Try Googling “ESPN subscribers loss” or something similar, read say 5-10 articles form a diverse set of sources and become informed. If you can’t bother to become informed beyond casual conversations with people you encounter than you either don’t really care about the topic or you don’t really want to know the truth and instead want to continue to believe the facts happen to support your worldview. You are free to remain uninformed, but just admit that.
Nobody has asked me to commission a study yet.
I’ve read all about it, Tim. The correlation you cite is a strong one, and I have no doubt of its veracity. But let me go back to something you said earlier:
“I’ve read a variety of articles on this and I’ve yet to see someone even attempt to use numbers to prove ESPN is losing subscribers because it is liberal. That’s probably because the numbers undermine the argument.”
Here you cite the central issue in determining the range of individual motivations to cord cutting — you’d have to ask, and asking is expensive in anything beyond an effort to obtain an illustrative anecdote. It is far easier to establish a correlation between existing and available data. But doing so is not asking a “why” question, and yet everyone who cuts the cord has a reason. Perception of bias, whether objectively true or not, is a strong driver of an individual’s media choices, would you dispute that? What news sites do you visit?
Access to live sports on ESPN has probably been a bulwark against even more drastic cord-cutting — I myself have said (warning, SS=1) that it’s the main reason I haven’t done it. But people can age out of general sports fandom. I watch the Falcons, the Georgia Bulldogs, and some tennis and baseball. Gave up on the Braves…for political reasons! It would hurt less than ever for me to not have home access to the particular package that ESPN offers. Is it so unlikely to believe that a perceived political agenda could prove the final tip of the scales?
“Now you’re moving the goalposts.”
Not moving the goalposts; just an innocent mistake and error in articulating details….more of a slip of the tongue than anything. It would be as if I said, “Man, it’s really stupid that the GM has been putting Bryce Harper 7th in the lineup.” And your response is, “Er, you’re acting as if lineup order is the GM’s decision; that’s on the manager. The GM is there to handle who’s on the roster, not necessarily when/how they play.” And I’m like, “Yeah, my bad, just said that wrong. Regardless, hitting Harper 7th is stupid.” And you say, “Now you’re moving the goalposts.” Again, no, just a mistaken presentation of my point.
“Is it so unlikely to believe that a perceived political agenda could prove the final tip of the scales?”
Well put. Maybe some are making this argument (but I’m not) that a knee-jerk response to perceived bias and programming with a political agenda is the ONLY factor driving the decision to cut the cord. I think that’s pretty rare to practically non-existent. What I do believe is happening is people whose interest has waned for other reasons (besides politics) but would be willing to “hang on” just to have sports programming available from time to time, but the politics being (supposedly) injected is maybe the proverbial straw breaking the camel’s back.
Sam,
A study asking people why they cut the cord is a potentially good source of evidence in this debate, but you would have to be pretty careful with how you phrased those questions. But the absence of such a study doesn’t change what we do know. To me the biggest flaw with those arguing that ESPN is hurting because of it’s liberal bias is the fact that their ratings and advertising rates would be decreasing and there isn’t any evidence that is happening. I read an article yesterday that specifically said ESPN’s ratings have been consistent.
“Perception of bias, whether objectively true or not, is a strong driver of an individual’s media choices, would you dispute that? What news sites do you visit?”
Perception of bias does impact my media choices. I don’t go to Fox News or Huffington Post and other sites across the political spectrum because I perceive them to be biased and not all that informative. However, if the Washington Post or NYTimes starts showing a similar bias, my response won’t be to disconnect from the internet. It will be to stop going to those websites. I’m not disputing that perception of bias doesn’t impact media choices. I’m disputing that the perception of an liberal bias on ESPN has led millions of people to cut the cord.
“Is it so unlikely to believe that a perceived political agenda could prove the final tip of the scales?”
Could perceived political agenda be a factor in cord cutting? Certainly. But it seems incredibly unlikely that “but for” the perception that ESPN is liberal millions of people would not have cut the cord. If ESPN was perceived as being so biased the people completely cancel their cable package, it’s almost inconceivable to me that ESPN wouldn’t also see a big dip in ratings and in the amount they can demand for advertising.
Also the your “final tip of the scales” question does seem to move the goalposts. ESPN has lost 12 million subscribers over the last 6 years. I disagree with the argument that a significant portion of those 12 million left because of ESPN’s liberal bias. I think any perceived bias played a very insignificant role in the loss of 12 million subscribers.
LMFAO the whole narrative of “TEH OMG ESPN IS TEH LIB” causing people to drop cable is a hot steaming pile of bullshit with zero numbers to support it.
2017: The year of the lying mouthbreather. SMH.
Tip o’ the cap to R. Mann for a most intellectually-stimulating response.
“Dr.” Jack: At least R. Mann’s position is clear and consistent. Yours, on the other hand…
Here is the key passage from your original post: “It may be anecdotal at this point, but there is no shortage of people, in my circle, and whom I’ve encountered online who’ve ‘cut the cord’ and named this as the primary reason.”
Here is your latest: “Maybe some are making this argument (but I’m not) that a knee-jerk response to perceived bias and programming with a political agenda is the ONLY factor driving the decision to cut the cord. I think that’s pretty rare to practically non-existent. What I do believe is happening is people whose interest has waned for other reasons (besides politics) but would be willing to “hang on” just to have sports programming available from time to time, but the politics being (supposedly) injected is maybe the proverbial straw breaking the camel’s back.” (Emphasis mine; I hope the html tags work properly).
So, which is it? Is it the primary reason (a notion that most of us, I think, find hard to believe) or is it one small factor in amongst many (a notion that most of us, I think, are willing to accept)? You say you’re not moving the goalposts, but you clearly are.
I also continue to await an actual answer, as opposed to Trump-style obfuscation, as to how your fury about the Caitlyn Jenner award is not transphobic. Not that I think I’m going to get that answer, mind you.
“So, which is it? Is it the primary reason (a notion that most of us, I think, find hard to believe) or is it one small factor in amongst many (a notion that most of us, I think, are willing to accept)? You say you’re not moving the goalposts, but you clearly are.”
CB, I can see that critical thinking isn’t your strong suit, so let me provide an analogy to illustrate how something can simultaneously be the primary reason a decision is made and also just one factor (notice I didn’t say “small”…a word you erroneously injected and attributed to me, which I didn’t use…I said it could be the “straw that broke the camel’s back” but nothing about it being “small” or relatively unimportant) among several different considerations:
So this example family – we’ll be cliché and call them the Johnsons – go to dinner at ABC Restaurant in response to a friend’s superlative recommendations. However, the host up front seems to only lazily get around to seating them, creating an unnecessary 20-minute wait when plenty of seats are clearly available. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson and their two small children are seated in a dark corner, and a request to have the lights turned up or be re-seated is declined. Agitation is building with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson but they cross their fingers for improved service and hold out hope the highly recommended food will make up for a poor start to the evening. Next thing you know, however, the drink orders are bungled, what’s supposed to be a hot appetizer comes out cold, and Mrs. Johnson finds the ladies room to be practically unusable when she goes for a “pit stop.” They’re just about fed up with ABC Restaurant but realize they’ve already invested quite a bit of time into the evening and know to pull out now and go somewhere else would just delay dinner further, which is less than idea with two small children who need to eat and go to bed before too long. The server stops by to take the entrée order. Right after taking Mrs. Johnson’s dinner order, the server inexplicably snaps at the Johnson’s 4-year old daughter – to “Keep Quiet!!!!” – who was whispering to herself and playing with a toy doll that she brought along. Mr. Johnson stands up and says, “That’s about enough! We’re leaving! We can put up with some shoddy service and nasty restrooms or whatever, but I draw the line at you being rude to my little girl like that!!”
Now clearly in that example there were several factors in play making for a subpar experience at the restaurant, yet they stayed right up until the server was rude to the little girl. So there was simultaneously several factors in play creating for a horrible restaurant experience for the Johnsons but only ONE specific (or primary, if you will) act of disrespect that actually forced their hand in being willing to bail on dinner halfway through.
This really isn’t that difficult of a concept if you can comprehend how decision-making hinges on incremental acts and experiences.
Dr. Jack: CB’s critical thinking skills are just fine, and you still haven’t answered his (or my) question. Why did giving Jenner the award bother you so much?
“Dr.” Jack: For someone who deigns to criticize the tone of others’ posts, you sure are snotty. Some might call that hypocritical. Further, I know full well that people like you don’t change their…shall we say, “old-fashioned” views. I did not bother reading your long and tortured analogy, and I’m tired of your playing games, and so I congratulate you on getting the last word.
“Why did giving Jenner the award bother you so much?”
I really don’t think my motivations or anything else that goes into the decisions I make are yours or anyone else’s business, but to play ball and put the issue to rest while minimizing redundancy (though being a smidge lazy in the process), all I would say is that I’m largely in agreement with the points dlf9 articulated in his remarks below.
I really don’t think my motivations or anything else that goes into the decisions I make are yours or anyone else’s business,
You made them my business by coming to my site and using the decision you claimed you make as evidence that something my employer is doing is somehow hurting the company as a whole. When asked to explain the decision, you bobbed, weaved, ducked, and ran, and only answered the question when someone else gave his/her own answer and you simply used it as a way to avoid replying for yourself – and now you’re engaging in semantics games over an idiom and increasingly talking down to others here who tried to engage you in a good-faith dialogue. You’ve made your “point” – you think ESPN has politicized its content, and that it’s hurting the company’s revenues – but can’t back it up with verifiable evidence, so I think it’s time to move along.
“…and I’m tired of your playing games..”
Thank you. Although I would say it’s debatable as to who’s been “playing games” here. I tried to drop plenty of hints along the way that I wasn’t too keen on being repeatedly asked (essentially), “do you still beat your wife?” As I’ve stated already, it’s clear from your tone you have zero interest in good-faith dialogue. You seem to have made up your mind about me – who I am, what I’m about, what my motivations are – that I 100% believe pretty much any answer I would have given you would still wind up with me being “transphobic,” “a bigot,” etc.
This is piling on at this stage, but FFS, “the straw that broke the camel’s back” is very literally something minor. Peace out–that was the goal post that broke this camel’s back.
“… is very literally something minor.”
No, not necessarily.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/the+straw+that+breaks+the+camel%27s+back (no mention of “minor”)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_that_broke_the_camel%27s_back (described as “seemingly minor”)
It’s not about ranking every thing along the way and scoring it on an importance spectrum but rather a timing/sequencing thing identifying the ONE THING that wound up being a game-changer.
This is a very old proverb/saying, and I’m admittedly a bit flummoxed as to how so many seemingly bright people are struggling with its simple components.
Dr. Jack: First…”I soon thereafter cancelled my entire satellite package based largely on the dissatisfaction of what ESPN was increasingly bringing to the table from a social/political standpoint.”
“all I would say is that I’m largely in agreement with the points dlf9 articulated in his remarks below.”
These appear to be inconsistent. dlf9 makes it pretty clear that he/she objected to ESPN’s move away form sports. My interpretation of your post was that your objection was not about the focus on entertainment, instead it was the social/political message they were endorsing. It’s pretty clear I’m not alone in that interpretation. So either you’re changing your position or you did a really poor job of articulating your point.
“…who tried to engage you in a good-faith dialogue.”
I find this laughable. We can agree to disagree, but aside from Sam and dlf9 – who both made comments more aligned with my points than the general “consensus” here – nearly everyone who directed a comment in my direction did so with a tinge of sarcasm or even a more overtly abrasive tone. It didn’t take 2 seconds for CB to make suggestions of “transphobic” and “bigot” and drop a slight regarding my moniker, you play the semantics game yourself and accuse me of “goalpost moving” over an innocent mistake I made in making a point (again, whether it be “ESPN” or “Disney” calling the shots was not critical to the main point I was making that “management” of any kind will not necessarily always make the best/smartest business decision), and then you get a drive-by poster flinging manure out of the blue (“mouthbreather”) that you say nothing about. Sorry, but I didn’t see all the “good-faith” you’re assuring me is there. Not to piggyback of him/her again, but dlf9 even made the point there appeared to be too much “point-scoring” and other nonsense going on to make for productive conversation and didn’t necessarily single me out as the lone offender. In fact, his/her comment strongly insinuated at least CB and maybe one or two others were definitely guilty of some of those things.
“…so I think it’s time to move along.”
Yeah, me too. Past time. Thanks for the engagement to this point, but I’ll gladly move along and leave this topic behind.
In Delaware, a minor may get married but only with 1) consent of a judge, and 2) consent of a guardian who petitions the judge for permission. So it’s not banned outright, but there are hoops.
Thanks – I guess what I was wondering was whether those hoops were sufficient, as it seemed like that’s what happened to the 11-year-old bride in Florida. The parents pushed her into it, and shopped for an official to rubber-stamp it.
I loved 1Q84, oddly my first Murakami, and Colorless Tsukurau Tasaki. (I’m probably misspelled both Japanese names.) He does transport his reader to another plane.
When I think of ESPN and politics, I think “Gutless cowards who tolerate all sorts of nasty racism and sexism because it comes from famous athletes.” Not exactly left wing.
Also I think “Anti-science,” but that’s because they can’t figure out basic physics in relation to footballs.
Ratings are down across all cable networks because of cord-cutting. The onus is on you to show that ESPN is 1) suffering greater ratings drops than mere cord-cutting would indicate and 2) that “social/political forces” are a cause. Simply repeating that you believe this to be true is not sufficient.”
My understanding is that ratings don’t go down due to cord cutting, as ratings are based on the viewership in available homes. TOTAL VIEWERS can go down because of cord cutting, as the universe of homes with those channels available shrinks, but ratings only take into account the homes with those channels available. The only way to blame a ratings decrease on cord cutting is to presume your product is more desirable by the type of person that would cut the cord (younger, more tech savvy people most likely).
Matt,
Cord-cutting and ratings are different. You’re right about that. What you’re missing is that if ESPN is really too political, you would expect it to be hit by both cord cutting and ratings. And you would expect it to be hit harder by cable cutting and/or ratings than say…USA or FS1 or any other number of cable channels who aren’t so liberal.
I’ve yet to see any evidence in the form of lost subscribers or poor ratings that supports the argument that ESPN is being hit harder than other cable companies much less that ESPN is being hit harder because it is more liberal.
Keith, did you see the coverage in Kansas City about the “partnership” between the Royals and Vitae, an anti-abortion group? The way this has been reported in news coverage, it appears this is more than just a simple ad buy, and that the Royals owners, at lest tacitly, at endorsing this group and their message.
I seriously doubt Dr Jack stopped watching college sports/NBA over their outspoken criticism of North Carolina over the HB2 law.
According to the latest Gallup/NBC/FakeNews poll, 6 out of 11 of his neighbors did so. The margin of error was anecdotalevidence%
“I seriously doubt Dr Jack stopped watching college sports/NBA over their outspoken criticism of North Carolina over the HB2 law.”
Don’t watch the NBA at all anyway. Only catch college sports either live (very rarely) or on occasions with friends out at a restaurant where sports-viewing predominates.
Regardless, I’m struggling to find the logic in your statement. Could a person not potentially agree that NC’s HB2 law is inappropriate and deserving of the criticism it receives but also find ESPN giving a “courage award” to Caitlyn Jenner as wrong-headed/inappropriate/politically-driven and worth of disapproval?
“According to the latest Gallup/NBC/FakeNews poll, 6 out of 11 of his neighbors did so.”
Why are you conflating two completely separate issues? Nothing was ever mentioned about there being any kind of concern over HB2 and the NCAA’s/NBA’s response to it.
“But there’s no avoiding the corner you’ve backed yourself into. ESPN gave out this award for many years, and you didn’t care.”
I don’t speak for Dr, Jack, but only for myself. I am bothered by the award given to Ms. Jenner because it had zero connection to sports. She hadn’t been involved in competition for over thirty years, wasn’t involved in coaching or commenting in her particular specialty, wasn’t involved in general physical fitness and health the way other non-sports figures are (e.g. Michelle Obama’s healthy eating initiatives), and did not use Bruce’s celebrity in ’76 to stand for anyone other than Jenner.
I didn’t and don’t object to Michael Sam (the openly gay football player) winning the year before or John Carlos and Tommie Smith (the 1968 Olympic protesting runners) about a decade earlier as each took active stands as players. I didn’t and don’t object to Robin Roberts because she was actively a participant in the larger sporting community. All are different from Jenner who didn’t speak up for generations and wasn’t involved in sports at the time. The Caitlyn Jenner of the last three decades is the one who has been front and center for the Love Boat or Keeping Up with the Kardasians, nothing to do with sports competition in any sense of the word.
I wouldn’t object if the young high school wrestler who is transitioning F to M and who has been featured on, I think, a 30 for 30 show, would win. He is an active participant in sports who is making a courageous stand. It isn’t the transgender status itself; it is the lack of any meaningful tie, in Jenner’s case between the sporting world and what she is being recognized for in the award.
I wasn’t aware that Nelson Mandela won. I probably would have objected to his win too. Don’t get me wrong; I think Mandela was an incredible person and well deserved the Nobel and other recognition for his leadership in the demise of apartheid and reconciliation of his nation. But his involvement in sports was, at best, tangential to anything else in his life. So the award seems more an attempt to glorify the giver than the recipient.
Related, my only objection to the NC HB2 coverage from ESPN is that they basically dropped it when the legislature changed the law. But the recent change left most of the homophobia intact. And the resulting dropping of boycotts by NCAA, etc. despite the failure to actually address the real problems with the law should have been covered as sporting news.
Have I cut the cord? No, not yet. But I see the brief fixation on Jenner to be part of a reason I watch less ESPN – there is a growing trend towards the E part of the original name and less S; too much entertainment and too little actual sports, too much talking heads, and too little live games. Award shows themselves are not attractive to me; award shows that have as a central winner someone who has no connection to the underlying thing being celebrated once again takes away from why I’d tune into the station in the first place.
I also think that the several posters here who’ve either made comments about a poster’s handle (questioning the doctor honorific), score points through insults, or making assumptions rather than asking questions are emblematic of a real problem in on-line discussions and make the ability to converse and reach consensus difficult at best. But that may just be my own bugaboo.
Lastly, this is user error, but I couldn’t figure out how to put this comment in line with those I’m specifically responding to. Is there a reply button I’m missing?
Lastly, this is user error, but I couldn’t figure out how to put this comment in line with those I’m specifically responding to. Is there a reply button I’m missing?
You have to hit Reply under the parent comment (top of the thread). It’s not ideal.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. This strikes me as a legitimate and believable assessment for why someone would stop watching ESPN, since they have indeed been emphasizing the ‘E’ over the ‘S’ (a trend perhaps most thoroughly embodied by that show in the morning where Smith/Kellerman yell at each other).
That said, and as you yourself acknowledge, your explanation clearly does not answer the questions raised by “Dr.” Jack’s postings. He made clear, over and over, that his issue was politics, and not simply a change in emphasis. I still see no plausible explanation for his perspective that does not involve some level of transphobia, and I take it as evidence that I am correct that he is using rhetorical tricks to avoid answering my questions. Further, he went so far as to say that he got rid of his entire cable package due to his pique with ESPN. “I completely got rid of cable” is a far less believable response than “I watch far less ESPN,” and fairly reeks of someone seizing a cheap opportunity to do a little virtue signaling.
Finally, it is I who questioned “Dr.” Jack’s credentials, and I did so for two reasons. The first is that incorporating an honorific like that into an online handle seems to me to be very clear (and very tacky) appeal to authority, assuming he actually is a Ph.D. or M.D. or the like. The second is that everyone I know who is entitled to the honorific Dr. (and I know dozens, if not hundreds of such individuals, including myself) would not use it in this context, precisely because it would be tacky and cheap. So, his use of the title appears to me to be either dishonest, or in poor taste, or both. If you disagree, well, different strokes for different folks.
ESPN isn’t the only guilty one when it comes to finding hosts that prefer to shout over crafting well-thought out opinions. FS1 is also doing that by hiring a few ex-ESPN personalities. The shouty types are also getting pretty good ratings, so it isn’t going away soon. In addition to a loud volume, they tend to also stick to the same subjects/arguments (Cowboys, Patriots, LeBron, Warriors, and maybe one or two other subjects). This is a big reason why I watch a lot less ESPN than I did even 10 years ago, though family obligations also play a role.
This is my chief reason as well — not just the manner of discussion, but what appears to be a top-down directive across the platform that severely restricts what gets airtime.
I’m with you guys on not liking all the First Takification of ESPN, but we sure seem to be in the minority since ESPN is putting out more and more debate type shows.
My decision to cut the cord had nothing to do with ESPN, though. It was just a simple cost benefit analysis. I have young kids, we don’t want them watching TV much. So why pay a ton of money for something we use 1 hour a day at most? That’s especially true when there are lots of kid friendly options on Netflix or Sling. I occasionally watch live sports or a 30 for 30 on ESPN using sling, but that’s pretty rare for me.
There are many problems with ESPN, and the shouty people are just the biggest (perhaps).
I think they are also being hurt by, for lack of a better term, greed. There is simply too much sports programming, jammed full of too many commercials. There was a time in my life (when I was, admittedly, less busy) that I would set aside time to watch football or baseball or basketball. Now, it’s so abundant, and so time-inefficient (3 or 4 hours for 15 minutes of actual action) that I only put the games on if I happen to be home anyhow, and even then only in the background.
There’s also SportsCenter, which has no real purpose any more, much like “George Michael’s Sports Machine” had no real purpose once SportsCenter came along. Why on earth would I watch an hour of women’s tennis and senior golf and NASCAR and Milwaukee Bucks highlights just to get the 20 seconds where they mention the Angels game? Much easier to go to MLB.com.
Then there’s the freaking shtick, which is all over the place. They finally retired Berman, but there’s still so much phony crap still left, from Lee Corso to Dick Vitale to Scott Van Pelt.
In any case, I switched from cable to SlingTV about six months ago, and I find that I tune to ESPN maybe once a month. Soon, it will be less than that, since I don’t even use the SlingTV that much, and plan to get rid of it.
Completely agree, CB. When I watch NFL now, it is usually the Red Zone. When I watch baseball or soccer, I might be outside doing yard work or checking work emails. It’s so easy to follow a game now that I don’t feel I have to be home or at a bar to watch it. I could go out with my wife or friends and occasionally check the score on my phone and feel like I’m not missing anything. If something big happens, I’ll watch the highlights later. Now there are times I’ll tell my wife I’d like to be at home to watch a specific game, but it isn’t that often. And of course my interests have changed. If you would have told me 10 years ago that I’d enjoy watching a show where other people try to buy a house and that I’d do low stakes gambling with my wife about the outcome, I’d say you’re crazy. But here I am watching House Hunters and it’s off-shoots.
I used to love SportsCenter in the 90’s, with Dan and Keith or Rich and Stu. But if they all came along today, I’d probably tire of their schtick as well.
So ESPN if you are reading this, I see no reason to change from the loud types, at least for me. I probably wouldn’t watch whatever even-tempered replacement there would be.
As a teacher in OK, I’m not a fan of the 4-day school week. For one, it may prevent children from having a full meal who may not have a consistent schedule at home. It also may not provide children from the getaway of a troubled home life. Also, there is no way to fulfill a missed day in an extra 10 or so minutes over 4 days. Thus there creates more stress on the teacher.
Our legislature is at impasse, and, in my opinion, worthless. They use all the buzz words that keep people hoping… “We all agree that we need to pay teachers more. We need to fund education. We need to increase our state’s revenue.” But nothing happens. Nobody wants to increase taxes, and people complained during the last election, but still voted the same people back into office. Do we really think the same people are going to start acting differently and changing their decision-making?
It’s definitely frustrating and disheartening, especially getting ready to start a family. Thankfully, my wife and I are very organized with our budget and plan for the unexpected as best we can.
Ever consider running for office yourself? Granted, it sounds like you have other priorities in the near-term, but you certainly have the beginning of a platform. Even if it’s for something along the lines of your local school board (assuming you don’t live in the district in which you teach, of course).
Ryan, I have thought about it, and I would like to. Maybe sometime in the near future. There were a number of educators who ran in November, but very few of them successfully made it into office. There are a few legislators that are “friends to education” and hopefully those numbers will increase in the coming years.
Well, I certainly hope you do, and wish you luck if you should. We need more informed individuals in government (at all levels).