Sports Bias

Today I would like to discuss media bias in sports. As a die hard sports fan, and a broadcast journalism major, I feel that bias is a huge problem in the sports media. Upon graduating from college, I want to become a sports broadcaster. I have covered sporting events in the past couple of years, and have learned from some great professors and professional sports broadcasters. The number one rule that I have been taught repeatedly is to not have a bias when covering a game.

I was at a conference a few days ago in which ESPN.com's Senior writer Jayson Stark gave a speech. Stark also appears regularly on SportsCenter, Baseball Tonight, and Mike in Mike in the Morning. He had a very interesting case in which he grew up in North East Philadelphia and now covers baseball for ESPN, including the Philadelphia Phillies extremely often. When asked if he was a Phillies fan, Stark said, "I am not a fan of any team." Now this is hard to believe that he is not a little bias towards the Phillies. He even said his entire family is full of Phillies fans. This is just an example of the reasoning biases exist in sports. Every single sports broadcaster or journalist grew up liking certain teams. They rooted for their teams all while growing up and then when they become professionals these feelings for the teams just go away? I don't think so.

Now I have read Stark's work. You would never know he grew up in Philly if you read one of his stories that features the Phillies. He is very good at not having a bias present in his work. Whether he actually has a bias towards the Phillies we will never know; however, there are many cases in which biases are present in the work of both journalists and especially sports broadcasters. If you are watching sporting events on a national broadcast, for example on ESPN, or any of the Big Three Networks, you are very unlikely to hear a commentator who is bias towards one particular team. However, while recently listening to an NCAA basketball game between Ohio and Georgetown on West Wood One, they had John Thompson, Sr., Georgetown's former coach, doing the color commentary. Besides being Georgetown's ex-coach, the current coach of Georgetown is his son, John Thompson, Jr. There is no way that West Wood One should have allowed Thompson, Sr. to cover the game. He clearly has a bias and wants Georgetown to win, so why would they have him cover the game? To me, it is just plain stupid and it hurt the integrity of the radio station. Also, I feel that the audience's opinion of the game was completely altered, since the color commentator had a clear bias toward one particular team.

The final topic I would like to talk about is local sports broadcasters. The guys you will hear on Comcast SportsNet, Fox Sports Net, SNY, or NESN. I go to school at Penn State and have the pleasure to watch FSN Pittsburgh, which covers both the Pittsburgh Penguins and Pittsburgh Pirates. I tend to watch the Penguins games a lot, and what I have heard from the commentators is a ridiculous bias towards the Penguins. Yes, I understand that a majority of the viewers are Penguins fans, but not all of them are, including me. Also, in this day and age in sports, anyone from anywhere in the world can be viewing this game on FSN through outlets like the Internet, NHL Center Ice, or the NHL Network. All three of these will feature the same two FSN Pittsburgh broadcasters. People that are not Penguins fans will view these games, hear the biases, and I feel will not enjoy the games as much. You want a sports broadcaster to be impartial when telling the story of the game. This is not the case at FSN Pittsburgh.

Better March Madness?

Since we are in the middle of college basketball's finest three weeks, March Madness, I felt that I should take some time to reflect on how the media presents the biggest three weeks in college sports. The CBS coverage on the national college basketball tournament is unmatched. They have the rights to every game in the tournament, and they constantly are switching games to catch all the excitement and madness that happens. But couldn't it be better?

If CBS had more alternate channels, like the way NBC has MSNBC, USA, and CNBC, they could cover every game in its entirety instead of showing different games it different regions. Yes, CBS does show the endings of just about every game, especially if the score is close with little time remaining, but I would rather have the luxury of watching any game I want. CBS has a monopoly on the NCAA college basketball tournament, and when a monopoly is present, especially in sports, it is never a good thing.

NBC has a monopoly on the Olympics, but as I eluded to earlier, they can afford to because they have so many channels and the viewer can watch any event that he or she wants. CBS tries to allow the viewer to have this same right by having "March Madness On Demand," in which viewers with access to the Internet can watch any game they want online for free. But this is not perfect. There have been many reports of problems with viewing the games online. Personally, I have experienced problems with attempting to view the game online as well. Sometimes, the connection can cause problems and the game can freeze up or have to buffer. Also, the games on the Internet appear to be behind the actual game broadcasted on CBS. CBS puts the scores of all the games at the top of the screen of the game you are watching. Every time I am watching the game on the Internet the score at the top of the screen on CBS changes before either team scores. So if you are simultaneously watching CBS and March Madness on Demand, you will now what is going to happen in the online game before it actually happens. Every sport fan knows that if you know what is going to happen before you watch it happen, watching sports is not fun.

Something must be done about the production of the March Madness tournament. If NBC can show everything on 5 different channels for the Olympics, than CBS should have to do the same for the college basketball tournament. If they fail to do so, than the NCAA should refuse to accept their bid to the rights of the tournament after the current contract expires.

Future of Television- Advertising

Technology is a great thing, but as far as the television industry goes, technology may do more harm than good. With more and more people failing to watch live programming, especially on the Big Three (Four) networks, one has to wonder if advertising revenue will severely decrease in the next couple of years. With the invention of Digital Video Recording, the television industry took another big blow. With the ability to fast forward through commercials, since they are no longer live, as an advertiser why would you pay top dollar for advertising times?


Now live sporting events, like the Super Bowl for example, are still prime advertising options, but besides that, I see no reason for companies to spend tons of money on advertisements. Television stations and advertising companies alike have taken notice of this phenomenon, and are starting to adjust to the new technologies of the world. More and more programming is being watched on the Internet. ABC feature a majority of its most popular shows including Lost, Desperate Housewives, and Flashforward available on their website the day after the original program airs. However, the catch is that viewers are required to watch a 30 second commercial, which you can not fast forward through, every time a commercial slot occurs during the show. The 30 seconds is much more manageable for the viewers to watch, instead of the 3-5 minutes that occur during the live programming.

Overall, the television industry will never be the same. They will constantly have to come up with new ideas to keep up with the new technologies that will present themselves throughout the years. Advertising will never be the same as in the past, and in the future advertising will never be the same as in the present.