ESPN’s Problem Isn’t Politics, It’s False Narrative.

The idea that ‘liberal bias’ is hurting ESPN has no basis in fact. But these days, that doesn’t stop us from talking about it anyway.

When it comes to the increasingly prominent question, one that seems to be everywhere in the media cycle these days, of whether the latest round of ESPN layoffs, and the company’s general business challenges, have anything at all to do with the perceived politics of the network, it’s hard to imagine anyone could do a better job answering it than James Andrew Miller, in his recent Q and A with Isaac Chotiner at Slate.

Some people have suggested that this is a response to viewer complaints about liberal personalities at ESPN —

Those people are smoking crack.

Do you want to say more?

It’s just ridiculous. There is no connective tissue between the two. I spend every day watching, thinking, studying, analyzing ESPN. I don’t see it at all.

Mr. Miller, it’s worth mentioning, quite literally wrote the book on ESPN. Those Guys Have All The Fun is a wide-ranging oral history of the network, and so naturally, Miller is widely considered one of the most well-connected and well-sourced reporters when it comes to all matters, big and small, concerning the Worldwide Leader in Sports.

And yet, I suspect Miller would agree, the thing about this particular question, is that it doesn’t actually require much sourcing, much inside information, much reporting of any kind really, to answer. The information is all right there, plain as day, at our fingertips. Put simply, the problems ESPN faces are the problems of cable television more broadly.

Chances are, if you’ve kept tabs on the story at all, you’ve heard some of the numbers. ESPN hit a peak of around 100 million cable subscribers around 2011, and since then, the figure has been in a steady decline, somewhere in the neighborhood, as of March, of a 12% drop to around 88 million. That’s a major problem, obviously, given that ESPN receives more than $7 per subscriber. One doesn’t need to be a math major to realize that this results in a major loss of revenue, now, and potentially moving forward.

But then, anyone attributing these subscriber losses to some sort of political revolt should probably explain why America’s right-wing has also turned against TNT, and the USA Network, and HGTV. (I always knew those Property Brothers were covert Bolshevik agents.) Because, again, just a quick look at the data indicates that cable subscribers on the whole have fallen by an even greater number, of 16%. America isn’t cutting ties with ESPN, but with cable television as a whole, something that has been widely covered for years now. Deadspin’s Kevin Draper, in particular, has been all over the ESPN beat, and perfectly summarized the network’s real issues in his recent post on the subject.

Right around the time the ink dried on a $15.2 billion deal to broadcast the NFL, subscribers began fleeing cable television in droves — not because of anything the Worldwide Leader did wrong, but because of secular changes in the way broadcast and video works. Phones, Twitter, and YouTube began instantaneously delivering highlights and entire games to fans, obviating the need for anyone to watch SportsCenter, or any other news shows, to catch up on what happened in sports, or even, in some cases, to watch live games. Terrestrial ad revenue never migrated online, and the revenue to be found there was largely eaten up by Facebook and Google, leaving little to pay those new ESPN.com reporters.

ESPN is still wildly profitable — the operating income of Disney’s media networks (of which ESPN plays the largest role) was $1.36 billion in the 2016 fourth quarter — but it’s less profitable than it used to be, and projects to be far less so in the future. With its latest cuts, ESPN isn’t just trying to stanch the bleeding and/or to be seen by investors as attempting to do so: They’re also laying out what the network will look like over the next five years and beyond.

And so, in summary: Declining subscribers, a cable bundle that is falling apart, expensive deals with the NFL, NBA, and others, that are locked in for years to come, these are the real problems. Some nebulous notion that ESPN’s business is declining because they employ some whip-smart liberal commentators, discuss the real-world political implications of sports stories, and have the audacity to treat Michael Sam, Caitlyn Jenner, and Colin Kaepernick as human beings worthy of respect?

That dog don’t hunt.

(Though, I won’t go quite as far as Mr. Miller… I have no idea if the canine is, in fact, smoking crack.)

I should take a moment here to explain why this story feels so personal to me. Like so many young sports fans growing up, ESPN was the absolute dream job, and for more than six years, my dream was a reality. I worked at the network from 2006 to 2013, cutting highlights, printing scripts, working the teleprompter, and eventually, cutting pieces, creating segments, and producing shows of my own.

At the risk of falling into maudlin cliche, I will say that the network really does start to feel like a second family. Sure, maybe a part of that is the gigantic campus, set in a rather isolated part of central Connecticut. But for the most part, it’s about the people, the endlessly hard working, creative, passionate men and women who have always given the network its soul. And so, even after I departed, I couldn’t help but feel crushed by the downsizing, both in 2015, when the network laid off more than 300 incredibly talented behind-the-scenes staffers, and again last week, with the loss of dozens of recognizable reporters, writers, and hosts. (In between those two dates, I became a victim of layoffs myself, at a different sports media concern, so I know all too well the helplessness and frustration it engenders.)

I feel for all those who’ve lost their job over the last few years, through no fault of their own, and it seems to me that the very least we can do is to actually get the story of exactly what’s happening at the network correct. The idea that somehow liberalism cost these people their jobs is an shameful myth, and an easily disprovable one.

In a more sane world, that would be the end of the story. A few cranks claim that ESPN is falling apart because it’s become an arm of the Socialist Workers’ Party, some bright people come forward with data and information that proves it isn’t so, and that seems to wrap up the conversation. Of course, we’re not living in that world anymore, as anyone who occasionally sits down in front of what passes for news programming can easily attest. We’re living in the age of constant discussion, of debate, of narrative, when damn near everything, no matter how thin and baseless, can be stretched and twisted and transformed into an argument worthy of entertaining. The end result, ultimately, is something akin to this recent excerpt from Richard Deitsch’s Media Podcast on the ESPN layoffs.

I don’t believe and I think you don’t believe either, that there are any numbers of people who actively call their cable company to say ‘I don’t want ESPN anymore because I heard one of their anchors say something about activism, or Black Lives Matter. I think that’s totally bogus. I don’t believe people call cable companies to get ESPN off because they still watch their network for sports.

Where I do believe they have an issue, and I think a bigger one than I probably recognized until the last couple of weeks and months, is I think they have a gigantic narrative issue, where I do believe there are people out there who believe that the network is pushing all this stuff all the time, and it turns them off to the network. So even though they’ll watch live games, I do think they’re not going to watch some of the studio programming, because they believe, (and it’s probably an incorrect fallacy), but they believe the network’s become too political.

Let’s take a moment to consider the gymnastics being performed here. There is no doubt, says Deitsch, that the notion that ESPN’s struggles have anything to do with their politics is not only unsupported by the data, but is in fact contradicted by most all of it. And yet! It nevertheless remains a problem for the network that this narrative, this notion, this general sense that ESPN has taken a hard left turn, at the expense of its viewership, is out in the atmosphere.

In fairness to Deitsch, he’s hardly alone in this maddening failure to simply call bullshit by its proper name. Generally speaking, the discussion of ESPN’s ‘leftist death spiral’ falls into two camps. There are those, like Jason Whitlock, Clay Travis, Breitbart, and the Baseball Crank, who quite obviously have their own agenda, and seek to use ESPN’s apolitical business struggles to advance a notion that (to borrow from Whitlock’s own terminology), cripster social justice warrior cyber-humans have lost touch with the heartland. In fact, it’s the latte drinking left that’s truly responsible for Donald Trump, and also, when you think about it, aren’t ‘Black Lives Matter’ activists the real racists? It’s pathetic, it’s predictable, and for the most part, it’s easy enough to ignore.

But ultimately, what might be more frustrating is the second group of stories, the ones that set out to ‘explore’ something that never had any real basis in fact, and isn’t worth the time, energy, or resources being poured into it. Politico, The Washington Post, even the New York Times, have all published stories seeking to get to the bottom of whether this ‘ESPN as liberal boogeyman’ argument actually has any merit to it. And wouldn’t you know, it’s easy enough to find those, the Ben Domenechs and Michael Brendan Doughertys, who would argue that somehow the network has become disconnected from ‘real Americans’. What I fail to understand, for the life of me, is why some of ESPN’s own would give support to this baseless notion.

In a recent radio interview, long-time SportsCenter anchor Linda Cohn seemed to suggest that ESPN’s politics had, in fact, alienated some of its audience. “You’re right. That is definitely a percentage of it,” said Cohn, “I don’t know how big a percentage. But if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind. That’s what I meant about the core group that made ESPN so successful.” This seemingly echoed comments made by longtime anchor Bob Ley, who told ESPN Ombudsman Jim Brady that “We’ve done a great job of diversity. But the one place we have miles to go is diversity of thought.” Brady himself supported the notion that politics had something to do with the network’s struggles in a recent tweet, claiming that, “Cable unbundling is the main cause and there’s then a set of smaller causes, politics being one. You may disagree and that’s fine.”

I have plenty of respect for Cohn, Ley, and Brady, and the work that they do, but I would urge them to consider the fundamental problem with comments like these, and how they’ll be received, and weaponized, by those with an anti-ESPN agenda. Because, yes, sure, in a nation of over 300 million people, of course there are some who tuned out the network because they were uncomfortable with the Michael Sam kiss, the Caitlyn Jenner ESPY, or the Banana Boat crew making a stand against gun violence and police brutality. But then, there’s also undoubtedly some sports fans who turned on the channel because of perceived East Coast bias, or not enough hockey coverage, or the way in which it covered #DeflateGate. And yet, nobody is writing pieces about how those issues are at the heart of ESPN’s business issues. (Oh… well… almost nobody.)

Sure, if someone wants to argue that maybe ESPN has lost some viewers, somewhere, in these hyper-partisan, polarizing, everything is a culture-war times of ours, I can’t very well prove otherwise. (Though I will say I have yet to see any reputable hard data linking ratings declines to politics.) Of course, I would also note it’s just as easy for me to argue that a more diverse, pluralistic, socially aware network might also be attracting some new eyeballs, now and in the future. The point is that while, yes, viewers of different political bents may see the network differently, and may even, in some cases, adjust their viewing habits, the notion that this has anything at all to do with ESPN’s broader business struggles is not currently supported by a shred of evidence.

And look, if you have a problem with the fact that ESPN employs some prominent liberal voices, then by all means, you go ahead and feel that way. Tell Bomani Jones, Pablo Torre, Michael Smith, Jemele Hill, and Sarah Spain, that you disagree with them, that you think their values and arguments are flawed. You’ll lose, in all likelihood, because I can say with a good deal of certainty that all of them are smarter than you. (Hell, they’re most definitely a lot smarter than I.) But hey, if you want to argue politics with these folks, than by all means, argue politics!

But don’t hide behind the ridiculous notion that somehow, these politics have caused an entire nation to turn on what remains, by any measure, the biggest, most successful sports media operation in the country. It’s utter nonsense, with no real data to support it, and all it does is make the network the latest false flash-point in the culture of ridiculous right wing grievance. (We’ll slot ESPN in right between the Starbucks holiday cups, and the men’s right activists who are really steamed that the Ghostbusters are women now.)

Tuesday saw yet another article on the politics of ESPN, this one, by Buzzfeed’s Steven Perlberg, a well documented chronology of how, over the last few years, the network became such a frequent target of conservative media. And just like the Slate interview with Jim Miller, Perlberg’s piece provides a truly perfect moment, summarizing just how absurd the entire conversation has become.

“The challenge at ESPN is that subscribers are falling, eyeballs watching are falling, and they have way, way overspent on sports rights,” Rich Greenfield, a media industry analyst at BTIG, told BuzzFeed News. “They are scrambling to reduce costs. There is no other way to read it.”

But some conservatives are reading it another way.

“This is the evolution of how media has evolved, but [politics] certainly has played a role in how deep the cuts had to be,” said conservative talk show host Steve Deace. “It has hastened their demise. When your business model is collapsing, the last thing you do is narrow your potential base.”

This passage, these few paragraphs, say far more than I suspect Perlberg ever intended to. Because honestly, I can think of no better construction to illustrate the essential problem with the way we get our information today. Here’s a media analyst, citing indisputable facts that everyone has at their disposal, to explain the phenomenon of ESPN’s financial challenges. Followed immediately, of course, by a conservative commentator, who cites nothing at all, explaining why, in reality, we should ignore all that, and accept the narrative he’s constructed with his gut.

And so it is that facts become fuzzy, conclusions become questioned, and any possibility of an objective reality we can all agree dissolves into a wretched husk of “gotta hear both sides!” This isn’t unique to the ESPN discussion, of course. You may have noticed that one of the other big stories in media last week was the New York Times’ hiring of Bret Stephens as their newest op-ed columnist, followed by an inaugural piece on climate change that could best be summarized as “Hey, hold on a minute now, I’m just asking questions!”

Stephens’ hire for one of the most prominent jobs in media, has been justified, by the Times and others, in the name of “ideological diversity,” which has far too frequently come to mean “person with bad opinions.” Fusion’s Hamilton Nolan compiled a great many of them, for anyone interested, and boy are their some doozies, on torture, on racism, on sexual assault. But indeed, it was mankind’s inarguable role in the warming of the globe, the very definition of of settled science, where Stephens first chose to set up shop. (For a comprehensive takedown of the column, be sure to check out David Roberts at Vox, who properly dismisses the work as the dangerous pseudoscience that it is.)

The most frustrating aspect of the whole business is that the Times, as an institution, knows that Stephens’ arguments are nonsense. Of course they do! They do some of the finest reporting on climate change in the country! But such is life, in media these days, when all of the legwork, and investigation, and research, and reason, gets thrown overboard in the hopes of appealing to some faulty notion of “balance”. That’s how we get honest to god arguments over whether evolution is real, racism exists, and Donald Trump is the strategic genius of our time. It’s why we bring on guests who make no real effort to argue in good faith, print columns from those who lack even a rudimentary understanding of the issues, and seek quotes based not on whether someone has any unique knowledge to impart, but rather whether they might fill the designated space for “ill-informed contrarian”.

It’s exhausting, really, whether we’re talking about something like climate science, that affects us all, or the politics of ESPN, which is, of course, more of a concern for sports media nerds like myself. From where I’m sitting, I do hope that the network, and the people that make it great, are able to tune out all the ridiculous noise about ‘liberal bias’ and ‘left-wing advocacy’. Because there’s no question that the company has some very real problems to solve. They’ve got to adapt to a changing marketplace where expensive cable bundles are the past, and digital streaming is the present and future. They’ll have to figure out how to monetize content at a time when the world increasingly expects it to come for free. And they need to find a way to make their journalism vital, even when news and information are becoming more ubiquitous. These are big, complex, fundamental challenges, and god knows I don’t pretend to have the answers.

So yes, ESPN has a lot of real work ahead. It would be a shame if they wasted any time and energy on the utterly farcical notion that people are fleeing from their politics. It’s a completely false narrative, one that’s not worthy of debate. And you know the truly ironic part? It’s that, in some sense at least, the network only has itself to blame. After all, none other than CNN President Jeff Zucker, the reigning king of contrived debate, recently cited the sports network as the inspiration for his “every issue an argument” style of programming.

As pure TV spectacle, arguments like this were reminiscent of the head-to-head battles pioneered a decade ago by ESPN’s daytime talk shows like “First Take,” which pitted sports pundits against one another in loud disagreements about the topic of the day. This was not a coincidence. Zucker is a big sports fan and from the early days of the campaign had spoken at editorial meetings about wanting to incorporate elements of ESPN’s programming into CNN’s election coverage. “The idea that politics is sport is undeniable, and we understood that and approached it that way,” he told me.

Every sports fan who’s made ESPN a part of their daily life knows what Zucker is talking about, of course. At its best, the network offers incredible reporting, genuine insight, illuminating conversation, and comprehensive coverage of a wide range of sports and subjects. At its worst, the network has, most certainly, fallen into the trap of creating debate where there is none, of manufacturing contrived battles over whether Peyton Manning was clutch, LeBron James is a winner, or if Tim Tebow is going to make it as a baseball player. (Spoiler alert: He isn’t.)

Now, because the world has a sick sense of humor, ESPN finds itself caught up in another ‘debate’ that really isn’t. No, their subscriber losses are not tied to politics. No, viewers are not going to stop watching Monday Night Football because Dan Le Batard once talked about Trump’s travel ban. And no, the network is not going to indoctrinate a nation of young sports fans into the next generation of Bernie Bros. You know this, I know this, and anyone with even a shred of intellectual credibility knows this.

But somewhere, there’s somebody getting ready to author their ‘counter-point’ all the same, and it goes a long way toward explaining the mess we’re all in.