Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
Sports needs a non-profit research center, like those groups that publish studies on the biases in television coverage of political campaigns, to spend a month logging the total time ESPN devotes to every Major League Baseball franchise. And then we can all see the numbers, and judge for ourselves just how pervasive or fictional the much-alleged East Coast, big-market bias is in reality.
Because until then, random players will come up with heartfelt allegations of bias, and it will be pretty much impossible to know whether they're brave challengers to the Disney status quo, or whether they've just been overcome by excessive Big League Chew fumes.
Earlier this year, Padres all-star closer Heath Bell earned headlines for saying that ESPN "only cares about promoting the Red Sox and Yankees and Mets – and nobody else." He hasn't shied away from that opinion, and revisited the topic this week in a local radio appearance, arguing that other major leaguers are scared of publicly calling out ESPN's bias and then landing on some sort of coverage blacklist.
"I told guys here in '07 and '08, I said if I stick around in San Diego long enough, I'm gonna make sure everybody knows the San Diego Padres," he told XX 1090 (MP3 link). "I never wanted to go out there and promote myself, I just wanted to promote the team and try to get the San Diego Padres some recognition and get us some highlights here and there. That’s all I’m trying to do. We’re kind of in the entertainment business a little bit, you could say. I’m just going to go out there and try not to tick anybody off, but just get to that fine line."A lot of people don’t say that, 'Hey, well, ESPN doesn’t show any of our highlights, this and that.' Well, you know what? It’s true. But a lot of people don’t want to do that, because ESPN will be negative and they won’t talk to them."
It's actually an explosive allegation; that a massively important news organization would slant its coverage against its critics. And unlike in April, Bell is not saying this is an East Coast thing, because he also criticized "the TV media" for its recent Manny overload.
For as many arguments as we can have about Manny Ramirez, I'm not sure anyone disputes the fact that he doesn't play on the East Coast.
"You didn’t really see any highlights when we were playing the Dodgers last weekend, you basically just saw Manny and his highlights and you didn’t see any of ours," Bell said. "That’s basically the press’s doing right there, that's the TV media going out there and not promoting everybody, that’s just promoting who they want."
Well, sure. It's also the press covering stories that it believes the most fans and viewers are interested in hearing about. Just the way the press also believes people are interested in hearing major league ballplayers slam the heck out of ESPN for its biases. And in seeing news about blond Russian tennis players.
If Heath Bell grew some massive dreads, flopped his way across the outfield, used stadium restrooms during the course of play, malcontented his way into a trade, and then earned a 50-game suspension, the press would cover him until he had boom mics sticking out of his ears. (Or, if he became a hot blond tennis player.) Cleveland isn't a major market and LeBron gets a fair amount of media attention. Same with Pittsburgh and Sidney Crosby, or, say, some quarterback who spent most of his career in the land of cheese.
Anyhow, the hosts attempted to explain to Bell that winning will always draw media attention -- and yes, I just wrote that local California radio hosts were hesitating to go along with an allegation of East Coast bias. Still, Bell was unconvinced.
"I understand that," he said, "but in '07, we were winning games, this and that, and I don’t remember anybody talking about us. I remember when I was a New York Met, I never knew the San Diego Padres were, like, heading towards the playoffs."
The Padres, with the third-worst record in the majors, won't be a very good test case this year. And most of the teams Bell has signaled out for excessive coverage -- the Red Sox, Yankees and Dodgers -- are among MLB's best. So what we really need is an examination of his old team, the 40-43 Mets, and how their national media coverage compares to the 41-42 Cincinnati Reds. Surely there's gotta be some non-profit, or a Sporting News intern, with a bit of time on their hands, right?
(H/T to Sports Radio Interviews)
For more of Dan Steinberg, visit his blog with The Washington Post, D.C. Sports Bog.
This post originally appeared on the Sporting Blog. For more, see The Sporting Blog Archives.
12 comments
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
Scoreboard data copyright © 2012 by STATS LLC. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of STATS LLC is strictly prohibited.
OpenCalais - Powered by Thomson Reuters
•
Odds Shark 
Comments
I agree with much of this article. I think the media bias really plays in when all things are equal. The mention of the mediocre Reds and Mets is a good example. I’ve heard a lot about "what’s wrong with the Mets" but virtually nothing about the Reds.
However, if a team in a small market is doing something news-worthy (i.e. Lebron, Zack Greinke, etc.) it tends to be a big story. It’s just that if there’s nothing newsworthy in Kansas City and nothing newsworthy in New York, you’ll probably get a story about New York. With Bell’s complaint, even when the Padres were winning two years ago, they weren’t a GREAT team – they were the best team in a mediocre division.
To be fair, the media is a business. More people watch a program if it contains stories about their favorite team. It only makes sense that more time would be given to teams in major markets, because they have more fans. It’s not fair, but that’s how business works. If running stories about professional bowling 24/7 would bring in the most viewers, you can bet the media would do it. It’s not about being fair. It’s about money.
by theophilus166 on Jul 9, 2009 2:11 PM EDT reply actions
ESPN targets players and teams that casual (bandwagon) fans know about. It’s all about style over substance. Why have two or three sane people calmy discussing football when you can have ten jackals shouting and guffawing all at once? Why just say USC has a great team or Tebow is a great player when USC can be the best team ever and Tebow can be the best player ever? Here is where their "logic" falls apart: I know a little about cooking but have no interest in watching a cooking show. I don’t care how much it’s hyped or dumbed down. So why does ESPN assume that casual sports fans are tuning in to watch the crap ESPN shows? All they are doing is driving away hardcore sports fans. You know, the people that actually want to watch ESPN.
by ChiAdam on Jul 9, 2009 2:15 PM EDT reply actions
Heath Bell is right. ESPN only cares about the Yankees and Red Sox and it’s obvious in their shows each night. I suggest that everyone watch the MLB network if you want to watch non-biased reporting on major league baseball. They cover ALL of the teams equally…it is quite refreshing.
by MountainCatFan on Jul 9, 2009 4:16 PM EDT reply actions
MountainCatFan I agree with you, just some people, myself included, cannot watch the MLB Network because we do not get it, It is not a standard part of our cable package or dish/directv package, it has to be paid for extra, unlike ESPN and ESPN2 which are essentially ‘free’ as in, a standard part of nearly every cable and dish package.
by CaliforniaKid on Jul 10, 2009 12:14 AM EDT reply actions
What?
by L'etat, c'est moi on Jul 10, 2009 1:35 AM EDT reply actions
I’m with the big catdaddy. Anytime i wanna see Cards highlights here in San Diego i flip to MLB Network, unless of course Pujols crushes one then ESPN will do a fair job with highlights. Ever since MLB Network came along tho ESPN has started to do a better job highlighting more of baseball.
by B.Little on Jul 10, 2009 1:36 AM EDT reply actions
Don’t forget the Cubs…ESPN always like to talk about the Cubs. Even though the White Sox have won a World Series this decade, you’d never know that the White Sox existed on ESPN unless Ozzie goes off on a tirade.
by bafga on Jul 10, 2009 6:49 AM EDT reply actions
I’m the wrong person to analyze ESPN’s coverage because I gave up on it a long time ago.
by zamboni77 on Jul 10, 2009 11:16 AM EDT reply actions
Ha! Zamboni—me too! It was uncomfortable to watch—like watching the nerdiest kid in school continually hit on the prettiest girls.
by ferociousjane on Jul 10, 2009 1:31 PM EDT reply actions
agree with the vast majority here. the yankees, red sox, dodgers and cubs are the only teams that get any sort of coverage on espn. and the only reason the dodgers get any coverage is because they’re managed by a ex-yankee and their star attraction is a ex-red sox. meanwhile, the 4th place mets haven’t done a thing this year but they get more press than the current wild card leaders……the giants.
finally, theophilus is 100% correct. espn is a business. they will showcase who they please based off where the $$$ come from.
by PhillyPSU on Jul 10, 2009 2:06 PM EDT reply actions
The biggest arguement to assert that ESPN has sportscasters that have an East Coast Bias comes down to Lee Corso. Does anyone remember Gino Torretta? He won the Heisman by 400 points over Marshall Faulk. Granted Gino played under Dennis Erickson in Miami and Marshall played at SDSU, but I can guarantee that not as many people knew much about SDSU football before hand. Marshall put that team on the map with his talent. He was clearly the best player that year. Lee Corso was nuts to think that Gino Torretta had more upside and therefore was more worthy of the trophy.
by drunknasasin on Jul 10, 2009 3:11 PM EDT reply actions
The only reporting the Padres get is who managament is fire-selling.
by DickChoke on Jul 31, 2009 6:30 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed