PDA

View Full Version : Perfect Example of Sports Media Bias



hoosierguy
04-23-2011, 05:49 PM
NBAonESPN tweets after the Game 4 win that the Pacers "barely" squeak out a win and points out that the Bulls still hold a 3-1 lead.

But when the Bulls win no mention by ESPN that they "barely" squeaked by.

Pricks.

LG33
04-23-2011, 05:53 PM
I don't know, man, that was the very definition of squeaking out a win. I'll allow it this time.

grace
04-23-2011, 05:53 PM
The headline writer would tell you they write the headline in a way to get the most people to read the article. Not as many people around the country are going to read an article about the Pacers winning.

hoosierguy
04-23-2011, 05:56 PM
I don't know, man, that was the very definition of squeaking out a win. I'll allow it this time.

The Bulls squeaked wins in Game 1-3. They were down 10 points in Game 1 with under four minutes left.

Slick Pinkham
04-23-2011, 05:56 PM
I thought that if we won then the whining might taper off a little.

I guess not.

hoosierguy
04-23-2011, 05:58 PM
I thought that if we won then the whining might taper off a little.

I guess not.

Something icky>>>>>>>>> you.

LG33
04-23-2011, 05:58 PM
The Bulls squeaked wins in Game 1-3. They were down 10 points in Game 1 with under four minutes left.

Yes. But just because it was true then and not said, doesn't mean it shouldn't be said when it is true.

Slick Pinkham
04-23-2011, 06:00 PM
Yeah, we'd have won by 40 if the refs weren't crooked. Isn't that what we're supposed to say next?

hoosierguy
04-23-2011, 06:05 PM
Yes. But just because it was true then and not said, doesn't mean it shouldn't be said when it is true.

The selective use of language to describe the wins by the Bulls and then the Pacers is what is grinding my ***. Be consistent that is all.

hoosierguy
04-23-2011, 06:06 PM
Yeah, we'd have won by 40 if the refs weren't crooked. Isn't that what we're supposed to say next?

No, but feel free to keep putting words in my mouth.

Slick Pinkham
04-23-2011, 06:11 PM
Can't you enjoy the win? Geesh. I just don't get it. I've been a Pacer fan for over 40 years and I just can't identify with people who always have to whine about something, win or lose.

Great win, great game. If there is something to complain about it's that about 8,000 "fans" let their tickets get in the hands of Chicago neanderthals.

King Tuts Tomb
04-23-2011, 06:19 PM
Of course there's a bias. The Bulls are a better team, more fun to watch, won 15 more games than us and have a super star. If we had all those things people would be biased towards us too. Why would you be angry about this?

Drewtone
04-23-2011, 06:19 PM
BSPN being frontrunners? Well, I never!

Jared Sullinger
04-23-2011, 06:22 PM
Of course there's a bias. The Bulls are a better team, more fun to watch, won 15 more games than us and have a super star. If we had all those things people would be biased towards us too. Why would you be angry about this?

25 more.

hoosierguy
04-23-2011, 06:30 PM
Of course there's a bias. The Bulls are a better team, more fun to watch, won 15 more games than us and have a super star. If we had all those things people would be biased towards us too. Why would you be angry about this?

More fun to watch? Not this series.

The Pacers never got this type of preferential media treatment when they were the #1 seed in 2000 or 2004. They were an inconvenience.

KingGeorge
04-23-2011, 06:39 PM
The Bulls are a better team, more fun to watch, won 15 more games than us and have a super star.

Better team? Not so sure anymore.

Better player? Of course.

More fun to watch? Who doesn't love an underdog playing their hearts out.

PR07
04-23-2011, 06:42 PM
Better team? Not so sure anymore.

Better player? Of course.

More fun to watch? Who doesn't love an underdog playing their hearts out.

This.

I'd honestly argue that 1-15, the Pacers have more good players than the Bulls do. We just don't have a bonafide #1 in Rose.

ilive4sports
04-23-2011, 06:42 PM
Is anything in that statement false? No. Settle down. ESPN plays to the viewer, thats how they make money.

KingGeorge
04-23-2011, 06:45 PM
Is anything in that statement false? No. Settle down. ESPN plays to the viewer, thats how they make money.

ESPN is the devil.

King Tuts Tomb
04-23-2011, 06:46 PM
Better team? Not so sure anymore.

Better player? Of course.

More fun to watch? Who doesn't love an underdog playing their hearts out.

Objectively I'd say the Bulls are probably more fun to watch. If I wasn't a fan of either team I'd rather want to see them play.

I don't think there's any doubt that they're better than us, as has been proven by this series. They're not way better than us like everyone (including me) thought, but they're better for sure.

hoosierguy
04-23-2011, 06:46 PM
ESPN is the devil.

ESPN is to sports journalism what Entertainment Tonight is to regular journalism.

King Tuts Tomb
04-23-2011, 06:47 PM
25 more.

Thanks. I have trouble with things like first grade math.

hoosierguy
04-23-2011, 06:48 PM
Objectively I'd say the Bulls are probably more fun to watch. If I wasn't a fan of either team I'd rather want to see them play.

I don't think there's any doubt that they're better than us, as has been proven by this series. They're not way better than us like everyone (including me) though, but they're better for sure.

People watch the Bulls just for Rose. The rest of their roster is not better than ours.

ilive4sports
04-23-2011, 06:50 PM
oh my... well as a sports journalism major, i'm just gonna say I would love to work for ESPN.

hoosierguy
04-23-2011, 06:52 PM
oh my... well as a sports journalism major, i'm just gonna say I would love to work for ESPN.

Yeah, it would be an interesting place to work but that does not take away from the fact they have made sports journalism VERY superficial.

King Tuts Tomb
04-23-2011, 06:52 PM
Is anything in that statement false? No. Settle down. ESPN plays to the viewer, thats how they make money.

I remember reading an interview with the president of ESPN a couple years ago and he said his target demographic is 18-22 year old college males. They're aiming for a frat-guy audience and spectacular plays and players are what they love. Nuance and subtlety are not what they're looking for in sports.

BillS
04-23-2011, 06:54 PM
ESPN is the devil.

No, no, pay attention, Jim O'Brien is the Devil. ESPN is just that annoying little winged demon with the pitchfork.

Slick Pinkham
04-23-2011, 08:08 PM
Dried up dog turd>>>>>>>>> you.

Can a moderator explain to me why posts like this are acceptable?

thanks!

Kemo
04-23-2011, 08:51 PM
ESPN is the devil.


http://thestockmasters.com/images/Waterboy_Mom.gif

The Devil






.
.
.

Kemo
04-23-2011, 08:53 PM
probably because some think you , whether intentional or not, come in this thread and dropped a dog turd on everyone's emotional high after this game... calling them whiners

hoosierguy
04-23-2011, 08:57 PM
Can a moderator explain to me why posts like this are acceptable?

thanks!

I'll tone it down for you.

Merz
04-23-2011, 09:03 PM
I remember reading an interview with the president of ESPN a couple years ago and he said his target demographic is 18-22 year old college males. They're aiming for a frat-guy audience and spectacular plays and players are what they love. Nuance and subtlety are not what they're looking for in sports.

They could have fooled me...I always thought their target audience was 15 year olds. I guess a good number of frat boys aren't too different (in fact today's college humor is more like high school humor, as well).

Larry Staverman
04-24-2011, 08:23 AM
ESPN is becoming the MTV of sports!

D-BONE
04-24-2011, 08:31 AM
Not a big fan of ESPN, but not too worked up by the headline thing. For example, one way to interpret game one is, in fact, that the Bulls squeaked it out. Another equally valid interpretation is that they made a great late-game comeback. Or yet another one is that we totally choked. Bet that headline would have made our day.

Oliver
04-24-2011, 09:43 AM
Pacers choke big time but win anyway! News at 11...

I'm sorry but I think Rose is garbage. He is way over rated and IMO not deserving of being the MVP. What are his shooting numbers for the series? I'm guessing they suck big time except maybe his free throw #s. If he learns to shoot from the mid range or outside then I'll bite, but just doing the same play over and over is crap. Give Lebum James the MVP, he has more all around game. I would rather see a true point guard like CP3 get it. I know I'm probably way overstating it bc we have to play him, but I just hate that little creep. I hate his creepy little smile when he hears the refs blow their whistle.

Boozer, F Thomas, and Noah are playing a really trashy game also. Boozer goes around shoving people in the back but cries like a little girl when he gets called on anything. No class from these swine. But I guess class doesn't win championships.

Kstat
04-24-2011, 10:43 AM
People watch the Bulls just for Rose. The rest of their roster is not better than ours.

You could say that about 2/3 of the rosters in the NBA. The fact is the Bulls are a 60-win team because of Rose and up 3-1 in this series because of Rose, so that's a bigger difference than you're making it seem.

Sparhawk
04-24-2011, 11:43 AM
The Bulls squeaked wins in Game 1-3. They were down 10 points in Game 1 with under four minutes left.

No, the Bulls came back to win a couple of those games. Comeback.

Pacers blew a huge lead and almost lost it. Pacers barely squeaked by is more than fitting.

NuffSaid
04-24-2011, 11:49 AM
Of course there's a bias. The Bulls are a better team, more fun to watch, won 15 more games than us and have a super star. If we had all those things people would be biased towards us too. Why would you be angry about this?

I'd think any Pacers fan would be upset about the biasness shown here. I mean, when Collison left with a sprained ankle in Game-2, the media didn't claim that the Pacers loss because they were without their starting PG. What the media reported was that Rose and Company simply out-played the Pacers, period. No mention that they took advantage of Collison's absence due to injury. But when Rose rolled his ankle the media tried to give excuses for the Bulls' lose claiming that they weren't at 100% even though the Bulls were getting beat beforehand and Rose came back to play the rest of Game-4.

So, yeah, there is and has been media bias against the Pacers for a long time. Granted, they are the 8th seed playing against the #1 seed, but if your team was been outplayed even before the injury and the injured player who happens to be your best player returns and you still lose, maybe it's time to give the winning team their props.

Basketball Fan
04-24-2011, 12:18 PM
ESPN is becoming the MTV of sports!



More like TMZ...

At least ESPN still covers sports... MTV doesn't even have music videos anymore(unless you get up really early in the morning)

15th parallel
04-24-2011, 04:28 PM
Whole series long there is a media bias on the Bulls. See those recap videos? 70% Rose and company, 30% Pacers, even on game 1 wherein we're leading for about 45 minutes. Remember the game 1 commentary? The most DISGUSTING I've ever heard in the playoffs so far. This team was already judged by the "experts" to be eaten alive by Rose. Right now I'm happy that those "experts" are looking more and more STUPID as the series progresses.