ESPN Layoffs

[Tugg Speedman]

If you think the cable companies are going to drop cable prices $7-9 if they can drop ESPN.... well I've got some DIS stock to sell you.

Why don't you read what was actually written and then revise this to correctly reflect what was said?

And if your incorrect interpretation of what was actually written was correct, then you would want to buy DIS stock, not sell it.

You do realize that a stock you sell you want to go down?

[MU82]

Why don't you read what was actually written and then revise this to correctly reflect what was said?

And if your incorrect interpretation of what was actually written was correct, then you would want to buy DIS stock, not sell it.

You do realize that a stock you sell you want to go down?

I sold GE at $25.15 and it is now at $28.18 ... but I'm happy. Why? Why didn't I want it to go down?

Well, because I used my cash from my GE sale to buy MMM at $140. And it's at $197.63. That's a 41% gain. So I don't give a rat's rump that GE didn't go down after I sold it, because I'm well ahead.

Once I sell a company, unless I think I'll want back in someday, I really don't care whether it goes up, down or sideways. I don't sell in a vacuum; I use those funds for other purposes.

[Tugg Speedman]

Will it work?

I say no BECAUSE 50% of the people that are forced to get ESPN on basic (and forced pay for it) don't want it.  Why does this make them want it?

--------------------------

ESPN Is Betting on Big Personalities to Restore Its Fortunes
May 17, 2107
The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/business/media/espn-is-betting-on-big-personalities-to-restore-its-fortunes.html?ref=business&_r=0

Just weeks after ESPN laid off about 100 journalists and on-air commentators, the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" unveiled a new programming slate on Tuesday filled with big personalities but short on the kind of highlight shows that for many years were the foundation of the network.

The revamped lineup underscores just how much the changing media landscape has unsettled even the world's most powerful sports company. Once the undisputed king of sports programming, ESPN must now contend with companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter, which not only offer statistics and highlights at the click of a button but are also increasingly offering the games themselves.

[jsglow]

ESPN has absolutely photoshopped Tiger's mug shot. While not overly leaning any particular political way, it's evidence of their 'protection' of their own. That's my issue with them. The biased coverage of their guy (Tiger) vs. the other guy (BEast basketball for example).

[Pakuni]

ESPN has absolutely photoshopped Tiger's mug shot. While not overly leaning any particular political way, it's evidence of their 'protection' of their own. That's my issue with them. The biased coverage of their guy (Tiger) vs. the other guy (BEast basketball for example).

What does making his hair look more lush protect him from? Bad hair jokes?
It's an odd move (they explain it a headshot template issue), but I'm struggling to see how it's evidence of bias. Explain further.

[MU82]

ESPN has absolutely photoshopped Tiger's mug shot. While not overly leaning any particular political way, it's evidence of their 'protection' of their own. That's my issue with them. The biased coverage of their guy (Tiger) vs. the other guy (BEast basketball for example).

Huh?

[jsglow]

What does making his hair look more lush protect him from? Bad hair jokes?
It's an odd move (they explain it a headshot template issue), but I'm struggling to see how it's evidence of bias. Explain further.

They generally brightened his appearance, by enhancing his eyes and hairdo.  He looks far less disheveled relative to his actual mugshot.  ESPN did that to 'protect' as best they could an important meal ticket.  Frankly we see that editorial license taken by almost all new organizations these days.  Playing to their base for the purpose of the mighty dollar.  The essence of 'fake news'.

https://twitter.com/GeoffShac/status/869225885810925568/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2017%2F05%2F30%2Fwhy-espn-used-photoshopped-tiger-woods-mug-shot%2F 

[Pakuni]

They generally brightened his appearance, by enhancing his eyes and hairdo.  He looks far less disheveled relative to his actual mugshot.  ESPN did that to 'protect' as best they could an important meal ticket.  Frankly we see that editorial license taken by almost all new organizations these days.  Playing to their base for the purpose of the mighty dollar.  The essence of 'fake news'.

https://twitter.com/GeoffShac/status/869225885810925568/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2017%2F05%2F30%2Fwhy-espn-used-photoshopped-tiger-woods-mug-shot%2F

I sunderstand your assertion. I think it's a bit batty, but I understand it. What I don't understand how - in a lead story about his arrest - making his hair seem less frizzy "protects" him. Please explain.

Also, Tiger is an "important meal ticket" for ESPN like Barry Bonds is an important meal ticket for ESPN. Check the calendar. It's no longer 2006. He hasn't won a tournament in almost three years.  He hasn't finished a tournament in nearly two years.  Hes played two competitive rounds in 21 months.
And relative to its other assets, golf is not that important to ESPN.

[Jockey]

They generally brightened his appearance, by enhancing his eyes and hairdo.  He looks far less disheveled relative to his actual mugshot.  ESPN did that to 'protect' as best they could an important meal ticket.  Frankly we see that editorial license taken by almost all new organizations these days.  Playing to their base for the purpose of the mighty dollar.  The essence of 'fake news'.

https://twitter.com/GeoffShac/status/869225885810925568/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2017%2F05%2F30%2Fwhy-espn-used-photoshopped-tiger-woods-mug-shot%2F

Their "base" is sports fans. This is a non-story - except to the "committee of Oh, my God". ESPN actually showed both versions on the air - but that doesn't fit with the faux outrage here.

[jsglow]

Maybe I should change the word 'protect' to 'sanitize'.  Why would they do that?  I'm not going to belabor this but it was deliberately done.  ESPN believed it to be in their interest. And I found it interesting.

[GGGG]

No legit news organization should be altering any picture no matter the reason.

[warriorchick]

No legit news organization should be altering any picture no matter the reason.

Maybe they were prettying it up for the cover of Vogue at their request, and it accidentally published it.

[Herman Cain]

Will it work?

I say no BECAUSE 50% of the people that are forced to get ESPN on basic (and forced pay for it) don't want it.  Why does this make them want it?

--------------------------

ESPN Is Betting on Big Personalities to Restore Its Fortunes
May 17, 2107
The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/business/media/espn-is-betting-on-big-personalities-to-restore-its-fortunes.html?ref=business&_r=0

Just weeks after ESPN laid off about 100 journalists and on-air commentators, the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" unveiled a new programming slate on Tuesday filled with big personalities but short on the kind of highlight shows that for many years were the foundation of the network.

The revamped lineup underscores just how much the changing media landscape has unsettled even the world's most powerful sports company. Once the undisputed king of sports programming, ESPN must now contend with companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter, which not only offer statistics and highlights at the click of a button but are also increasingly offering the games themselves.

Had dinner again with my friend who is among the ESPN board level top brass. He was candid  in that have no idea if this new personalities based programming structure makes sense but are going to try it with the hope it gains traction . Also while they have dropped some of the Big Ticket events such as US Open and British Open golf etc ; College Basketball still is core , when asked about the Big East , his view was with 10 years of ratings track record they will be able to make an accurate assessment of value when the contract is up for bid. They were willing to let Fox overbid the first time around. All things being equal they would like to get the Big East back in the fold given the attractive tv markets and performance of the league. Also they make good money  with little risk on the sponsor created unique sports events and are looking for more of those .

[mu03eng]

No legit news organization should be altering any picture no matter the reason.

This. Whether there was anything "shady" in the Tiger Woods reporting is almost irrelevant, it is whether a news organization is appearing to steer coverage in any way that erodes the trust in the news organization.

I don't really think ESPN's probably is a left-right bias thing per se (I'm sure there are people who've stopped watching because of it but that's probably just noise) but how ESPN varies their news coverage based on bias of all types. Just look at their coverage of the Big East, once the contract was no longer theirs BE highlights and discussion was few and far between. Bottom line, I don't need my sports highlights and discussion with a #narrative

[warriorchick]

This. Whether there was anything "shady" in the Tiger Woods reporting is almost irrelevant, it is whether a news organization is appearing to steer coverage in any way that erodes the trust in the news organization.

I don't really think ESPN's probably is a left-right bias thing per se (I'm sure there are people who've stopped watching because of it but that's probably just noise) but how ESPN varies their news coverage based on bias of all types. Just look at their coverage of the Big East, once the contract was no longer theirs BE highlights and discussion was few and far between. Bottom line, I don't need my sports highlights and discussion with a #narrative

Is there any chance that ESPN's "improvement" on his photo was a misguided attempt to avoid the outrage that Time Magazine inspired over their OJ cover?   

[cheebs09]

Looks like John Clayton was laid off. That one surprised me.

[Pakuni]

No legit news organization should be altering any picture no matter the reason.

Oh, I agree. It's at best nonsensical, and at worst ethically dubious.

[MU82]

Looks like John Clayton was laid off. That one surprised me.

Well, he DID have a face for radio.

(Spoken as a fellow guy with a face for radio.)

[GGGG]

Well, he DID have a face for radio.

(Spoken as a fellow guy with a face for radio.)

But you also have a voice for mime right?

[mu03eng]

Well, he DID have a face for radio.

(Spoken as a fellow guy with a face for radio.)

And a voice for newspaper

[MU82]

Oh, you're such nasty women!

[Eldon]

ESPN has absolutely photoshopped Tiger's mug shot. While not overly leaning any particular political way, it's evidence of their 'protection' of their own. That's my issue with them. The biased coverage of their guy (Tiger) vs. the other guy (BEast basketball for example).

The immediate question raised by most was why would ESPN go out of its way to improve the appearance of Woods in his mugshot. The conspiracy theory, of course, would be that ESPN was protecting a popular athlete with whom it has a close relationship.

But like many conspiracy theories, there is simpler answer: It may have just been unintentional, sloppy work.

When selecting part of an image in Photoshop to move it to a different background, the most popular methods are the "lasso" tool, which allows the user to select the portion he or she wants by simply drawing a freehand line, or the "magnetic freeform pen," which is similar to the lasso but assists the user by having the line "stick" to edges.

http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-tiger-woods-photoshop-mugshot-2017-5

[jsglow]

The immediate question raised by most was why would ESPN go out of its way to improve the appearance of Woods in his mugshot. The conspiracy theory, of course, would be that ESPN was protecting a popular athlete with whom it has a close relationship.

But like many conspiracy theories, there is simpler answer: It may have just been unintentional, sloppy work.

When selecting part of an image in Photoshop to move it to a different background, the most popular methods are the "lasso" tool, which allows the user to select the portion he or she wants by simply drawing a freehand line, or the "magnetic freeform pen," which is similar to the lasso but assists the user by having the line "stick" to edges.

http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-tiger-woods-photoshop-mugshot-2017-5

I don't believe that for a minute.

[GGGG]

I think it makes a lot more sense than the alternative.  That the higher ups in Bristol ordered a graphic designer to make him look better because he is a high level athlete.

There would be much simpler ways to do that.  For instance, don't show the mug shot at all. 

[barfolomew]

I don't believe that for a minute.

Most likely scenario:


Video Editor: Find me a recent headshot of Tiger and put our standard blue background on it.

Unpaid Intern Replacing Fired Graphic Designer: Um, I've used Photoshop LE a couple of times but I don't really...

Video Editor: DO YOU WANT TO SPEND YOUR SUMMER HERE AT THE WORLDWIDE LEADER OR NOT??