[gocard14]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=18210.msg215619#msg215619 date=1511979533]
Not sure this has much at all to do with politics, unless you think people are canceling their entire cable subscription because of something political said on ESPN?:

Last month, TheWrap‘s ESPN sources said that what ended up as today’s round would be all about efficiency and cutting down on duplication. After all, the media landscape is nothing like it used to be, and few places are feeling the effects as much as ESPN.

It’s been a rough couple of years for the “Worldwide Leader in Sports,” and cord-cutting has disproportionately impacted the priciest non-premium cable channel. That subscriber loss has been hard to absorb, particularly with the pricey talent contracts and sports rights ESPN had compiled over the years.

Not cancelling subscriptions, just not turning in to ESPN. The cable and satellite companies know what you're watching. Peruse the comments on any article about the layoffs--they've lost the base they are supposedly trying to reach. They push the SEC, then award Kaitlyn Jenner the athlete of the year. That doesn't play well in the red states. They'll watch college football, but are turning everything else out.
[/quote]

There may be some truth to this, but like others have said I believe the changing landscape of the cable business (to ESPNs detriment) is the driving factor.

For my money if I had to pick a “hot take” as to why ratings decline, it’s because of the proliferation of hot take and argument shows to the detriment of real journalism. For the price they pay one BS monger like Skip Witless or Stephen A they could hire 20 real journalists and editors that appear on TV periodically. One real insightful writer/analyst like Bill Barnwell or Zach Lowe is worth 10 talking heads to me, but costs much much less. Based on the layoffs, it’s clear which direction they prioritize.

[gocard14]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=18210.msg215619#msg215619 date=1511979533]
Not sure this has much at all to do with politics, unless you think people are canceling their entire cable subscription because of something political said on ESPN?:

Last month, TheWrap‘s ESPN sources said that what ended up as today’s round would be all about efficiency and cutting down on duplication. After all, the media landscape is nothing like it used to be, and few places are feeling the effects as much as ESPN.

It’s been a rough couple of years for the “Worldwide Leader in Sports,” and cord-cutting has disproportionately impacted the priciest non-premium cable channel. That subscriber loss has been hard to absorb, particularly with the pricey talent contracts and sports rights ESPN had compiled over the years.

Not cancelling subscriptions, just not turning in to ESPN. The cable and satellite companies know what you're watching. Peruse the comments on any article about the layoffs--they've lost the base they are supposedly trying to reach. They push the SEC, then award Kaitlyn Jenner the athlete of the year. That doesn't play well in the red states. They'll watch college football, but are turning everything else out.
[/quote]

There may be some truth to this, but like others have said I believe the changing landscape of the cable business (to ESPNs detriment) is the driving factor.

For my money if I had to pick a “hot take” as to why ratings decline, it’s because of the proliferation of hot take and argument shows to the detriment of real journalism. For the price they pay one BS monger like Skip Witless or Stephen A they could hire 20 real journalists and editors that appear on TV periodically. One real insightful writer/analyst like Bill Barnwell or Zach Lowe is worth 10 talking heads to me, but costs much much less. Based on the layoffs, it’s clear which direction they prioritize.