Connect with us

BSM Writers

Denver Post’s Mike Chambers Hurts Credibility By Hoisting Stanley Cup

Chambers isn’t a member of the Colorado Avalanche. He’s not on the player roster or coaching staff. He doesn’t work in the front office.

Published

on

@MikeChambers on Twitter

Maybe Mike Chambers got caught up in the moment. After covering the Colorado Avalanche for more than nine months (and probably more, including the offseason), six preseason games, 82 regular-season match-ups, and 20 Stanley Cup Playoff games, having some fun during a championship celebration may have seemed like the right setting in which to be less than serious.

But for the Denver Post reporter, lighting up a cigar and hoisting the NHL’s championship trophy amid the locker room festivities following the Avalanche’s 2-1 win and series victory over the Tampa Bay Lightning in Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Final, acting as if he’s part of the team and celebrating with the organization looks less than professional.

OK, this is sports. It’s all meant to be fun. This isn’t covering the House Select Committee’s Jan. 6 hearings or another mass shooting, during which showing any kind of favoritism or bias would call a journalist’s objectivity into question. This isn’t even a serious sports story, such as the Washington Commanders’ workplace misconduct or the death of a young athlete.

Besides, many sports fans (and sports figures) expect reporters covering the team to be fans of the teams and athletes they cover. How could somebody not root for an organization with which they spend 12-15 hours a day and nearly an entire year? Wouldn’t that be natural? Aren’t sportswriters also sports fans? That’s often the perception, as wrong as it might be about the sports media profession.

As a result, most sportswriters and broadcasters take their objectivity seriously. Maybe there’s less of an expectation among a team’s home broadcast crew or even the local market’s TV sportscasters. When the Detroit Red Wings won the Stanley Cup in 1997, WXYZ-TV sports anchor Don Shane drank champagne from the trophy and was ridiculed for it. He wasn’t a player or coach. He didn’t win that championship.

But those who cover a sports team every day don’t want to be perceived as a public relations arm of the organization. They often work to fight that notion because a tough, unflattering story may have to be written. There will likely be criticism of players, coaches, and executives during a long season. It’s part of the job.

At least it should be. Some might not be too critical or scrutinizing for fear of jeopardizing access or favorability. Others might like being around a team and taking part in its daily routine, even if indirectly. But those reporters risk their credibility by becoming more friendly with the people they cover than they should be.

That’s the position Chambers put himself in by hoisting the Stanley Cup over his head, enjoying one of the celebratory cigars, and posing with members of the team. He’s not a member of the Colorado Avalanche. He’s not on the player roster or coaching staff. He doesn’t work in the front office. Yet he appeared to conduct himself as if that was the case.

It’s entirely possible Chambers knew how this would look and the scorn it might invite from his colleagues and some fans. Maybe he was having some fun. It was the end of a long season for him as well. Covering a championship team is a reward for all the months of grinding with multiple stories, deadlines, and travel. Maybe he was even invited by members of the team to celebrate with them.

Or maybe he just doesn’t care what other people think. He got to be in that locker room with one of the coolest trophies in professional sports and you didn’t.

To be fair, we don’t know what exactly Chambers was thinking. He hasn’t commented on those photos on social media, nor did he write about the situation for the Post. In writing this column, I preferred to focus on how several in sports media reacted to Chambers’ tweet rather than attempt to reach out to Chambers for his view. I will try to do so, and if he happens to read this, I hope he feels compelled to respond.

But I also didn’t contact any beat reporters I know from my years of covering sports myself. I know what the answers would have been. I’m willing to bet the replies would have been unanimous. Reporters don’t do this. Not if they want to be taken seriously.

Perhaps we’ll soon find out what Chambers’ bosses at the Post think about this behavior as well.

Is this taking a fun moment far too seriously? Possibly. Do most fans care about what Chambers did? Probably not. But this is about how a reporter is viewed by his peers. How his professional colleagues perceive behavior that many would consider unbecoming, even embarrassing.

Months from now, maybe this will be forgotten. Maybe it’ll be viewed as a celebratory gesture. But if Chambers is in a position next season in which criticizing a player, coach, or executive is necessary, can he credibly face those people and answer for what he’s written? That’s how reporters and columnists earn respect among their peers and the people they cover.

Is that still possible after acting as if you’re one of the guys and holding a trophy with them? Most in this profession would say it’s not.

BSM Writers

Your Football Conversation Has To Be Different

I don’t know why any host would go with B- or C-material just for the sake of providing variety. That’s silly to me.

Brian Noe

Published

on

Radio

Rejoice! Ball is back, baby. Life is just better when football season is included; am I right? (That was a rhetorical question because I know I’m right in this case.) Like many people in this country, I’m all about the pigskin. Outside of my family and friends, there aren’t many things in life that I love more than BALL.

With all of that being established, a simple question still exists: is there such a thing as talking too much football on a sports radio show?

I think it isn’t as much what you’re talking about; it’s how you’re talking about it. For instance, it isn’t good enough to lazily say, “Ehh, we’ll start off by talking about the game last night.” Well, how are you going to talk about it? Do you have anything original, interesting or entertaining to say? Or are you just gonna start riffing like you’re in a jam band hoping to accidentally stumble onto something cool after six minutes of nothing?

Talking about football is like opening a new burger joint. Hang with me on this one. There are so many options — Burger King, McDonald’s, Five Guys, Wendy’s, In-N-Out, etc. — that you can’t expect to have great success if you open a run-of-the-mill burger joint of your own. Having an inferior product is going to produce an inferior result.

It comes down to whether a topic or angle will cause the show to stand out or blend in. Going knee-deep on a national show about the competition at left guard between two Buffalo Bills offensive lineman doesn’t stand out. You’ll get lost in the shuffle that way.

A show needs to constantly be entertaining and engaging. One way to check that box is with unique viewpoints. Don’t say what other shows are saying. Your burger joint (aka football conversation) needs to be different than the competition. Otherwise, why are you special?

Another way to stand out is with personality. It’s impossible to have unique angles with every single topic that’s presented. A lot of hosts recently pointed out that the Dallas Cowboys committed 17 penalties in their first preseason game against the Denver Broncos. But Stephen A. Smith said it differently than everybody else. That’s what it comes down to; either say things that other shows aren’t saying, or say them differently.

New York Jets head coach Robert Saleh made a comment recently that too much of anything is a bad thing. So back to the original question, is there such a thing as too much football talk on a sports radio show?

Variety is the spice of life, but quality is the spice of sports radio. If a show provides quality, listeners will keep coming back. It’s really that simple. Sure, hosts will hear “talk more this, talk more that” from time to time, but you know what’s funny about that? It means the listeners haven’t left. The show is providing enough quality for them to stick around. If the quality goes away, so will the audience.

It’s smart for hosts and programmers to think, “What’s our strongest stuff?” If that happens to be a bunch of football topics, great, roll with it. I don’t know why any host would go with B- or C-material just for the sake of providing variety. That’s silly to me.

Former NFL quarterback Michael Vick said something interesting last week while visiting Atlanta’s training camp. Vick was asked which team’s offense he’d like to run if he was still playing today. “The offense Tom Brady is running in Tampa,” Vick said. “Pass first.”

The answer stood out to me because throwing the ball isn’t what made Vick special with the Falcons. He was a decent passer and a dynamic runner. The run/pass blend made Vick a problem. I totally understand wanting to prove doubters wrong, but there are a lot of athletes that get away from what they do best while relying on something else that isn’t their specialty.

Los Angeles Lakers guard Russell Westbrook is not an outside shooter. He’s brutal in that area. Yet Russ will keep firing threes at a 30% clip. Why? Attacking the rim and working the midrange is his game. You don’t see Phoenix Suns guard Chris Paul bombing threes if they aren’t going in. He kills opponents with his midrange skills all day.

It’ll be interesting to see how Miami Dolphins quarterback Tua Tagovailoa approaches this season. He’s received a steady diet of “can’t throw the deep ball.” Will he try to a fault to prove doubters wrong, or will he rely on what he does best? Beating defenders with timing and accuracy on shorter throws is where he finds the most success.

Working to improve your weaknesses makes sense, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of going away from your strengths. How is it any different in sports radio? If a host isn’t strong when it comes to talking basketball or baseball, it definitely makes sense to improve in those areas. But if that same host stands out by talking football, at some point it becomes like Westbrook jacking up threes if the host gets too far away from a bread-and-butter strength.

Former New York Yankees closer Mariano Rivera is the only player in the Baseball Hall of Fame that was unanimously elected. He relied on his cutter — a fastball that moved, a lot — about 85% of the time. Mo didn’t say, “Man, my four-seam fastball and changeup aren’t getting enough respect.” He rode that cutter all the way to Cooperstown and legendary status.

Rivera is a great example of how playing to your strengths is the best approach. He also shows that quality trumps variety every time. Let’s put it this way: if 85% of a sports radio show is football content, and the quality of that show is anywhere near Mo caliber, it’s destined to be a hit.

One of my buddies, Mike Zanchelli, has always been a hit with the ladies. I think he came out of the womb with at least 10 girls in the nursery showing interest in him. He had a simple dating philosophy: “Always. Leave them. Wanting. More.” That might work in dating, but I think it’s the opposite in sports radio. Most listeners don’t hear the entire show. If they’re in and out, wouldn’t you want them to hear your best stuff when they are tuned in?

That’s why I say screw variety. That’s why I wouldn’t worry about overserving your audience an all-you-can-eat BALL buffet. I think it’s much wiser to focus on producing a quality product regardless if it’s well rounded or not.

Continue Reading

BSM Writers

ESPN Has Gone From Playing Checkers to Chess In Two Years

Those decisions make the future ones with the Pac-12, the Big 12, NBA and UFC fascinating to watch but what’s clear is that this ESPN strategy is different.

Published

on

In the days after the Big Ten news leaked regarding some of the details of their upcoming media deals, I was hankering for more information. I wanted more insight as to the “why”. Why did the Big Ten leave such a long-lasting and prosperous relationship with ESPN. I just couldn’t imagine it and it’s why I wrote about it last week.

It was in that pursuit of knowledge that I tuned into a podcast favorite of mine, The Marchand and Ourand Sports Media Podcast. The show’s hosts are deep into the weeds of sports media with John Ourand at the Sports Business Journal and Andrew Marchand at the New York Post. It was Ourand who was dropping dimes of news on the Big Ten deal last week. I wanted to hear him dive deeper, and he did on the podcast. But it was a throwaway line that got my wheels churning.

“This is about the third or fourth deal in a row that ESPN, the free-spending ESPN, to me has shown some financial discipline” Ourand said. “They are showing a bit of financial discipline that I hadn’t seen certainly when John Skipper was there and pre-dating John Skipper.”

I had to keep digging and folks, it’s true. ESPN is essentially Jimmy Pitaro in the above quote, the Chairman of ESPN. Since taking the role in 2018, he was put into an interesting position of being in the middle of a lot of big money media rights deals that would be coming due for renegotiation soon. The rights fees for EVERYTHING were going to balloon wildly. But in the last two years, he has comfortably kept the astronomical rates somewhat within shouting distance.

The big one, the NFL media rights deal agreed to last March, saw ESPN pay a very strong 30% increase for the rights. However, other networks involved had to pay “double” as Ourand so succinctly put it. He also personally negotiated with FOX to bring in Troy Aikman and Joe Buck to make their Monday Night Football booth easily more recognizable and the best in the sport. ESPN in that deal, that did NOT include doubled rates, got more games, better games, and more schedule flexibility. ABC gets two Super Bowls in the deal too. Simply put, Jimmy Pitaro set up ESPN to get a Super Bowl itself, but for now his network will take full advantage of the ABC network broadcast when the time comes (2026, 2030).

The recent Big Ten deal was massive because the conference spent forty years with ESPN and decided to reward that loyalty with a massively overpriced mid-tier package. ESPN balked at the idea. In their back pocket lies a lot of college football media rights deals with a lot of conferences including one that will be a massively profitable venture, the SEC package. ESPN takes over the CBS package of the “top” conference game. Yes, it paid $3 billion for it, but it’s a scant $300 million annually. Sure, that’s over 5X what CBS was paying annually but CBS signed that deal in 1996! I need not tell you all of the advancements in our world since Bob Dole was a presidential nominee. ESPN now gets to cherry-pick the best game from the best conference and put the game anywhere they damn well please to maximize exposure.

The F1 media rights extension is massive because of two things: one, they got it cheap before the sport littered your timeline on weekend mornings and two, when they re-signed with F1 this summer they paid way less than other streaming networks were reportedly willing to pay. The brand, the savvy worked again. ESPN takes a small risk for a potentially exploding sport and much like CBS did with the SEC for 25 years, can make massive margins.

I can keep going, and I will with one more. Sports betting. The niche is growing like my lawn minutes after the summer rainstorm. Pitaro has said publicly that sports betting “has become a must-have” and he’s full-frontal correct. ESPN is in an odd spot with their clear lineage to Disney, but it’s obvious something massive is going to come soon with ESPN reportedly looking for a deal in the $3 billion neighborhood.

Pitaro has been positioning this company from a position of strength. He pays big money for big properties, but knows when he’s getting taken advantage of and most importantly, isn’t afraid to pull his brand’s name out of the deep end.

ESPN may have an issue with dwindling subscribers, but that’s an everyone problem. The difference is ESPN is constantly trying to get you from one network ship you think is sinking into another network life raft. If you want to leave cable or satellite and go streaming, you can. ESPN+ is there to pick up the pieces. Or Sling (with an ESPN bundle). Or YouTube TV (ESPN is there too). Or a myriad of other ways. They are positioned so well right now to be where you think you want to go. Jimmy Pitaro and ESPN have been amazing at doing whatever they can to keep you paying them monthly.

The network has been aggressive with media rights deals but these newer ones have been diligently maneuvered by Pitaro. It was a choice to essentially back the SEC for the next decade, and to put more money into the potential of F1. The effort was a conscious one to keep a tight-lipped mission to bolster Monday Night Football’s booth. It was an understated strategy to reinvest in the NHL. Those decisions make the future ones with the Pac-12, the Big 12, NBA and UFC fascinating to watch but what’s clear is that this ESPN strategy is different. The old adage of “pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered” may have applied to the network under different leadership, but these aren’t eating pigs. These are boars.

Continue Reading

BSM Writers

The Producers Podcast – Big Baby Dave, Jomboy Media

Brady Farkas

Published

on

Big Baby Dave has his hands in everything for Jomboy Media. He joins Brady Farkas to talk about how he brings a unique sound to each show he works with.

iTunes: https://buff.ly/3A7FJ4a

Spotify: https://buff.ly/3bZ7NgG

iHeart: https://buff.ly/3dB4FrO

Google: https://buff.ly/3JVC5NG

Amazon: https://buff.ly/3STupzF

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Barrett Media Writers

Copyright © 2021 Barrett Media.