Post: #1

Since I was young and still to this day, I never understand the point of having SO MANY women sports reporters on TV.



Here is my line of thinking. There are so MANY talented sports reporters through out the nation that should be on ESPN why do they have Jemele Hill and a whole host of other women sports reporters. I mean they probably make up almost 40% of the Visible Sports reporting on ESPN. And she has barely said any quotable or memorable sports analysis and to think of it most of the women have said anything memorable. So in 100% male played sport more than 1/3rd of the Visible sports reporting is done by women?

I feel the same way about SOME athletes who become reporters who clearly do not have the articulate skills or provide deep enough insight and offer no substance other than the fact that they played the sport. Its like with all the talent in sports reporting and with all the current athletes already on shows why add another...and another.

Being from Philly I really respect reporters like Ray Didinger, his sports reporting always give you a great angle you may have never thought of or a real reason behind some of the actions we see in the game. HE should be on ESPN or guys like him not fucking women sports reporters who give superficial analysis or dumb athletes who were just basically pawns on the field.

Post: #2

ESPN stands for ENTERTAINMENT Sports and Programming Network. ESPN is more about entertainment than real sports journalism. Most of the nonsense that comes out of the men's mouths across ESPN is just as stupid. However, I understand the question you're asking. Men watch sports. Men like attractive women (not to say that ALL of the women on the network are attractive). Most serve as eye candy, though some got the jobs because they may have played DI college sports. Naturally, they can only play professionally in the US in basketball, and they usually have mostly women covering WNBA and women's sports. On the other side of this issue, though I don't find a lot of what appears on ESPN to be of the highest quality, they are way ahead of other networks in terms of the diversity of their on-air talent. They deserve high marks for that.

I also agree that there are probably a ton of good sportswriters nationwide that could be solid contributors, but it isn't just about writing good columns. It's about PERSONALITY. I find a lot of the writers that appear regularly on ESPN shows to be inarticulate, annoying, ignorant, grating, etc. etc. However, I'm guessing a lot of them bring viewers for those same reasons.

Post: #3

ESPN is 90% trash. Its E! or StarNews but for Men. ESPN never got into hardcore thoughtful journalism. If your looking for hardcore journalism the ESPN Reporters is the only sniff you'll get aside from the lighter stuff on E:60 and such. I don't have a big issue with women reporting on sports because Newspapers and TV stations for a long time have had women on the staff, and since a lot of them have built up credentials and a resume whiten the industry during their careers I find no issue with them reporting on it. All that you require to be a good Sports Journalist is a good ability to write and to put in the hours behind the scene to stack up sources, experience, contacts and credibility and that to me transcends gender.

My beef is when you get Women placed on deep analysis where even journalists should never go. Colour/Play-by-play for instance in another thread I went in on Doris Burke whom does Colour for ESPN-NBA she is on their third line and I have no idea how many games she does per year but for me this is a foul. She may have a long Basketball career, high Basketball IQ but she was versed in a different game. X's and O's are the same in Female and Male ball but its the dark underbelly stuff that nobody sees unless your in the trenches that will separate a former Male NBA player from somebody whom just played Women's NCAA or WNBA Ball. But that's the thing... Doris Burke has ZERO experience in either high end college ball or the WNBA she was a radio host and what not prior and made her realms just being a mic-jock. She was plugged in because ESPN is PC and Beta as hell and somehow believes they need to infused some mythical quota. If that is indeed so then I would hope to see a swarm of Male Economists whom become writers and consultants for OB/GYNs... same thing in my mind.

ESPN is a sham of a Network and they will pander to anybody to get ratings. 'First Take' is nothing but a Minstrel Show at times and as offensive to me as a obvious "coon catch" as Chicken and Watermelon. The show is so obviously tilted to lure in a Black Male audience whom they perceive is home during the work day unemployed with nothing better to do. Skip Bayless knows nothing but Drama, and Stephen A. Smith chooses to be a blowhorn instead of showing the smart man that he is really is.

Its a shame because to me any ways. Sports and its culture and business is really interesting stuff. I find myself not giving a shit any more about daily scores and drama. To me what is interesting is the back-stories and characters of it all this is what made Sports Journalism so easy because you where able to get rich content of so many cast of characters that people where deeply emotionally invested in. Some how ESPN has found a way to destroy that in its 30+ year history. Its quite shocking.

Post: #4

If getting rid of women on ESPN means hiring more skip bayless's, I would take more females

Post: #5

What's really interesting is the egos on ESPN. Since they've proclaimed themselves the Worldwide leader (and had the money to buy up the rights to broadcast just about every sport of note, they ARE), once a "journalist" or talking head is hired, they feel they've reached the pinnacle of the profession, thus their work is unimpeachable. The premise is ridiculous. Journalists as a whole see themselves as being responsible for holding any and everyone accountable, yet who holds THEM accountable? Especially when journalists lean so heavily on anonymous sources, how do we know it isn't just fabricated by the journo in order to create another news cycle and gossip? They'll justify using these sources because otherwise they couldn't get scoops, but how do WE, the public, know it's legit? That clown Rob Parker, who's contract "wasn't renewed," once said on First Take during one of the actually good discussions there (it was an ex-jock vs. journos discussion), that while it may be true that writers can't do what athletes do, "they can't do what we do either." That's bullshit. It actually doesn't take special training to do what journalists do, especially not what they do on ESPN. You can be a good writer irregardless of your chosen profession. It doesn't take special training to know what kind of questions to ask. There's no reason why an athlete that has the ability can't step right off the field into journalism and do it well. Just using Rob Parker as the example - he's Columbia educated, yet I've found him to be one of the most inarticulate, illogical "journalists" on the network, and that was well before his stupidity regarding Robert Griffin III. As their talent rises up the ladder at the network, you can see the individual eqo swell. Some guys that I liked when they first got there completely irritate me now.

Post: #6

I only like the hot ones. Most are annoying and inexperienced in the subjects they are talking about.

Post: #7

Charles Barkley is proof you don't need legit training to be a great tele-journalist. Barkley isn't writing columns or Magazine spreads but he is able to do the important things well such as:

- Give fair and heavy opinions/critiques.
- Understand his audience well
- Knows a good lead/story to focus on
- Knows how to balance things

How often do you find that on ESPN? Not all that much. Barkley is a eloquent as a blind mule but he is a amazing at what he does because he is able to keep it real and simple while still delivering heavy quality stuff.

ESPN keeps dropping the ball on this because they simply are just running a Drama farm to go along with its Content-Farm (buying up rights to keep it away from their competition). They will hire anybody (Journalist or Athlete) just as a figure head to debate somebody on whatever topic. And I agree their sourcing is dodgy as hell and they fluff up stories way more then the MSM News Media does because their isn't the requirement for ESPN to be a credible base for news/information. But ESPN sees their is money in legitimate story telling but is continually struggling to find the balance between shill Entertainment and legitimate news.

I think it has become even worse now due to the Twitter generation. News in general is going down the tubes because it has to compete/pander to the real-time quickness of Twitter. ESPN is attention whoring because that what gets viewers. You can either agree 100% at something on ESPN or be pissed right the fuck off 100% on something they are playing up the immediate response from people to keep up with the same trends present in Social Media/Twitter.

Old-timers are getting pissed off because while they spent summers in Hillibilly-fuck rural Alabama for the Water Rat Gazette covering Div II Football Camp in the Summer heat back in the day, you now get attention whore grads from Schools pandering there way into top positions on ESPN. Less than 46 years out of the gate they are on a platform giving heavy opinions when they have probably not even been to a game they are given their views on.

Back to the Women though.

I always wanted to fuck Rachel Nichols. her voice is annoying as hell but I'd still spin her around on my shit.



I always thought Erin Andrews was kinda overrated. She is hot but she is just a case of a over-inflated chic getting 2 extra points on the scale because she is a Blonde.

Post: #8

You're not the only one that's wanted to bang Rachel Nichols. I've always found her to be cute. You know who else? Lisa Salters. They're actually both on E:60, and another thing they have in common? I've watched them both get fatter by the year! They MUST have a gym at the ESPN Campus up in Bristol. These two need to get their asses in there EVERY DAY. It's ridiculous to be an on-air talent and let yourself get sloppy like that. They get paid well - they need to invest in trainers.

Erin Andrews is typical of the "Sideline Barbie" that has become popular in sports. Then she got turned into a victim by that pervert that peephole-taped her naked in her hotel room - she got an even greater professional boost from that. At least she's stayed in shape though. She knows her looks are her moneymaker.

ESPN was at the forefront of taking sports columnists from around the country and turning them into tv stars. For most of these guys, before they were on ESPN you may have never known what they're voices sounded like (except for maybe some local tv or radio in their home cities). All the rest of us would know about them came from that outdated photo at the top of their bylines. Now, they are legitimate stars, and we see how annoying and aggravating a lot of them are as personalities. Many of the former players they have in studio do a pretty good job, as well as the former coaches. Why? Because they know what the fuck they're talking about. They've been INSIDE the game for years and know what goes into preparation and execution of a game plan and game. For First Take to have someone like Skip Bayless "debate" one of these guys on something that happened on the field is laughable. They don't really care about the viewer getting value. They're more concerned with a form of entertainment.

Post: #9

I have never heard once on any of their networks a women talk about the x's and o's. The real nitty gritty, how certain plays actually develop. Pretty much anything that can educate you're average joe on what is occurring in the game. But since they can't actually do that they're a complete waste of air time. Anyone with a pulse can ask the shit they do. Like someone said above, I've never heard one of them say anything rememberable or thought provoking.

Post: #10

I hate this as well, I watch alot of NFL network and can't stand when the women reporters are on. So much so I will turn over the station, but I never get tired of Michael Irvin, Deion Sanders and Marshall Faulk giving there opinions.

Post: #11

Occasionally you'll see a coach exhibit disgust or annoyance at a question they're asked by one of these chicks. The problem is that networks pay SO MUCH MONEY for the rights to broadcast/cover these leagues/games, that they demand more and more access to the players and coaches. The league commissioners want to promote their league more and more, so they've now instituted the in-game interview in all sports. The coaches HATE these interviews, because they really do interfere somewhat with them doing their jobs. In football, they have to give that "jog-off" interview heading to the locker room for halftime, and maybe another coming out for the second half. It's usually one of these bubbleheads questioning them about some play they called, or strategic move that may not have worked. It's one thing to have a former player with a microphone ask you about that, but it's a whole different thing to have some chick who hasn't been involved in the sport on ANY level question you about something you did or didn't do. Most of them do a good job of simply answering the question, but every now and then you can see how insulted a coach is for having to answer some chick.

Post: #12

One of the recent bowl games had a coach who clearly couldnt be bothered to answer the same rhetoric over and over again. The coach was almost in a sense trying to run away from the broad.

Post: #13

I get it that some female reporters will help attracting other women and help ESPN appear "diverse" but I can't stand Doris Burke commentating on National TV during NBA ESPN games and Jemele Hill. Jemele Hill especially because she is obsessed with race and has had many controversies in the past.

Post: #14

I was just discussing this subject with a friend of mine. In my opinion, the most annoying chick sports reporter ever is Michelle Beadle. This broad thinks she is so wacky and she's about to make impact with the wall. Now she does alot of NFL coverage which annoys me even further.

   

Post: #15

I don't like female sports casters. I don't watch ESPN. Female sportscasters remind of women who go into strip clubs as patrons. They show up, and I wish they'd fuck off.

Post: #16

This is the price of doing business in politically correct Amerika. They don't want to come under fire in the press for not hiring a politically correct cast. God forbid they ever try to fire Jemele Hill - who is boring and ugly. I'm pretty sure there is a law against firing someone who is black AND a women. They demoted Stephen A. Smith but they won't dare touch Hill. They are pretty much stuck with her. At least the others, like the woman in the blue shirt, are eye candy.

Post: #17

(01-11-2013 10:36 PM)TheRookie Wrote:  This is the price of doing business in politically correct Amerika. They don't want to come under fire in the press for not hiring a politically correct cast. God forbid they ever try to fire Jemele Hill - who is boring and ugly. I'm pretty sure there is a law against firing someone who is black AND a women. They demoted Stephen A. Smith but they won't dare touch Hill. They are pretty much stuck with her. At least the others, like the woman in the blue shirt, are eye candy.

If she was a male they would had let her contract expire(pc way of saying you're fired) a long time ago, Rob Parker style.

She is more racist and ignorant on the regular than Rob Parker ever was when he called RGIII a "cornball brotha".

Post: #18

http://espn.go.com/espnw/

Post: #19

http://deadspin.com/5827414/did-michelle...ts-to-know

They're all jersey chasers. She couldn't bang Rodgers so she banged Clay. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the only reason they get into broadcasting. My experience supports this, albeit only at the college level.

Post: #20

(01-11-2013 02:40 PM)jammer Wrote:  If getting rid of women on ESPN means hiring more skip bayless's, I would take more females

Post: #21

I don't mind female sports reporters like the pre/post game and sideline types.As long as their not talking X's and O's in a sport they've never played at least on the collegiate level I can dig it...And I like old bitches so I'll take Linda Cohn whenever she decides to throw me some pussy.

Post: #22

(01-12-2013 09:34 AM)TheMachinist Wrote:  I don't mind female sports reporters like the pre/post game and sideline types.As long as their not talking X's and O's in a sport they've never played at least on the collegiate level I can dig it...And I like old bitches so I'll take Linda Cohn whenever she decides to throw me some pussy.

Well, I probably wouldn't mind analysis from someone without playing experience if it was a quality stat nerd. They can have valuable insight on a variety of topics, especially coaching decisions like whether to punt or go for it on 4th down. It's pretty clear those guys usually aren't allowed on camera and all their work gets filtered through producers and talking heads.

Post: #23

The absolute worst of it all is when they have Pam Ward calling college football games. Can't. Fucking. Stand it.

Post: #24

(01-12-2013 12:18 PM)flyfreshandyoung Wrote:  The absolute worst of it all is when they have Pam Ward calling college football games. Can't. Fucking. Stand it.

Ha, Pam Oliver always looks like she has some kind of wild animal on her head. While the females on ESPN don't add alot in terms of technical analysis, they sure are good to look at. ESPN in particular has quite a few hot reporters. I can't stomach First Take or Sportscenter anymore though(and rarely watch), just because they air on the side of sensationalism for most stories.I'm sure they realize this though, but after all it's all about ratings hence the women and bubblegum topics.

Post: #25

Suzy Kolber


Would fuck hard.