PDA

View Full Version : ESPN Snuffs Obama/SportsGuy Podcast


Atlanta Dan
04-16-2008, 06:44 PM
Very interesting

Doesn't ESPN think sports fans want to hear Barack Obama?

At the last minute, network executives killed a podcast with the senator that was scheduled for Friday with host Bill Simmons.

The presidential candidate was all ready to do it.

"Senator Obama would be happy to appear on ESPN at any time," said his spokesman, Tommy Vietor.

It's not the first time the sports network has canceled an appearance by the Democratic front-runner. According to a campaign source, a television interview set up with host Stu Scott was canceled by higher-ups as well.

As more and more Americans wake up about the Big Vote, sportswriters such as The News' Mike Lupica have successfully made their voices heard politically.

Griped one source, "They landed the hottest politician in 50 years, and they couldn't even see the interview through? This is insanity."

It's of interest that ESPN president George Bodenheimer has supported Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential bid with a donation of $1,000.

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/04/16/2008-04-16_barack_obama_is_game_espn_isnt.html

As rev said in another thread, part of Obama's appeal is pursuit of new constituencies/media - hard to see McCain or She Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken going for a podcast with the SportsGuy

NJarhead
04-16-2008, 07:00 PM
Don't we use sports as entertainment? Isn't entertainment a way to escape from our daily BS? Aren't politicians responsible for the majority of the BS in our day? THEN WHY THE %^&* DO I WANT TO HEAR A POLITICIAN (even if it was one I like) ON ESP $&#$ing N???? :banging:

Atlanta Dan
04-16-2008, 07:04 PM
Don't we use sports as entertainment? Isn't entertainment a way to escape from our daily BS? Aren't politicians responsible for the majority of the BS in our day? THEN WHY THE %^&* DO I WANT TO HEAR A POLITICIAN (even if it was one I like) ON ESP $&#$ing N???? :banging:

No, politicians are not responsible for the "majority of BS in our day" (go read a Bear Stearns hedge fund prospectus for an example of the real deal)

If you do not want to hear that interview then don't click the link - listen to who you want but don't applaud voices being censored

Ronald Reagan appeared in the booth with Howard Cosell (and John Lennon!) on MNF in the mid-70s - get over politicians attempting to go where an audience is

tony hipchest
04-16-2008, 07:18 PM
Don't we use sports as entertainment? Isn't entertainment a way to escape from our daily BS? :actually, war is used as entertainment.

i was glued to coverage of david bloom driving through the desert, coming across a herd of camels and the beduins who owned them, during our most recent invasion.

arnet and shaw in the hotel as baghdad was initially bombed in the early 90's? riveting.

actually seeing and hearing 500 lb bunker busters explode in the middle of the city?

hollywood couldnt do any better.

sad but true. i wont lie. not only was i proud, but i found entertainment by actually watching our military might.

NJarhead
04-16-2008, 07:20 PM
No, politicians are not responsible for the "majority of BS in our day" (go read a Bear Stearns hedge fund prospectus for an example of the real deal)

If you do not want to hear that interview then don't click the link - listen to who you want but don't applaud voices being censored

Ronald Reagan appeared in the booth with Howard Cosell (and John Lennon!) on MNF in the mid-70s - get over politicians attempting to go where an audience is

AD - I was not attacking your post at all. I'm just appalled by the idea. As for Ronald Reagan, well I'll make him the exception, as I very much admired that man.

Oh,....but IMO not wanting to mix politics with sports is NO WHERE NEAR censorship. I more liken it to "no talking in the library" than anything else.

Peace Brotha :wink02: :drink:

NJarhead
04-16-2008, 07:26 PM
actually, war is used as entertainment.

i was glued to coverage of david bloom driving through the desert, coming across a herd of camels and the beduins who owned them, during our most recent invasion.

arnet and shaw in the hotel as baghdad was initially bombed in the early 90's? riveting.

actually seeing and hearing 500 lb bunker busters explode in the middle of the city?

hollywood couldnt do any better.

sad but true. i wont lie. not only was i proud, but i found entertainment by actually watching our military might.


And Von Clauswicz (sp?) said that "war is politics by other means." I agree that the media uses War on TV for various purposes. What you're talking about doesn't bother me too much. What bothers me about the media and our troops (and the War) is when they are not impartial with what they show AND when the Navy SEAls show up on a beach with cameras and spot lights in thier faces. Anyway, this is apples vs. oranges and I don't want to further hijack AD's thread. I fear I've already relayed my feelings poorly on this one.

tony hipchest
04-16-2008, 08:25 PM
I fear I've already relayed my feelings poorly on this one.nah, i dont think so. i see what youre saying.

but espn doing this now, would be like if fox would have pulled the plug on bill clinton playing his sax on the arsenio hall show back in '92.

Atlanta Dan
04-16-2008, 08:33 PM
AD - I was not attacking your post at all. I'm just appalled by the idea. As for Ronald Reagan, well I'll make him the exception, as I very much admired that man.

Oh,....but IMO not wanting to mix politics with sports is NO WHERE NEAR censorship. I more liken it to "no talking in the library" than anything else.

Peace Brotha :wink02: :drink:

:drink:

NJarhead
04-16-2008, 08:38 PM
nah, i dont think so. i see what youre saying.

but espn doing this now, would be like if fox would have pulled the plug on bill clinton playing his sax on the arsenio hall show back in '92.

LOL. Which they should have. j/k.

PisnNapalm
04-16-2008, 09:04 PM
I wish they would stop contaminating the sports with politics.

Atlanta Dan
04-16-2008, 09:15 PM
I wish they would stop contaminating the sports with politics.

Like having the President throw out the ball on Opening Day?

That certainly is a recent development

Hammer67
04-17-2008, 01:29 PM
No, politicians are not responsible for the "majority of BS in our day" (go read a Bear Stearns hedge fund prospectus for an example of the real deal)

If you do not want to hear that interview then don't click the link - listen to who you want but don't applaud voices being censored

Ronald Reagan appeared in the booth with Howard Cosell (and John Lennon!) on MNF in the mid-70s - get over politicians attempting to go where an audience is

it's a corporation deciding who they want on their programming. It's a free country...censorship isn't the issue. You can just as well decide to never watch ESPN as they can decide not to put a certain guest over their media outlets...

And, correct me if I am wrong, but Regan wasn't running for office at the time, he was already in, right? Same with Presidents throwing out the first pitch. I think having a campaigning politician show up on an sports show could send an endorsement message to viewers...which is probably how ESPN executives looked at it. Why alienate half your audience?

Atlanta Dan
04-17-2008, 02:40 PM
it's a corporation deciding who they want on their programming. It's a free country...censorship isn't the issue. You can just as well decide to never watch ESPN as they can decide not to put a certain guest over their media outlets...

And, correct me if I am wrong, but Regan wasn't running for office at the time, he was already in, right? Same with Presidents throwing out the first pitch. I think having a campaigning politician show up on an sports show could send an endorsement message to viewers...which is probably how ESPN executives looked at it. Why alienate half your audience?

I did not say ESPN was required to put Obama on. But it is clear corporate suits overruled their #1 Internet draw (Simmons) by snuffing the Obama podcast (and apparently a Stuart Scott interview as well) and also clear the #1 suit backs McCain.

ESPN has been willing to put political commentary on its pages in the past as recently as 2 weeks ago;

http://www.espn4.com/

and of course put Rush Limbaugh on the NFL pre-game show until Rush shared his thoughts on Donovan McNabb;

And clearly had no trouble putting a candidate interview on in the past (see link to John Kerry interview) ;

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=questions/johnkerry

and ran a 4 part series on the ties of W to baseball when W was running for President;

http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/saturday.html

So any claim ESPN is booting Obama because politics and ESPN do not mix is quite frankly nonsense - if ESPN wants to keep politics off its sports site fine but if it does it selectively then IMO it is not unjustified to say it looks like it is the nature of the candidate (who no doubt was going to discuss the NBA with Simmons, not his plans for Iraq & taxes) and not the fact it is a candidate who is appearing that is a factor in the decision.

NJarhead
04-17-2008, 04:48 PM
See what I mean though? Politics and Sports do not mix. Mom always said, "Never discuss religion and politics if you can help it." Mom's a smart woman.
I don't consider the President of the United States throwing out a pitch at a baseball game to be political. Bill Clinton promising MTV that he'd come back to play sax on TRL AFTER he was elected most definitely is.

HometownGal
04-17-2008, 05:25 PM
I'm not really cool with any politician running for office - especially the highest office in the land - "peddling" himself on a sports network. I don't care who it is - Bitchary, Obama, McCain or whoever. I really see no relevant corrolation between an elected President/official tossing out a first pitch and a candidate promoting his (her??) agenda. It's bad enough that we have to look at their pusses almost non-stop on TV for months on end prior to the primaries and general election - let us sports fans have a few moments of peace please?

If this is a new precedent ESPN is now setting, I hope they stick to their guns in the future.

MasterOfPuppets
04-17-2008, 06:10 PM
I'm not really cool with any politician running for office - especially the highest office in the land - "peddling" himself on a sports network. I don't care who it is - Bitchary, Obama, McCain or whoever. I really see no relevant corrolation between an elected President/official tossing out a first pitch and a candidate promoting his (her??) agenda. It's bad enough that we have to look at their pusses almost non-stop on TV for months on end prior to the primaries and general election - let us sports fans have a few moments of peace please?

If this is a new precedent ESPN is now setting, I hope they stick to their guns in the future.
you get free payper view ??? :jawdrop:........:sorry:.....:cya:

NJarhead
04-17-2008, 06:40 PM
you get free payper view ??? :jawdrop:........:sorry:.....:cya:

You didn't........

Preacher
04-17-2008, 09:14 PM
I did not say ESPN was required to put Obama on. But it is clear corporate suits overruled their #1 Internet draw (Simmons) by snuffing the Obama podcast (and apparently a Stuart Scott interview as well) and also clear the #1 suit backs McCain.

ESPN has been willing to put political commentary on its pages in the past as recently as 2 weeks ago;

http://www.espn4.com/

and of course put Rush Limbaugh on the NFL pre-game show until Rush shared his thoughts on Donovan McNabb;

And clearly had no trouble putting a candidate interview on in the past (see link to John Kerry interview) ;

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=questions/johnkerry

and ran a 4 part series on the ties of W to baseball when W was running for President;

http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/saturday.html

So any claim ESPN is booting Obama because politics and ESPN do not mix is quite frankly nonsense - if ESPN wants to keep politics off its sports site fine but if it does it selectively then IMO it is not unjustified to say it looks like it is the nature of the candidate (who no doubt was going to discuss the NBA with Simmons, not his plans for Iraq & taxes) and not the fact it is a candidate who is appearing that is a factor in the decision.

You are correct, but it is also illogical to assume, simply because of a 1000 dollar donation that the single reason for him not appearing is political leanings. It may have been issues that Obama's campaign wanted off-limits. It may have been issues that ESPN wanted off-limits. It may have been worries of having to give equal time to the other two candidates. There are a number of reasons it could have been that have nothing to do with the financial giving a particular "suit."

Truth be told, I would guess that as many people in higher management are democrats as republicans in that organization. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the same amount of money given to the democrat contender once he or she is selected. After all, that is how the game is played.

Atlanta Dan
04-17-2008, 09:31 PM
You are correct, but it is also illogical to assume, simply because of a 1000 dollar donation that the single reason for him not appearing is political leanings. It may have been issues that Obama's campaign wanted off-limits. It may have been issues that ESPN wanted off-limits. It may have been worries of having to give equal time to the other two candidates. There are a number of reasons it could have been that have nothing to do with the financial giving a particular "suit."

Truth be told, I would guess that as many people in higher management are democrats as republicans in that organization. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the same amount of money given to the democrat contender once he or she is selected. After all, that is how the game is played.

The equal time rule is history - without its demise Jeff Christie would still be a down and out DJ who spun platters for KQV-AM rather than Rush Limbaugh

Preacher
04-18-2008, 05:05 AM
The equal time rule is history - without its demise Jeff Christie would still be a down and out DJ who spun platters for KQV-AM rather than Rush Limbaugh

Actually, it is not. It is still in force. the Fairness doctrine is history, but those two things are not the same.

However, under the equal time rule, an interview isn't grounds to give another candidate the same time...

but I was just pointing out that there are many different things that it COULD be... not necessarily a "small right wing conspiracy"

HometownGal
04-18-2008, 07:55 AM
you get free payper view ??? :jawdrop:........:sorry:.....:cya:

Yes - as a matter of fact I do. It pays to have friends in high places. :wink02::thumbsup:

Hammer67
04-18-2008, 08:52 AM
I did not say ESPN was required to put Obama on. But it is clear corporate suits overruled their #1 Internet draw (Simmons) by snuffing the Obama podcast (and apparently a Stuart Scott interview as well) and also clear the #1 suit backs McCain.

ESPN has been willing to put political commentary on its pages in the past as recently as 2 weeks ago;

http://www.espn4.com/

and of course put Rush Limbaugh on the NFL pre-game show until Rush shared his thoughts on Donovan McNabb;

And clearly had no trouble putting a candidate interview on in the past (see link to John Kerry interview) ;

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=questions/johnkerry

and ran a 4 part series on the ties of W to baseball when W was running for President;

http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/saturday.html

So any claim ESPN is booting Obama because politics and ESPN do not mix is quite frankly nonsense - if ESPN wants to keep politics off its sports site fine but if it does it selectively then IMO it is not unjustified to say it looks like it is the nature of the candidate (who no doubt was going to discuss the NBA with Simmons, not his plans for Iraq & taxes) and not the fact it is a candidate who is appearing that is a factor in the decision.


Fair enough (you can tell I don't pay attention in great detail to ESPN!).

Well, as long as you know the #1 suit makes the call, there isn't much you can do but not support the organization. Such is life. :wink02: