William Houston reported the other day that the long-anticipated CBC Sports Plus digital sports channel not only won't be launching this year, it may not launch at all. Houston cites carriage issues as one of the major problems, which makes sense considering the difficulties TSN ran into trying to get Rogers to carry TSN2 (and TSN2 had much more high-demand programming when it started than CBC Sports Plus was anticipated to have).
This is disappointing news for Canadian sports fans as a whole, as more channels tend to mean more sports events are available. However, it may be particularly damaging to CIS fans hoping to see more televised university sports content. I've been following the CBC Sports Plus saga for several years now, and first spoke to CBC Sports head Scott Moore on the subject for a Queen's Journal piece on CIS TV coverage in March 2008. At that time, he seemed quite optimistic that the CIS might have a plcae on the new channel, commenting, "I think it’s a great product that’s underexposed at the moment."
In September 2008, I took another look at the channel (see the factbox at the bottom of the page) and some other university sports initiatives, including some of The Score's new initiatives and Streaming Sports Network's expansion of its coverage. The other two networks were already in existence and thus had much firmer ideas about their coverage of CIS events, but Moore still sounded very positive about CBC Sports Plus and the chance to televise amateur sports content such as CIS sports. As I mentioned in my CIS Blog companion piece, CIS made a lot of sense for CBC, as the CRTC mandated them to carry at least 30 per cent amateur content per week and 80 per cent amateur content per year. CIS sports fit both of those criteria very nicely, and the timing of many CIS games on weeknights and weekend evenings would have been perfect, seeing as much of the other potential amateur content (skiing, curling, swimming, etc) generally takes place on weekend mornings.
The really disappointing thing about this is that it seems the Canadian Olympic Committee's proposed amateur sports network (which I also wrote about in the first piece) is also dead in the water; its website hasn't been updated in over a year. Both networks seemed quite promising and very interested in televising CIS content, and their interest alone might have convinced the other existing networks to see CIS programming as more valuable. Even the success of one of them could have made a substantial difference given the amounts of amateur sports content they were talking about carrying. For the moment, though, it looks like the status quo will prevail.
There is some reason for hope, though. Houston's report makes it clear that CBC Sports Plus hasn't been officially written off yet, and it could still launch in the future. If the CBC is able to acquire some high-end sports properties (more NHL content, some Blue Jays games, more soccer and basketball), they could be in a stronger position to force cable companies like Rogers to carry a new channel. Alternatively, Rogers Sportsnet's ratings could improve to the point where Rogers is no longer terrified of upstarts cutting in. There's also the chance that the CBC and cable companies might be able to come to a reasonable deal that would permit the channel to launch. It's not dead yet, it's just resting!
[Cross-posted to The CIS Blog]
Showing posts with label William Houston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label William Houston. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
What could Setanta's demise mean for soccer?
Things aren't looking too good for Setanta, one of the primary worldwide broadcasters of the English Premier League. According to The Times, the company may go off the air "at any moment" after fellow broadcaster BSkyB declined to provide them with a £50 million [BBC News] loan in exchange for access to their live EPL rights. They've also apparently suspended new subscriptions [Ireland Online, found via Brian Zygo]. Founders Leonard Ryan and Michael O'Rourke are reportedly trying to find a new source of financing, but that isn't easy these days.
This could have profound implications for soccer across the globe. Some of the most drastic effects will likely take place in the Scottish Premier League. Check out this passage from the Times article:
"The worst effects of a Setanta collapse, though, would be felt in Scotland. Payments currently due to the individual SPL clubs range in size from £70,000 to nearly £750,000, with the Old Firm obviously taking the greatest hits. Yet Rangers and Celtic can probably withstand such setbacks — it is the smaller clubs who will feel the losses more deeply.
The SPL will hold a press conference today at Hampden Park outlining its plans for dealing with the crisis. The gist of it could be neatly summed up by SPL administrators holding up a placard with the words: 'For Sale, Scottish Football. All Bids Welcome.'"
That doesn't seem like much of an exaggeration. Setanta's SPL deal is worth £125 million over four years, and you can bet no other broadcaster will be willing to pay anything close to that rate. For one thing, the SPL isn't exactly the most desirable property out there. The divide between the big clubs (Rangers and Celtic) and the rest of the pack is perhaps more pronounced than in any other top-tier league, at least to my mind, and few of the other clubs have much of a profile outside Scotland. The league is basically one long competition to see which of the Old Firm clubs wins the title and which smaller club takes third. Sure, there are other leagues with parity problems, but most of them have more clubs with a legitimate shot at the title (such as the English Premier League's Big Four) and other clubs that aren't that far behind (such as the likes of Everton and Aston Villa in the EPL). The SPL may have a difficult time getting anything close to this deal.
There are other factors that come into the SPL deal and apply to Setanta's other contracts as well. For one, the economy's gone in the tank since the last round of deals was negotiated. At that time, there was a prominent belief that the value of soccer TV rights would continue to rise indefinitely, given increasing global demand and expansion into new markets. That led to a bidding war for many hot properties and probably convinced broadcasters to spend more on them than they could make back from ad sales and subscription revenues at the moment, rationalizing that they could recoup their losses in the long rung. The values of these rights may again climb in the future, but they appear to be overvalued at the moment.
Moreover, Setanta's entry into the market was a key element in the the magnitude of the last deals. It's a simple economic principle that more competition for a resource tends to increase the price of that resource, especially when the supply is limited, which is very much the case with top-tier soccer. When that competition diminishes, the price of that resource falls because you can't play competitors against each other in an attempt to make more money. This is especially true if Setanta is to go off the air altogether, given the tremendous volume of soccer it shows. Sports channels obviously can't show more than 24 hours of programming per day, so if Setanta disappears altogether, its games couldn't be picked up by an existing channel without affecting their own programming schedule. Now, other channels are almost certain to be willing to do that for the more desirable properties that were on Setanta, such as the EPL, but they may not be willing to pony up as much money before. However, some of the second-tier leagues, like the SPL and the French Ligue 1, may have a more difficult time finding a home at all. The BBC already made it clear in the Times article that they're not interested in getting back into SPL coverage. Given how dependent leagues have become on TV money and the increasing numbers of clubs entering financial difficulties, this could dramatically affect soccer as we know it in Europe.
This could have some troubling implications for North American soccer viewers as well. It's unclear how the parent company's problems will affect their North American subsidiaries, but you can bet that the effects probably won't be positive. In the U.S., Setanta shows plenty of EPL action as well as top-tier stuff from other European leagues. In Canada, they are one of the main EPL broadcasters (along with usually one live game a week on The Score and one on Rogers Sportsnet) recently won the rights [EPL Talk] to show the UEFA Champions League for the next three years along with Sportsnet. There's a lot of speculation flying around that ESPN may pick up some of Setanta's packages, particularly the EPL ones.
It's not clear yet exactly how that would work, but that shouldn't keep us from considering the possibilities if ESPN does make a move for Setanta or some of its rights packages. In the U.S., I'd imagine that much of the EPL coverage might get bumped to ESPN2, especially in the fall when Saturdays are all about college football and Sunday is about extensive NFL pre-game shows; both are ratings bonanzas. The EPL has a dramatically growing audience stateside, but I don't think it's enough to dethrone either form of American football. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, as ESPN2 doesn't require anywhere near as hefty of a subscription fee as Setanta and large numbers of households have it.
The Canadian scenario is far more troubling if TSN, ESPN's Canadian counterpart, were to follow suit with a play for EPL rights. TSN generally does a poor job of covering soccer; they've had UEFA Champions League packages for ages, but bump the games for such activities as curling whenever they get the chance (as an aside, I'm quite sure that Canada is the only country in the world where curling would ever take precedence over the Champions League). If they did manage to land EPL rights, they might continue to drop the games whenever possible in favour of some obscure sport. That's not necessarily a shot at them, as TSN has a ton of properties as it is, and making room for them all can be very challenging. I don't think they would be a good home for the EPL, though.
However, things may not change all that much on the EPL front here. According to this 2007 Globe and Mail piece by William Houston quoted at the digitalhome.ca forums (bottom of the page), it's The Score that actually controls the Canadian EPL rights; Setanta and Sportsnet licensed them from them. Thus, they would be able to either increase their own EPL coverage or farm it out to someone else, and there are a variety of interesting options here; we could see Sportsnet return to three EPL games on Sunday, GOLTV pick up some EPL action or Fox Sports World Canada get in on the fun. Also, Rogers apparently holds a partial interest in Setanta Canada; I could see them perhaps taking over the Canadian channel themselves as well and continuing the existing deal with The Score. That might work well, as most of the other alternatives would likely lead to less EPL games being shown thanks to pre-existing programming demands. It will be interesting to watch and see what happens with this going forward.
[Cross-posted to The 24th Minute]
Update: 3:05 P.M., June 10: Just found this piece from the guys at Full-Time: Vancouver's Soccer Show. Apparently, Setanta Canada will operate as is for at least the 2009-2010 season, as it's a separate concern (partly thanks to Rogers' investment). They'll be talking to Setanta Canada marketing manager Andy Shapiera on the show this coming Sunday; should be an interesting interview.
This could have profound implications for soccer across the globe. Some of the most drastic effects will likely take place in the Scottish Premier League. Check out this passage from the Times article:
"The worst effects of a Setanta collapse, though, would be felt in Scotland. Payments currently due to the individual SPL clubs range in size from £70,000 to nearly £750,000, with the Old Firm obviously taking the greatest hits. Yet Rangers and Celtic can probably withstand such setbacks — it is the smaller clubs who will feel the losses more deeply.
The SPL will hold a press conference today at Hampden Park outlining its plans for dealing with the crisis. The gist of it could be neatly summed up by SPL administrators holding up a placard with the words: 'For Sale, Scottish Football. All Bids Welcome.'"
That doesn't seem like much of an exaggeration. Setanta's SPL deal is worth £125 million over four years, and you can bet no other broadcaster will be willing to pay anything close to that rate. For one thing, the SPL isn't exactly the most desirable property out there. The divide between the big clubs (Rangers and Celtic) and the rest of the pack is perhaps more pronounced than in any other top-tier league, at least to my mind, and few of the other clubs have much of a profile outside Scotland. The league is basically one long competition to see which of the Old Firm clubs wins the title and which smaller club takes third. Sure, there are other leagues with parity problems, but most of them have more clubs with a legitimate shot at the title (such as the English Premier League's Big Four) and other clubs that aren't that far behind (such as the likes of Everton and Aston Villa in the EPL). The SPL may have a difficult time getting anything close to this deal.
There are other factors that come into the SPL deal and apply to Setanta's other contracts as well. For one, the economy's gone in the tank since the last round of deals was negotiated. At that time, there was a prominent belief that the value of soccer TV rights would continue to rise indefinitely, given increasing global demand and expansion into new markets. That led to a bidding war for many hot properties and probably convinced broadcasters to spend more on them than they could make back from ad sales and subscription revenues at the moment, rationalizing that they could recoup their losses in the long rung. The values of these rights may again climb in the future, but they appear to be overvalued at the moment.
Moreover, Setanta's entry into the market was a key element in the the magnitude of the last deals. It's a simple economic principle that more competition for a resource tends to increase the price of that resource, especially when the supply is limited, which is very much the case with top-tier soccer. When that competition diminishes, the price of that resource falls because you can't play competitors against each other in an attempt to make more money. This is especially true if Setanta is to go off the air altogether, given the tremendous volume of soccer it shows. Sports channels obviously can't show more than 24 hours of programming per day, so if Setanta disappears altogether, its games couldn't be picked up by an existing channel without affecting their own programming schedule. Now, other channels are almost certain to be willing to do that for the more desirable properties that were on Setanta, such as the EPL, but they may not be willing to pony up as much money before. However, some of the second-tier leagues, like the SPL and the French Ligue 1, may have a more difficult time finding a home at all. The BBC already made it clear in the Times article that they're not interested in getting back into SPL coverage. Given how dependent leagues have become on TV money and the increasing numbers of clubs entering financial difficulties, this could dramatically affect soccer as we know it in Europe.
This could have some troubling implications for North American soccer viewers as well. It's unclear how the parent company's problems will affect their North American subsidiaries, but you can bet that the effects probably won't be positive. In the U.S., Setanta shows plenty of EPL action as well as top-tier stuff from other European leagues. In Canada, they are one of the main EPL broadcasters (along with usually one live game a week on The Score and one on Rogers Sportsnet) recently won the rights [EPL Talk] to show the UEFA Champions League for the next three years along with Sportsnet. There's a lot of speculation flying around that ESPN may pick up some of Setanta's packages, particularly the EPL ones.
It's not clear yet exactly how that would work, but that shouldn't keep us from considering the possibilities if ESPN does make a move for Setanta or some of its rights packages. In the U.S., I'd imagine that much of the EPL coverage might get bumped to ESPN2, especially in the fall when Saturdays are all about college football and Sunday is about extensive NFL pre-game shows; both are ratings bonanzas. The EPL has a dramatically growing audience stateside, but I don't think it's enough to dethrone either form of American football. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, as ESPN2 doesn't require anywhere near as hefty of a subscription fee as Setanta and large numbers of households have it.
The Canadian scenario is far more troubling if TSN, ESPN's Canadian counterpart, were to follow suit with a play for EPL rights. TSN generally does a poor job of covering soccer; they've had UEFA Champions League packages for ages, but bump the games for such activities as curling whenever they get the chance (as an aside, I'm quite sure that Canada is the only country in the world where curling would ever take precedence over the Champions League). If they did manage to land EPL rights, they might continue to drop the games whenever possible in favour of some obscure sport. That's not necessarily a shot at them, as TSN has a ton of properties as it is, and making room for them all can be very challenging. I don't think they would be a good home for the EPL, though.
However, things may not change all that much on the EPL front here. According to this 2007 Globe and Mail piece by William Houston quoted at the digitalhome.ca forums (bottom of the page), it's The Score that actually controls the Canadian EPL rights; Setanta and Sportsnet licensed them from them. Thus, they would be able to either increase their own EPL coverage or farm it out to someone else, and there are a variety of interesting options here; we could see Sportsnet return to three EPL games on Sunday, GOLTV pick up some EPL action or Fox Sports World Canada get in on the fun. Also, Rogers apparently holds a partial interest in Setanta Canada; I could see them perhaps taking over the Canadian channel themselves as well and continuing the existing deal with The Score. That might work well, as most of the other alternatives would likely lead to less EPL games being shown thanks to pre-existing programming demands. It will be interesting to watch and see what happens with this going forward.
[Cross-posted to The 24th Minute]
Update: 3:05 P.M., June 10: Just found this piece from the guys at Full-Time: Vancouver's Soccer Show. Apparently, Setanta Canada will operate as is for at least the 2009-2010 season, as it's a separate concern (partly thanks to Rogers' investment). They'll be talking to Setanta Canada marketing manager Andy Shapiera on the show this coming Sunday; should be an interesting interview.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Grey Cup numbers not so gloomy
Two stories on the Globe and Mail's website only hours apart give rather different takes on this year's Grey Cup viewership. The headline for the story from The Canadian Press is "Cup audience increases five per cent", while the headline for William Houston's column is "Small audience tunes in to Grey Cup Game" (game really shouldn't be capitalized, but so be it). The ledes are also rather different, as shown below:
CP: "An average of 3.65 million people tuned in to watch the first-ever Grey Cup broadcast on TSN and RDS on Sunday, according to numbers released by the network. The total audience for Calgary's win over Montreal in the 96th Grey Cup represented a five per cent increase over the viewership for last year's game, which Saskatchewan won over Winnipeg. That game was aired on CBC."
Houston: "TSN's first Grey Cup telecast drew one of the lowest television audiences in the history of the CFL championship game. The 2.439 million people who watched the Calgary Stampeders' win over the Montreal Alouettes is the Cup's second-worst TV audience since 1989. It was down 27 per cent from the CBC's 3.337 million a year ago for Winnipeg Blue Bombers-Saskatchewan Roughriders. The only audience worse was the CBC's 1.628 million for a Blue Bomber rout of the Edmonton Eskimos in 1990."
Why the discrepancy? Houston is only looking at the TSN numbers here. Later on in the column, he mentions the 1.215 million who watched on RDS, and as he begrudgingly admits, "Taken together, the TSN-RDS audience, the total Canadian viewership, was 3.615 million, slightly more than the combined CBC-RDS audience of 3.539 million in 2007. Last year, RDS drew only 200,000 for Bombers-Roughriders."
I don't see how Houston can argue that the RDS results shouldn't be included and that this was one of the worst-watched games in history. With Montreal involved, there were obviously a large amount of people who would watch the RDS feed. RDS is under the same CTVglobemedia corporate umbrella as TSN, they use the same (ESPN-style) interface for their SportsCentre shows, and they're pretty much just French-language TSN. The CFL deal is with TSN and RDS, so good ratings on RDS help quite a lot. CFL commissioner Mark Cohon and TSN president Phil King both talked about the two as a single entity for purposes of audience ratings in the CP story, and both were quite positive. As King told Houston, "It doesn't really matter from TSN's point of view what the mix is." Houston doesn't seem to agree, but I don't get his arguement: do the RDS viewers not count just because they happen to speak French?
Houston's arguments as to why TSN got lower numbers mostly fall flat. Part of his rationale is the same over-the-air versus cable drum he's been beating for a while now (see this doom-and-gloom column on the playoff matches), which doesn't make a lot of sense any more. Yes, the CBC theoretically has a distribution of 12 million to TSN's 9 million. However, most of the people who still don't have TSN are hardly ardent sports fans or ardent CFL fans, especially considering that TSN was airing every CFL game this year. My own family back in B.C., usually well behind the trend in television, made the jump to TSN this year largely based on their CFL coverage, and I'd venture that most CFL fans did the same. TSN is in most basic cable packages, and there are not all that many people who still rely on over-the-air TV; I'd guess that a large part of that seemingly-imposing 3 million gap is households who rarely watch TV and probably wouldn't be tuning in regardless.
I also don't buy his argument that the playoff hit was due to those games being on Saturday instead of Sunday. There are a lot of people in this country, especially younger demographics, who are fans of both the CFL and the NFL, and those numbers are likely increasing with the Bills-Toronto situation. It doesn't seem logical to suggest that a CFL game would automatically do better if you put it head-to-head with the full slate of Sunday afternoon NFL telecasts. There's much less competition Saturday, with the CFL only really up against Canadian and American college football (both of which draw considerably less viewers than the NFL).
Moreover, obviously there are going to be less English-language viewers for a Montreal-Calgary game than a Saskatchewan-Winnipeg game. Whatever the Grey Cup matchup, you'll always get a good deal of your audience from both local markets (and their provinces), with a smaller portion being the diehard fans like myself who will watch the game regardless of who's in it. All that's really happened here is that one of the local markets is French-speaking instead of English-speaking, so they tuned in to the RDS feed instead of the TSN one. TSN is not a weaker channel; in fact, on the sports landscape, it's much more impressive than CBC at the moment (although CBC SportsPlus might change that around eventually).
Overall, I'd argue that these ratings are good news for both the league and TSN/RDS. It doesn't matter how many watched the game in English and how many watched it in French. This certainly isn't the "second-worst TV audience since 1989", and there are plenty of francophone viewers who will back me on that one. Houston should broaden his horizons; it's the game that matters, not the language.
CP: "An average of 3.65 million people tuned in to watch the first-ever Grey Cup broadcast on TSN and RDS on Sunday, according to numbers released by the network. The total audience for Calgary's win over Montreal in the 96th Grey Cup represented a five per cent increase over the viewership for last year's game, which Saskatchewan won over Winnipeg. That game was aired on CBC."
Houston: "TSN's first Grey Cup telecast drew one of the lowest television audiences in the history of the CFL championship game. The 2.439 million people who watched the Calgary Stampeders' win over the Montreal Alouettes is the Cup's second-worst TV audience since 1989. It was down 27 per cent from the CBC's 3.337 million a year ago for Winnipeg Blue Bombers-Saskatchewan Roughriders. The only audience worse was the CBC's 1.628 million for a Blue Bomber rout of the Edmonton Eskimos in 1990."
Why the discrepancy? Houston is only looking at the TSN numbers here. Later on in the column, he mentions the 1.215 million who watched on RDS, and as he begrudgingly admits, "Taken together, the TSN-RDS audience, the total Canadian viewership, was 3.615 million, slightly more than the combined CBC-RDS audience of 3.539 million in 2007. Last year, RDS drew only 200,000 for Bombers-Roughriders."
I don't see how Houston can argue that the RDS results shouldn't be included and that this was one of the worst-watched games in history. With Montreal involved, there were obviously a large amount of people who would watch the RDS feed. RDS is under the same CTVglobemedia corporate umbrella as TSN, they use the same (ESPN-style) interface for their SportsCentre shows, and they're pretty much just French-language TSN. The CFL deal is with TSN and RDS, so good ratings on RDS help quite a lot. CFL commissioner Mark Cohon and TSN president Phil King both talked about the two as a single entity for purposes of audience ratings in the CP story, and both were quite positive. As King told Houston, "It doesn't really matter from TSN's point of view what the mix is." Houston doesn't seem to agree, but I don't get his arguement: do the RDS viewers not count just because they happen to speak French?
Houston's arguments as to why TSN got lower numbers mostly fall flat. Part of his rationale is the same over-the-air versus cable drum he's been beating for a while now (see this doom-and-gloom column on the playoff matches), which doesn't make a lot of sense any more. Yes, the CBC theoretically has a distribution of 12 million to TSN's 9 million. However, most of the people who still don't have TSN are hardly ardent sports fans or ardent CFL fans, especially considering that TSN was airing every CFL game this year. My own family back in B.C., usually well behind the trend in television, made the jump to TSN this year largely based on their CFL coverage, and I'd venture that most CFL fans did the same. TSN is in most basic cable packages, and there are not all that many people who still rely on over-the-air TV; I'd guess that a large part of that seemingly-imposing 3 million gap is households who rarely watch TV and probably wouldn't be tuning in regardless.
I also don't buy his argument that the playoff hit was due to those games being on Saturday instead of Sunday. There are a lot of people in this country, especially younger demographics, who are fans of both the CFL and the NFL, and those numbers are likely increasing with the Bills-Toronto situation. It doesn't seem logical to suggest that a CFL game would automatically do better if you put it head-to-head with the full slate of Sunday afternoon NFL telecasts. There's much less competition Saturday, with the CFL only really up against Canadian and American college football (both of which draw considerably less viewers than the NFL).
Moreover, obviously there are going to be less English-language viewers for a Montreal-Calgary game than a Saskatchewan-Winnipeg game. Whatever the Grey Cup matchup, you'll always get a good deal of your audience from both local markets (and their provinces), with a smaller portion being the diehard fans like myself who will watch the game regardless of who's in it. All that's really happened here is that one of the local markets is French-speaking instead of English-speaking, so they tuned in to the RDS feed instead of the TSN one. TSN is not a weaker channel; in fact, on the sports landscape, it's much more impressive than CBC at the moment (although CBC SportsPlus might change that around eventually).
Overall, I'd argue that these ratings are good news for both the league and TSN/RDS. It doesn't matter how many watched the game in English and how many watched it in French. This certainly isn't the "second-worst TV audience since 1989", and there are plenty of francophone viewers who will back me on that one. Houston should broaden his horizons; it's the game that matters, not the language.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
New developments on Pratt
(Dave Pratt conducting his radio show: photo from the TEAM 1040 website).
A few new things in the Dave Pratt case, which continues to get worse and worse. A quick recap: Pratt, a prominent Vancouver sports personality who wrote for the Vancouver Province and currently still hosts a drive-time radio show on the TEAM 1040 which is partially simulcast on Rogers Sportsnet Pacific, lost his job Wednesday after a reader e-mailed the newspaper to let them know that Pratt basically cut and pasted an entire 2000 piece in Sports Illustrated by Rick Reilly. You can find my original post on the case here and the second one here.
Now, the new developments. First, in a CBC story earlier today, Pratt described the plagiarism as a "minor gaffe". "It was a Saturday and I wanted to get out of [the office] before noon," he told CBC over the phone.
That is absolutely inexcusable. If he's serious about apologizing, why does he call it a "minor gaffe"? That quote looks even more ridiculous when it's juxtaposed with what Province editor-in-chief Wayne Moriarty told CBC earlier in the story.
"Within ethical standards of the newspaper, plagiarism, short of fabricating information, would be considered the most egregious of sins or transgressions a journalist can commit," Moriarty said.
I agree with Moriarty far more than Pratt here. In an age where many people are skeptical about the credibility of the media, Pratt denigrates all journalists by association, first, by plagiarizing and second, by refusing to recognize the seriousness of his offence. The CBC piece does a good job of showing how serious this offence is, though: it reveals that there's at least three distinct passages copied almost word-for-word (go here for the breakdown), while the Province story only specifically mentioned one.
The second problem with Pratt's comments in the Province piece, the CBC story and the new story by the Globe's William Houston is he seeks to throw his entire wing of the media under the bus by saying plagiarism isn't considered a problem in radio. "We recycle everything. The sheer amount of volume we produce forces you to constantly be looking for different people's ideas," he said in the Province piece.
Look, I know that rules and practices are very different in the different forms of media, but don't insult my intelligence. Elementary school kids know that you can't steal someone else's work and present it as your own, and the vast majority of journalists know this as well, whether their work appears in print, on radio or TV, or on the web. Any attempt to blame this on the media form you work in not only hurts your own credibility, but slanders every other journalist in that medium by association. This is why people like Buzz Bissinger hate blogs: can you imagine what would happen if some blogger said that it was okay to plagiarize on the Internet? Plagiarism is a terrible sin in any form of media, so don't try and pretend that it's just your medium that made you do this: that just hurts everyone else trying to make a living in that medium, most of whom don't deserve that slander.
Update, 12:30 A.M., Saturday, June 7: This story is finally really starting to get out. Dan Russell, the host of the great radio program Sports Talk on CKNW, another local radio station, contacted me out of the blue Thursday about my posts on the Pratt situation, and we had a great chat about the possible implications of this. Dan made some very good points on the air Thursday night about how Pratt's actions and comments not only hurt himself, but also damage the reputation of all journalists, especially those who work in radio. Anyway, I highly recommend it. You can access the show through the CKNW Audio Vault, which allows you to listen to any of their shows by hour. The Sports Talk program runs from 9 until 12 most nights: the portion referencing Pratt and my postings starts shortly after 10:00.
Other related pieces:
- Michael David Smith has an interesting take on this over at the FanHouse. He thinks taking others' words without attribution should be treated the same in any medium, but he suggests that it may be more prevalent in radio. Key quote: "I don't see any ethical distinction between taking someone else's words on the radio and taking someone else's words in print, but Pratt seems to, even as he acknowledges his mistake."
- Bill Stovin, who has considerable experience in print media, radio and television, has a good piece on this at Media Melon. He also seems annoyed by how Pratt threw the rest of the radio profession under the bus. Key quote: "While contrite, Pratt clearly doesn’t grasp the seriousness of what he did, dismissing his conduct as a minor gaffe, 'There’s clearly a higher standard in print and I’m not a print guy.' OUCH!!!!"
- Jez Golbez has an interesting take over at Hockey Rants. Key quote: "You just know that in today's Internet age, such plagiarism, especially of a fairly well-known quote, is going to be caught by somebody. As a blogger and *cough*writer*cough*, I know better and liberally utilize quoting and block quoting in my post. How hard would it have been for Pratt to add a simple "As Rick Reilly might say" before his line? That would acknowledge the source, and he'd still have a job."
- Jason Cohen has a nice post on this at Can't Stop The Bleeding (partway down, after his discussion of the Hockey Night in Canada theme controversy). One of his main points is that many mainstream media outlets tend to harp on blogs for plagiarism and journalistic deficiencies, but you don't see most of them flying in to write about this. Key quote: "Pratt’s been fired from the paper, but not from his sports talk show on a local AM station. One of these days I’m sure some MSM columnist or highly esteemed author will take talk-radio to task for insufficient journalistic standards, right?"
Friday, May 30, 2008
Hold the Crosby, please.
(Photo from (gasp) AveryNation. Makes me question who I hate more, Crosby or Avery. I think Avery wins by a nose, due to the Vogue internship and the whole Elisha Cuthbert thing, but Crosby's pretty close).
I don't want to make it seem like I'm always ragging on the Globe and Mail's William Houston, but his column today annoyed the hell out of me. Here's the highlights (lowlights?).
"Let's see. He's the youngest player to be appointed as the captain of an NHL team. This is his first Stanley Cup final. Hard to tell, but he may still be hurting from an ankle injury that sidelined him for 29 games in the regular season.
On Wednesday, Sidney Crosby scored two of the Pittsburgh Penguins' three goals and logged almost 20 minutes of ice time to lead the Penguins back into their series against the Detroit Red Wings. It was a terrific performance.
But guess who received the attention during the Hockey Night in Canada postgame coverage? Gary Roberts.
The show's grudge against Crosby has gone well beyond ridiculous. Yes, host Ron MacLean interviewed him last Saturday, but the show's most influential commentator, Don Cherry, doesn't like him. And MacLean certainly defers to his elder.
If Cherry mentioned Crosby in his postgame commentary, we missed it. Instead, he enthused about Roberts, the Penguins' veteran, who played 8 minutes 45 seconds and earned an assist. And he praised the team's Jordan Staal, who also had a solid game, but no points.
“He's only 19 years old,” Cherry said.
Yes, and Crosby's 20."
Grudge? How the hell can you say that the CBC has a grudge against Crosby, and that it's gone well beyond the ridiculous? As Houston admits, he was interviewed by MacLean last Saturday. Later in the column, he talks about how Crosby was named the first star, chosen for a post-game interview by Elliotte Friedman and praised by Craig Simpson. That seems like quite a bit of coverage (and praise) for someone the network supposedly has a grudge against. Houston goes on:
"The ABC rule (Anybody But Crosby) had MacLean toeing the line. When he read off the three stars of the game, he said Crosby had been selected as the first star for scoring the opening goal and picking up another.
That understated Crosby's impact on the game about as much as saying Tiger Woods is occasionally noticed on the PGA Tour.
When Cherry did his postgame spot for ESPN, he continued to ignore Crosby and wax lyrical about Roberts. Finally, ESPN commentator Barry Melrose said, “What about the Crosby kid?”
“Oh,” Cherry said. “I forgot. Yeah, he played a great game.”
Crosby should be a Cherry favourite. He's a Canadian, he's tough and he has been in at least one fight. But the two got off to a bad start when Crosby was in junior hockey and was rapped by Cherry for being a hot dog because he used a lacrosse-style stick manoeuvre to score a goal. For his part, Crosby has a bit of an edge and he probably hasn't been appropriately deferential to Cherry.
First off, comparing Sidney Crosby to Tiger Woods is blatantly ridiculous. Tiger Woods is by far the most dominant athlete in his sport, and some, including ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski, have even anointed him as the greatest individual athlete of all time. That's up for debate, but at least he's in the running. Crosby? He wasn't even the best player on his own team this year (that honour goes to Evgeni Malkin, with a nice 47-59-106 goals-assists-points mark). Sure, he was injured for a lot of the year, and still put up 24-48-72 numbers in 53 games leaving him 31st in the league in scoring. However, even using a points-per-game reference, he finished third in the league behind Peter Forsberg (13 points in only 9 games, so a helluva small sample size, but he can still play when his foot isn't acting up) and Alexander the Great, who led the league with 65-47-112 and will be named the Hart Trophy winner if there is any justice in the world. Crosby's turned it up in the playoffs, putting up 6-17-23 in 17 games, which ties him for the lead with Detroit's Henrik Zetterberg (who has a more impressive 12-11-23). That still doesn't make him the clear best player in the league or even a lock for the Conn Smythe Trophy. It puts him in the conversation, but he's as close to being Tiger Woods as Tony Pena Jr. is to being Alex Rodriguez. Clearly, Houston's been drinking the Gatorade Crosby's (er, the league's, but the two are indistinguishable these days) marketing team is selling.
(Note: This site does not like Alex Rodriguez, and has not ever since he left the Mariners and became overpaid. However, he is still one of the best hitting shortstops in the game (even if he plays third base now) and he's the highest-paid player in baseball, making him suitable for this comparison).
Second, an Anybody But Crosby rule? Really? As Houston himself points out, the CBC named him the game's first star, interviewed him after the game, talked about his performance in glowing terms and had him interviewed by MacLean after the previous game. What more does he want? If he hasn't got his fill of Crosby adoration from the numerous pre-game shows and all of the coverage by CBC, Sportsnet and TSN, there's always the American telecast, where most of the broadcasters seem to think Crosby with a puck is like Michelangelo with a paintbrush. The CBC still shows far too much Crosby coverage for me (one of the reasons I'm not watching these Stanley Cup finals: I'll have more on that later today, though), but apparently it's not yet at the John Madden on Brett Favre level that Houston wants.
Third, consider this quote: "Crosby should be a Cherry favourite. He's a Canadian, he's tough and he has been in at least one fight." Anyone who calls Sidney Crosby tough must not be watching the same player I am (perhaps he tuned in to the practice where Maxime Talbot wore Crosby's jersey)? Crosby makes Manu "The Best Argentine Diver Who Didn't Play Soccer" Ginobili look tough. Crosby's diving has gotten so bad that he was called out by one Jaromir Jagr. The point is, diving is bad for sports (ask any soccer fan who's tried to convince North Americans to give the game a chance). Most leagues realize this: in fact, the NBA's even going to crack down on flopping next year. However, the NHL continues to market Sidney Crosby, a flopper who makes Cristiano Ronaldo look like an amateur, as the only hockey player in existence, so it's unlikely diving will leave the league any time soon. This aside, there is absolutely no good reason to call Crosby "tough" or suggest that Cherry should endorse him: his play is absolutely antithetical to everything Cherry stands for.
Here's how Houston concludes his column:
"Whatever the case, his performance on Wednesday ranked as one of the big NHL stories of the year and it deserved raves.
True, Hockey Night put him on the air for a postgame interview with reporter Elliotte Friedman. How could it not? And analyst Craig Simpson said a few words, chosen carefully, about his rising to the occasion.
But as a whole, the Hockey Night response to Crosby's effort was dismissive and small – a disservice, not to Crosby, because he receives plenty of kudos and doesn't need them from Hockey Night.
It was a disservice to the telecast and the viewers."
This is one of the things that bugs me the most about Houston and his ilk of sportswriters who make a living writing about what's on television: they automatically assume that everyone shares their preferences. Engaging in a reasonable amount of coverage, rather than the Crosby love-in Houston proposes (which can regularly be seen on most Penguins telecasts anyways, especially if Pierre McGuire's involved) is hardly a disservice to the telecast: it's actually a service to the telecast to provide information on what actually happened in the game as opposed to an overly-large focus on one man. In total, Crosby played 19:41 in that game, or just under a third. That includes a grand total of three seconds on the penalty kill. Thus, there was a lot that happened apart from Crosby, although you'd never know it from stories like this, this and this. Yes, Crosby was the best player in that game, which is why he was named the first star and interviewed afterwards. However, the last time I checked, hockey teams had twenty players dressed for each game. Houston and the League of Extraordinary Crosby-Adulaters would have you believe it's a crime against humanity (or at least that insignificant portion of it that watches the Stanley Cup Finals) to praise any of the other guys, but it's far more accurate in terms of reporting what actually happened. No matter how much Crosby "put the Pittsburgh Penguins on his 20-year-old shoulders", he still wasn't even on the ice for two-thirds of the game! Yes, he's a good player, and yes, he deserved at least some of the coverage he got from that game, but please stop asking for more: you're only further alienating those of us who are tired of having Crosby shoved down our throats, further mythologizing a decent game into a new verse in the never-ending "Ballad of Sid the Kid" and further removing coverage of the playoffs from actually reflecting reality, as opposed to the manufactured tales of one savior's heroism churned out by Gary Bettman's PR cronies.
In conclusion, the top five reasons to hate Sidney Crosby:
- The Diving: He consistently out-Ginobilis Ginobili.
- The Overexposure: Not only does he shill for Reebok, Gatorade and Tim Hortons, if you listen to the NHL's marketing campaigns, he's apparently the only player left (seeing as you never hear about anyone else).
- The Silver Platter: He was anointed as the NHL's saviour long before he'd even been drafted.
- The Captaincy: What did he ever do to be named an assistant captain as a rookie and the youngest captain in team history the following year? Sure, he's good, but skill as a player does not equal leadership skills (just ask Pavel Bure).
- The (Pitiful Excuse for A) Mustache:
Please leave the facial hair for those of us who can actually grow it. His "mustache" looks like he stole his mom's eyeliner pencil.
(Photo from (AUGH!) sidcrosby.blogspot.com)
Look, Crosby is a pretty good player. He's certainly in the upper echelons of the NHL, but can we please reduce his coverage to something approximating his status? I'd happily take Zetterberg or Pavel Datsyuk over him any day, as they can play at both ends of the ice and kill penalties (plus they score goals instead of just setting them up), but there's probably about a tenth of the copy written about them as there is about "Sid the Overhyped Kid". To conclude, as the Gatorade commercial says, "Crosby doesn't stop... annoying the hell out of people, flopping, serving as an overhyped saviour the NHL doesn't need and drawing people to his overfilled bandwagon." NHL, if you ever want me to return to your restaurant, please reduce the Crosby portions to a more appropriate size. The CBC should be commended for portraying Sid in a reasonable and fair way, not vilified by Houston and his fellow scribes who want hockey games turned into "The Crosby Show". In the end, it's not going to matter, as the team-first Red Wings will eventually triumph over the Penguins and their overhyped superstar. Now, I hate the Red Wings with most of the bones in my body and I was actually cheering for the Penguins before this, but the Crosby Hype Machine's kick into overdrive after Game Three forces me to opt for the lesser of two evils.
Postscript: Like it usually is, Houston's actual reporting in the column (buried after his rant about how there wasn't enough Crosby love) was pretty strong. The most interesting tidbit was his mention that Setanta Sports has acquired the rights for the FA Cup broadcasts in Canada through 2011-2012. That's a big loss for Fox Sports World Canada, as that was one of their signature properties and the only top-level English soccer they had left (they lost the Premier League to Setanta/the Score/Sportsnet last year, Setanta already has the Carling Cup and TSN's owned the Champions League for a number of years). Thus, soccer fans in Canada will have to shell out the $15/month for Setanta if they haven't already. Soccer obsessives like myself will probably find it worth their while (I love the channel), but it may turn off some casual fans unwilling to pay the extra cash, which could be bad for the growth of the game in Canada.
Related:
- Mike Halford of the superb Orland Kurtenblog (if you don't get the joke, you're clearly not a Canucks fan) has a great take on this. An interesting tidbit:
"That being said, I'm sure there's some media backlash involved with this. Every media outlet in the country was transfixed with El Sid's first tour through Western Canada ("Route 87" was the clever nomenclature, I believe) and the hype surrounding his return from a high ankle sprain was on par with The Beatles coming to America. There's no way HNIC, TSN, Sportsnet and The Score could actually look back on those moments and not cringe a bit with the overzealousness of their coverage. Hindsight being 20/20, it was probably too much too soon. Perhaps these same media outlets are now waiting for Crosby to, you know, win something before lavishing him with even more praise?"
- Houston's column drew some attention from Sports Business Daily south of the border (registration required)
- Houston's original column.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
A helluva column
I should preface this by stating that I respect the Globe and Mail's William Houston as a writer who's been doing a tough job for a long time, and I frequently read his columns. He does a fantastic job as a reporter who digs up interesting details on media coverage of Canadian sports, and his takes on the competition among the various channels and the TV ratings of different events are always worth a look. However, his analysis of networks' on-air coverage is much more hit-and-miss. Some of it is bang-on, such as his analysis of the different networks' trade deadline shows. I don't agree with many of his other ideas, particularly about what makes good and bad commentary, but I can usually at least understand where he's coming from. On occasion though, he'll drop in something that's so absurdly out-of-the-blue that I can't even begin to fathom the thought process he went through in constructing it.
A great example of the latter is his column from yesterday's Globe criticizing Hockey Night in Canada's coverage of the playoffs. Personally, from the games I've seen, I think Hockey Night's been doing their usual stellar job, but I can respect someone who disagrees with me and can support their reasoning. Unfortunately, Houston's effort does not meet this standard. Just look at the first couple paragraphs of his piece:
"The Hockey Night in Canada telecast of the San Jose Sharks-Calgary Flames game last Sunday was weak in spots, but helpful in identifying some of the show's problems," he writes. Okay so far: we still disagree that it was weak, but I'm looking forward to his explanation.
"Let's start with host Ron MacLean, an excellent broadcaster and a popular hockey personality."
Interesting. If he's such an excellent broadcaster, why is he the primary problem? We're about to find out.
"On a semi-regular basis, MacLean uses "hell of a" to describe something exceptional, such as "a helluva third period." He uttered "helluva" once on Sunday."
Good Lord! I had no idea my tax dollars were going to fund such gross profanity! We clearly need a censorship law for the CBC: it can come in right alongside the new Bill C-10 set to deny tax credits to films and videos "deemed offensive to the public", which star director Ang Lee points out is more state censorship than he ever experienced in China, that noted haven of free speech. Hey, if we're going to destroy Canadian cinema, we might as well take out Canadian TV while we're at it so we can replace it with the bland, inoffensive entertainment that Houston apparently prefers. No one had better send him a Trailer Park Boys DVD: he might have a heart attack just from reading the box!
Seriously though, how can "helluva" be considered offensive in this day and age? It's a short form for "hell of a", a commonly used superlative for a strong athletic performance. What's so offensive, the word "hell"? Well, it occurs fifty-five times in the Bible, so clearly all copies of that book need to be burnt instantly. It's also the name of a town in Michigan, so we should wipe that off the map as well. The Hells Angels? Gone. Hells Bells? Toast. Hell freezing over? Better burn those Eagles CDs. Never mind the following Wikipedia entry:
"The word "Hell" used away from its religious context was long considered to be profanity, particularly in North America. Although its use was commonplace in everyday speech and on television by the 1970s, many people in the US still consider it somewhat rude or inappropriate language, particularly involving children.[15] Many, particularly among religious circles and in certain sensitive environments, still avoid casual usage of the word. In British English and some parts of North America, the word has fallen into common use and is not considered profane; often considered to be a safer and less offensive alternative to swearing, as in the phrase, 'Go to Hell.'"
Well, I guess Houston still lives in a time before the 1970s and still considers hell profane. As he excitingly goes on about MacLean, "Last week, he used damn and hell in the same breath. They're minor expletives, but CBC Sports is the only place we know where a host is allowed to swear on the air." You can feel the implied exclamation marks, and the shock he expects to arise as millions of Canadians spill their morning coffee reading such tales of horror and instantly flee to their 1970s-style typewriters to bang out indignant letters to the editor over the degradation of society and the absence of any and all morals. As Macdonald Hall's Bruno Walton might say, "Our world is crumbling around us!" Damn and hell in the same breath? On the airwaves? Forget the censorship bill, you might as well just burn MacLean at the stake right now. Oh, rats: I just used damn and hell in the same breath. William Houston, if you're reading this, you're welcome to come burn me as well for violating your sacrosanct media sphere of morality.
The funny thing is, it's not just the times that Houston is out of touch with. I've been reading "best-of" collections of great Canadian sportswriters like Jim Coleman and Milt Dunnell recently, and they spent much of their time at horse tracks and boxing rings. I sincerely doubt if either man ever recoiled when they heard a "damn" or a "hell" from the legendary characters they hung out with. Sure, it's somewhat different when it's in the media, but should it really be? That's what makes sites like Drunk Jays Fans so refreshing: those guys don't bother to take the rough edges of their passionate commentary, regardless of who they offend. Slipping in a "helluva" really shouldn't offend anyone these days, anyways,(except for those hopelessly behind the times).
The trend's starting to catch on: at our own humble paper, we're certainly not reticent to use "damn" or "hell" when quoting people, and even occasionally in our own writing. We're also not afraid to throw in even naughtier words when someone says them. This is especially important in sports: I know I'd much rather hear "We put up a hell of a fight" than the clichéd, sans emotion comments like "We went out there and did our best." In an era where most athletes and coaches are taught to spin everything in the blandest way possible, the occasional outburst of pure passion should be lauded, not censored.
This isn't to say that language should be used just for pure shock value. There's a point where it's real, and a point where it's just contrived, where you lose the passion that made pushing the boundaries great in the first place. However, particularly in sports, there's a lot of emotion involved, and the fans who read/watch/listen to them are better able to connect with the game and the athletes if coaches, players and even announcers can truly express what they feel than if they're forced into politically correct language. Even the mainstream media's starting to get this: Houston's colleague Jeff Blair had a fantastic story today about the Jays' loss, which started off with manager John Gibbons dropping three consecutive "fucks". Of course, the paper didn't actually print the word in question, but Blair didn't condemn Gibbons for his language, and he came through as a guy who was genuinely passionate and frustrated about his team. I know I'd rather have a character like him or Ozzie Guillen managing my club than a dull figure who sticks to Houston's rules. There's other great examples, such as Joe Posnanski, my favorite Kansas City Star columnist, who recently held a fantastic swear-off between Scott Raab and Pat Jordan. Now, those guys might fall into the category of "swearing just to draw attention", but I can say that that was one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.
In any case, I don't want to return to the "Leave it to Beaver" world espoused by Mr. Houston. I prefer my athletes and commentators as real people, who curse when they miss a shot or complement something amazing with "that was a hell of a play". So don't worry, Ron: I'm sure there are plenty of people who have moved on from the old days and can actually handle a little helluva here and there in their media. Unfortunately, none of them happen to write the sports television column for the Globe and Mail.
A great example of the latter is his column from yesterday's Globe criticizing Hockey Night in Canada's coverage of the playoffs. Personally, from the games I've seen, I think Hockey Night's been doing their usual stellar job, but I can respect someone who disagrees with me and can support their reasoning. Unfortunately, Houston's effort does not meet this standard. Just look at the first couple paragraphs of his piece:
"The Hockey Night in Canada telecast of the San Jose Sharks-Calgary Flames game last Sunday was weak in spots, but helpful in identifying some of the show's problems," he writes. Okay so far: we still disagree that it was weak, but I'm looking forward to his explanation.
"Let's start with host Ron MacLean, an excellent broadcaster and a popular hockey personality."
Interesting. If he's such an excellent broadcaster, why is he the primary problem? We're about to find out.
"On a semi-regular basis, MacLean uses "hell of a" to describe something exceptional, such as "a helluva third period." He uttered "helluva" once on Sunday."
Good Lord! I had no idea my tax dollars were going to fund such gross profanity! We clearly need a censorship law for the CBC: it can come in right alongside the new Bill C-10 set to deny tax credits to films and videos "deemed offensive to the public", which star director Ang Lee points out is more state censorship than he ever experienced in China, that noted haven of free speech. Hey, if we're going to destroy Canadian cinema, we might as well take out Canadian TV while we're at it so we can replace it with the bland, inoffensive entertainment that Houston apparently prefers. No one had better send him a Trailer Park Boys DVD: he might have a heart attack just from reading the box!
Seriously though, how can "helluva" be considered offensive in this day and age? It's a short form for "hell of a", a commonly used superlative for a strong athletic performance. What's so offensive, the word "hell"? Well, it occurs fifty-five times in the Bible, so clearly all copies of that book need to be burnt instantly. It's also the name of a town in Michigan, so we should wipe that off the map as well. The Hells Angels? Gone. Hells Bells? Toast. Hell freezing over? Better burn those Eagles CDs. Never mind the following Wikipedia entry:
"The word "Hell" used away from its religious context was long considered to be profanity, particularly in North America. Although its use was commonplace in everyday speech and on television by the 1970s, many people in the US still consider it somewhat rude or inappropriate language, particularly involving children.[15] Many, particularly among religious circles and in certain sensitive environments, still avoid casual usage of the word. In British English and some parts of North America, the word has fallen into common use and is not considered profane; often considered to be a safer and less offensive alternative to swearing, as in the phrase, 'Go to Hell.'"
Well, I guess Houston still lives in a time before the 1970s and still considers hell profane. As he excitingly goes on about MacLean, "Last week, he used damn and hell in the same breath. They're minor expletives, but CBC Sports is the only place we know where a host is allowed to swear on the air." You can feel the implied exclamation marks, and the shock he expects to arise as millions of Canadians spill their morning coffee reading such tales of horror and instantly flee to their 1970s-style typewriters to bang out indignant letters to the editor over the degradation of society and the absence of any and all morals. As Macdonald Hall's Bruno Walton might say, "Our world is crumbling around us!" Damn and hell in the same breath? On the airwaves? Forget the censorship bill, you might as well just burn MacLean at the stake right now. Oh, rats: I just used damn and hell in the same breath. William Houston, if you're reading this, you're welcome to come burn me as well for violating your sacrosanct media sphere of morality.
The funny thing is, it's not just the times that Houston is out of touch with. I've been reading "best-of" collections of great Canadian sportswriters like Jim Coleman and Milt Dunnell recently, and they spent much of their time at horse tracks and boxing rings. I sincerely doubt if either man ever recoiled when they heard a "damn" or a "hell" from the legendary characters they hung out with. Sure, it's somewhat different when it's in the media, but should it really be? That's what makes sites like Drunk Jays Fans so refreshing: those guys don't bother to take the rough edges of their passionate commentary, regardless of who they offend. Slipping in a "helluva" really shouldn't offend anyone these days, anyways,(except for those hopelessly behind the times).
The trend's starting to catch on: at our own humble paper, we're certainly not reticent to use "damn" or "hell" when quoting people, and even occasionally in our own writing. We're also not afraid to throw in even naughtier words when someone says them. This is especially important in sports: I know I'd much rather hear "We put up a hell of a fight" than the clichéd, sans emotion comments like "We went out there and did our best." In an era where most athletes and coaches are taught to spin everything in the blandest way possible, the occasional outburst of pure passion should be lauded, not censored.
This isn't to say that language should be used just for pure shock value. There's a point where it's real, and a point where it's just contrived, where you lose the passion that made pushing the boundaries great in the first place. However, particularly in sports, there's a lot of emotion involved, and the fans who read/watch/listen to them are better able to connect with the game and the athletes if coaches, players and even announcers can truly express what they feel than if they're forced into politically correct language. Even the mainstream media's starting to get this: Houston's colleague Jeff Blair had a fantastic story today about the Jays' loss, which started off with manager John Gibbons dropping three consecutive "fucks". Of course, the paper didn't actually print the word in question, but Blair didn't condemn Gibbons for his language, and he came through as a guy who was genuinely passionate and frustrated about his team. I know I'd rather have a character like him or Ozzie Guillen managing my club than a dull figure who sticks to Houston's rules. There's other great examples, such as Joe Posnanski, my favorite Kansas City Star columnist, who recently held a fantastic swear-off between Scott Raab and Pat Jordan. Now, those guys might fall into the category of "swearing just to draw attention", but I can say that that was one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.
In any case, I don't want to return to the "Leave it to Beaver" world espoused by Mr. Houston. I prefer my athletes and commentators as real people, who curse when they miss a shot or complement something amazing with "that was a hell of a play". So don't worry, Ron: I'm sure there are plenty of people who have moved on from the old days and can actually handle a little helluva here and there in their media. Unfortunately, none of them happen to write the sports television column for the Globe and Mail.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Possible new TV coverage for CIS sports
I've been meaning to put this up for a while, but just didn't have the time. A couple weeks ago, I wrote a story for the Journal about two new proposed TV networks the CRTC is looking at. The first application is an initiative of the Canadian Olympic Committee, which wants to launch English and French channels focusing on amateur sports, called the Canadian Amateur Sports Network and Réseau des sports amateur canadiens respectively. The second application is from the CBC for its own sports channel, which would also include an amateur sports component. Scott Moore, the executive director of CBC Sports, told me that their application proposed 35 per cent amateur content. Both applications are currently before the CRTC, and should soon enter the "gazetting" period, where the public and other companies can intervene for or against the new channels.
These applications are interesting because they may very well lead to more televised coverage of CIS sports. CIS Director of Marketing Peter Metuzals told me that the CIS has been in contact with the COC about their application, and the website for the proposed new channels lists CIS as a supporter. Steve Keogh, the COC's communications manager, told me that they're quite interested in televising university sports. CIS officials haven't yet had extensive discussions with CBC, but Moore also seemed quite receptive to the idea of televising university sports.
"I think it’s a great product that’s underexposed at the moment," he told me. "If we get the license, it’s certainly an area we’d look at."
Anyways, that's the recap of the article. There were some other interesting aspects I picked up from the interviews for it that we couldn't fit in due to space, so I figured I'd try and highlight the best ones here.
One thing I found particularly interesting was Keogh's comment that the COC would be interested in picking up some of the CIS sports that aren't currently televised, as well as possibly televising regular-season games in sports where only the championships are televised. "Our goal is to put a spotlight on sports that don’t already receive attention, but that doesn’t mean we won’t want a high-profile CIS event," he told me. That seems to fit with CIS chief executive officer Marg McGregor's comments that she'd like to see more regular-season games televised. "We were very happy with the quality of the coverage we got this year from various networks," she told me. "That being said, for sure we would like to see more games covered, and not just the championship games, but the lead-up games to build that audience, build that interest and build that excitement, particularly around certain games that are good rivalries and good matchups."
Both McGregor and Metuzals were quite clear that any coverage on the new networks would supplement existing coverage rather than replace it: CIS is locked into a deal with Sportsnet for coverage of the men's hockey championships for the next two years, and is currently negotiating a renewal of their agreement with The Score for various championships, including football and men's and women's basketball. In my mind, this is the right move: you don't want to throw away what you have, and as McGregor said, the quality of the coverage The Score and Sportsnet provided was quite high. It would certainly help expose university sport if they were able to get other games or championships on the air.
Both McGregor and Metuzals seem to highly value television as a means to expand university sport's presence and influence, which is good to see. Metuzals told me he wants to see as many CIS sports and matches televised as possible. "I would like to have as much distribution as possible in a variety of sports,” he said. McGregor said that the exposure they get from television is quite valuable. "TV is an excellent vehicle to promote what a great product university sport is," she told me.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both of the proposed new channels for those hoping to see more CIS sports. The COC bid would likely feature more university sport content, but it will probably have a harder time passing, as they're applying for mandatory carriage. As the Globe's William Houston pointed out in his column about the networks when they were first proposed, "A must-carry designation is difficult to receive." The CBC bid may also have difficulty passing, as it's closer to what's already offered by TSN, Sportsnet and The Score, and the companies that own those networks may file negative interventions. Another advantage if the COC bid passes is it would mean more revenue for CIS: the organization currently subsidizes some of the broadcasting costs of Sportsnet and The Score, but CASN's website states that it would pay all broadcasting costs, donate up to one-third of the advertising time to the organization involved and also establish an amateur sports fund that organizations like CIS could apply to. CASN isn't focused on commercial viability, as it would be primarily funded by the mandatory carriage fees: thus, it would also have an easier time covering lower-profile sports.
Ideally for university sports fans, both networks would be approved. Some have suggested that the two proposed networks are hurting each other's chances, but Moore didn't see it that way. "The CRTC may see fit to license one or both, but I don’t see them as being directly competitive," he told me. There's a point there, as the channels would have dramatically different focuses: the CBC one would probably feature some Raptors games, along with other professional sports, and it would also likely serve as a place to run more coverage of events like the Olympics and World Cup, where there's usually a lot going on at once. Both networks would be quite helpful for the exposure Canadian university sports: hopefully, the CRTC will recognize that.
Speaking of the CRTC, Keogh told me community support will be integral to the COC's bid. "What’s going to sell this to the CRTC is public support," he said. "If the Gaels want to be on the air, they’ll need to throw their support behind this. ... We’re asking the entire sports community, not just the CIS, to put their support behind this so we can make it a reality. There truly is a need for this. What parent won’t want to watch their sons’ or daughters’ events across the country in both languages? It presents such a great opportunity."
Public support will probably be necessary for both bids, particularly if the anticipated negative interventions by other sports networks materialize. The CRTC's final decisions could be made as early as the fall or as late as next year.
One final thought: Metuzals was very optimistic about the viability of CIS sports in a television marketplace. "The quality of play, the quality of the athletes is tremendous," he told me. "If you’re a hockey fan, and you love pure hockey, you should be watching university hockey, because next to the NHL, it’s the best. … Basketball, it’s the highest-quality basketball we have in the country for both men and women. If you like it and you enjoy it—and a lot of people are playing basketball in the country—this is the avenue. I think in years to come, we will have something similar to the NCAA tournament, or we should try and focus on that—not such a big monstrosity, but certainly the awareness and the interest that people have in the game and the various teams playing, it’s a great opportunity for us to build it."
Normally, I'd take his words on his own product with a grain of salt, as he is the marketing director: however, there are many outside sources talking about the quality of CIS sports these days. As I wrote about on The CIS Blog today, everyone from Darren Dreger to Don Cherry has talked about how good CIS hockey is. It's true in other sports, too: media personalities like Michael Grange of the Globedevoted significant time to covering the men's basketball tournament (and did a great job of it too), and the NCAA-champion Kansas Jayhawks are coming north to take on Carleton and McGill this summer, while soccer only has pros like Srdjan Djekanovic and former NCAA Division I stars like Israel Jones. It's looking like a pretty good time for CIS sports, even with the threat of the NCAA still looming.
These applications are interesting because they may very well lead to more televised coverage of CIS sports. CIS Director of Marketing Peter Metuzals told me that the CIS has been in contact with the COC about their application, and the website for the proposed new channels lists CIS as a supporter. Steve Keogh, the COC's communications manager, told me that they're quite interested in televising university sports. CIS officials haven't yet had extensive discussions with CBC, but Moore also seemed quite receptive to the idea of televising university sports.
"I think it’s a great product that’s underexposed at the moment," he told me. "If we get the license, it’s certainly an area we’d look at."
Anyways, that's the recap of the article. There were some other interesting aspects I picked up from the interviews for it that we couldn't fit in due to space, so I figured I'd try and highlight the best ones here.
One thing I found particularly interesting was Keogh's comment that the COC would be interested in picking up some of the CIS sports that aren't currently televised, as well as possibly televising regular-season games in sports where only the championships are televised. "Our goal is to put a spotlight on sports that don’t already receive attention, but that doesn’t mean we won’t want a high-profile CIS event," he told me. That seems to fit with CIS chief executive officer Marg McGregor's comments that she'd like to see more regular-season games televised. "We were very happy with the quality of the coverage we got this year from various networks," she told me. "That being said, for sure we would like to see more games covered, and not just the championship games, but the lead-up games to build that audience, build that interest and build that excitement, particularly around certain games that are good rivalries and good matchups."
Both McGregor and Metuzals were quite clear that any coverage on the new networks would supplement existing coverage rather than replace it: CIS is locked into a deal with Sportsnet for coverage of the men's hockey championships for the next two years, and is currently negotiating a renewal of their agreement with The Score for various championships, including football and men's and women's basketball. In my mind, this is the right move: you don't want to throw away what you have, and as McGregor said, the quality of the coverage The Score and Sportsnet provided was quite high. It would certainly help expose university sport if they were able to get other games or championships on the air.
Both McGregor and Metuzals seem to highly value television as a means to expand university sport's presence and influence, which is good to see. Metuzals told me he wants to see as many CIS sports and matches televised as possible. "I would like to have as much distribution as possible in a variety of sports,” he said. McGregor said that the exposure they get from television is quite valuable. "TV is an excellent vehicle to promote what a great product university sport is," she told me.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both of the proposed new channels for those hoping to see more CIS sports. The COC bid would likely feature more university sport content, but it will probably have a harder time passing, as they're applying for mandatory carriage. As the Globe's William Houston pointed out in his column about the networks when they were first proposed, "A must-carry designation is difficult to receive." The CBC bid may also have difficulty passing, as it's closer to what's already offered by TSN, Sportsnet and The Score, and the companies that own those networks may file negative interventions. Another advantage if the COC bid passes is it would mean more revenue for CIS: the organization currently subsidizes some of the broadcasting costs of Sportsnet and The Score, but CASN's website states that it would pay all broadcasting costs, donate up to one-third of the advertising time to the organization involved and also establish an amateur sports fund that organizations like CIS could apply to. CASN isn't focused on commercial viability, as it would be primarily funded by the mandatory carriage fees: thus, it would also have an easier time covering lower-profile sports.
Ideally for university sports fans, both networks would be approved. Some have suggested that the two proposed networks are hurting each other's chances, but Moore didn't see it that way. "The CRTC may see fit to license one or both, but I don’t see them as being directly competitive," he told me. There's a point there, as the channels would have dramatically different focuses: the CBC one would probably feature some Raptors games, along with other professional sports, and it would also likely serve as a place to run more coverage of events like the Olympics and World Cup, where there's usually a lot going on at once. Both networks would be quite helpful for the exposure Canadian university sports: hopefully, the CRTC will recognize that.
Speaking of the CRTC, Keogh told me community support will be integral to the COC's bid. "What’s going to sell this to the CRTC is public support," he said. "If the Gaels want to be on the air, they’ll need to throw their support behind this. ... We’re asking the entire sports community, not just the CIS, to put their support behind this so we can make it a reality. There truly is a need for this. What parent won’t want to watch their sons’ or daughters’ events across the country in both languages? It presents such a great opportunity."
Public support will probably be necessary for both bids, particularly if the anticipated negative interventions by other sports networks materialize. The CRTC's final decisions could be made as early as the fall or as late as next year.
One final thought: Metuzals was very optimistic about the viability of CIS sports in a television marketplace. "The quality of play, the quality of the athletes is tremendous," he told me. "If you’re a hockey fan, and you love pure hockey, you should be watching university hockey, because next to the NHL, it’s the best. … Basketball, it’s the highest-quality basketball we have in the country for both men and women. If you like it and you enjoy it—and a lot of people are playing basketball in the country—this is the avenue. I think in years to come, we will have something similar to the NCAA tournament, or we should try and focus on that—not such a big monstrosity, but certainly the awareness and the interest that people have in the game and the various teams playing, it’s a great opportunity for us to build it."
Normally, I'd take his words on his own product with a grain of salt, as he is the marketing director: however, there are many outside sources talking about the quality of CIS sports these days. As I wrote about on The CIS Blog today, everyone from Darren Dreger to Don Cherry has talked about how good CIS hockey is. It's true in other sports, too: media personalities like Michael Grange of the Globedevoted significant time to covering the men's basketball tournament (and did a great job of it too), and the NCAA-champion Kansas Jayhawks are coming north to take on Carleton and McGill this summer, while soccer only has pros like Srdjan Djekanovic and former NCAA Division I stars like Israel Jones. It's looking like a pretty good time for CIS sports, even with the threat of the NCAA still looming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
