ESPN has developed a reputation for being the top sports news source in not just the United States, but the entire world. Known for its most popular program, SportsCenter, ESPN has established an audience that is made up of people who love sports and competition. Since this major sports source has such a vast audience, it has created many programs to acclimate every fan out there. However, one issue that has caused a stir in the journalism world is whether a program is considered "good journalism" or "bad journalism."
One program on ESPN called "Around The Horn," offers sports journalism to the "T." Host, Tony Reali, mediates four sports journalist from across the country from major media outlets. Common appearances are made by Woody Paige of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Colorado and Jackie MacMullan who hails from right here in Boston and writes for ESPN.com and ESPNBoston.com. Though they are just a couple of the many who get to make a statement on this show, it raises the question on whether this debate style sports program is considered "good journalism."
The problem discovered in a lot of debate style programming, whatever the topic or subject may be, is that many points derived during the argument are mostly opinion based. Opinions do have their strong points in which it displays a sense of being openminded; however more often than not opinions hurt the argument because there is no statement of fact. One's opinion may offer a chance for those listening to the argument to pause and agree or disagree, but unless an opinion is supported with facts, the argument is bound to fail.
"Around The Horn" has become a show that helps separate the good and the bad when it comes to sports journalism. Reali has control of the levers that either add or deduct points to the day's panelist. These points determine how well arguments are developed on various topics throughout the program. If a comment is made that strays away from the topic at hand or is that of a poorly phrased statement, you best believe Reali is pulling down on the lever in front of him.
This show proves that research needs to be done when arguing on either side of an issue. Even the best journalist in the country have their days where their arguments are simply not strong enough to prove a point. If you have to focus on one thing when watching a show of this nature, it's the aspect of how to survive in the business if you're a journalist. If these panelist can't make their arguments strong enough, they're done for the day. It's a natural "survival of the fittest" and if you can't be the best, you're going to be shown the door.
Sure these journalist aren't in jeopardy of losing their jobs if they don't come out on top, but it serves as a small reminder to those who have trouble finding the line between good and bad journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment