If Our Media Was "Americanized"

[Jcpdragonx]

Personally, I am finding ESPN's First Take show much more appealing than any other AFL TV show. I don't have Foxtel but I have watched some of the shows on there a fair few times, and they seem to be the same old shows. After the Bounce is just Spud and Dunstall taking the piss out of eachother, Eddie just interviews and 360 occasionally consists of Robbo making up some garbage rumor on 360. The closest I can think of is Footy Classified, however Garry Lyon is not aggressive with his arguments and the women is clueless. People just seem too reserved with their opinions.

I will give an example. Imagine of a media personality constantly raved on about how player x was overrated or how player y is the best player in the league. For example, this video featuring Skip Bayless and Stephen A from ESPN.



I have just picked one of the hundreds of these arguments, but I thoroughly enjoy these discussions and I hardly know what they are talking about. The arguments are heated, they are incredibly critical on players games, they have strong and controversial opinions, etc. I think it would be great if we had a TV program with personalities like such and it would be great viewing, but I don't think we have the culture for it.

Anyway, thoughts?

 

[BlueBen]

I watch a fair bit of First Take because I enjoy the NBA and NFL and I think that the format of the show works well. The topics of debate are repetitive (Tebow, Lebron etc.) and Skip and Stephen A certainly have their favourites but they certainly say what they think about players/teams/issues and the show is often quite entertaining and thought-provoking as a result.

I agree with you though that in Australia we just don't have the culture for such no-holds-barred discussion. People within the wider football industry are very protective of other people within the industry to the extent that you rarely see players, ex-players or journalists speak out against other players or teams. Instead, everyone just diplomatically toes the party line while the viewer is left considering the futulity of it all. Anything even remotely negative is immediately qualified by the person offering the opinion. It is as if there is some unspoken code which governs the sorts of things that can be aired publicly. Real debate is stymied so as not to offend the sensibilities of an overly sensitive group of players. For example, Triple M here in Melbourne (and possibly interstate, I don't know), at the conclusion of matches it broadcasts, has one of its special comments men award "worst on ground" votes. While this is something relatively harmless, it is nevertheless something about which players and teams have been known to kick up a real fuss. The person giving these votes often does so almost apologetically as well.

Basically, within the football industry, it is more important that everyone gets along than it is to engage in robust discussion, which is why a show like First Take could never work in Australia.

 

[iluvparis]

Good posts - the major issue is I think lack of personality for that type of show - look at the horrible combination of Barwick and Keka for Australian PTI which was atrocious compared to Wilbon and Tony in the US.

Same with a show like Around The Horn - is brialliant but because of the different cultures/personality types (yanks love to be brash, outlandish, and outspoken) I just don't think it would work here unless you had the perfect hosts.

 

[DardySingh360]

As Americanised or more than your spelling?

 

[JockStewart]

Yeah i agree - as if we need to americanise our society even more than it already has.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

Good posts - the major issue is I think lack of personality for that type of show - look at the horrible combination of Barwick and Keka for Australian PTI which was atrocious compared to Wilbon and Tony in the US.

Same with a show like Around The Horn - is brialliant but because of the different cultures/personality types (yanks love to be brash, outlandish, and outspoken) I just don't think it would work here unless you had the perfect hosts.

Yes. I like the 'Americanised' format of these shows, but agree we lack the distinct media and journalist personalities in Australia that make PTI and Around the Horn entertaining (and moderately informative).

Could you really see an Aussie ATH with Patrick Smith (Plaschke), Mike Sheahan (Woody), David Parkin (Bob Ryan), Caroline Wilson (Jackie Mac), etc??? The mute button would dominate.

 

[dmc333]

Couldn't be any worse than morons like BT say crap "The Micky Turner Football Factory" every 5 minutes.

 

[Pusswah]

Yeah


Let's Americanise it some

 

[honkster7]

I'm Tommy Smith , with a whyyyyyy

 

[Manni & Ken]

No-one should ever, ever, want a Skip Bayless in Australia.

Watching Cuban own him a month or so ago was a beautiful, beautiful thing.

 

[arkie]

US sports shows have better production values overall. I love watching shows like SportsCentre on ESPN and NFL GameDay Morning is great on NFL Network. Listening to Rich Eisen and guys like Steve Mariucci talk NFL is great. Even College GameDay on ESPN is better than all the AFL shows.

 

[theRainbowGame]

Need more Sydney based radio shows.
I dont watch any regular football programs, just listen to podcasts.

 

[Wizard]

PTI America all day baby!

 

[hayes]

I watch a fair bit of First Take because I enjoy the NBA and NFL and I think that the format of the show works well. The topics of debate are repetitive (Tebow, Lebron etc.) and Skip and Stephen A certainly have their favourites but they certainly say what they think about players/teams/issues and the show is often quite entertaining and thought-provoking as a result.

I agree with you though that in Australia we just don't have the culture for such no-holds-barred discussion. People within the wider football industry are very protective of other people within the industry to the extent that you rarely see players, ex-players or journalists speak out against other players or teams. Instead, everyone just diplomatically toes the party line while the viewer is left considering the futulity of it all. Anything even remotely negative is immediately qualified by the person offering the opinion. It is as if there is some unspoken code which governs the sorts of things that can be aired publicly. Real debate is stymied so as not to offend the sensibilities of an overly sensitive group of players. For example, Triple M here in Melbourne (and possibly interstate, I don't know), at the conclusion of matches it broadcasts, has one of its special comments men award "worst on ground" votes. While this is something relatively harmless, it is nevertheless something about which players and teams have been known to kick up a real fuss. The person giving these votes often does so almost apologetically as well.

Basically, within the football industry, it is more important that everyone gets along than it is to engage in robust discussion, which is why a show like First Take could never work in Australia.

Spot on. Imagine somebody talking about Judd the way Skip spoke about Lebron, it just wouldn't happen. Even when you watch some of the shows we have it's almost a crime to talk negative about some players and very few media types dare to do it because most of them are ex players.

I don't mind the ones we have. Shows like After The Bounce, The Footy Show and even the rub on Triple M are good because I think all those guys hanging shit on each other is hilarious.

 

[BlueBen]

Spot on. Imagine somebody talking about Judd the way Skip spoke about Lebron, it just wouldn't happen. Even when you watch some of the shows we have it's almost a crime to talk negative about some players and very few media types dare to do it because most of them are ex players.

It is actually quite funny to imagine! You can bet that Carlton or the team of a player subjected to such criticism would file a complaint to the AFL immediately and that the show would therefore not last very long at all.

Most of the "negativity" is so weak that it is almost meaningless, with the person offering the "negativity" doing so almost apologetically and indirectly.

For example, watch/listen out for the next time a player/team is criticised by a media personality. You will see/hear the media personality expressing the criticism in terms like "(player X) is probably not playing as well as he would like to be playing". Compare that to the same media personality having the "courage" to simply say what he is really saying, i.e., that "(player X) is playing badly".

In the first case, the commentary is so indirect as to be framed as a prediction of the player in question's subjective mindset and not what it is supposed to be, i.e., the personal opinion of the media commentator. The words are so wishy-washy (note the use of the word "probably" to further qualify the comment) that they barely constitute criticism at all. In the second case, the commentary is direct, confident and to the point with no unnecessary attempt made to qualify or water the comments down.

As I tried to explain above, I think that it all comes back to what I believe is an overly protective culture within the AFL (and probably other Australian sports as well). It is as if everyone within the AFL industry is a member of some kind of "brotherhood" and that anyone who trangresses by speaking their mind is to be banished forever. As a result, we are left with a situation in which everything is sanitised, nobody really knows where anyone stands on anything, but this is OK because at least there is harmony throughout the industry.

I don't mind the ones we have. Shows like After The Bounce, The Footy Show and even the rub on Triple M are good because I think all those guys hanging shit on each other is hilarious.

Agree with that, I just wish that the blokes on these shows were as ready to tell it like it is when it comes to expressing their opinions on players as they are when it comes to hanging shit on each other.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Problem with Australian rules media is most of the TV types are either on club/AFL payrolls or are player agents. Just a little conflict of interest??

 

[3rd Grade Maggy]

They're all on the drip. Too critical = no exclusive information, junkets to Cairns/Arizona/Darwin etc.

 

[legend166]

We need a Bill Simmons, not a Skip Bayless.

 

[flight23]

We need a Bill Simmons, not a Skip Bayless.

agreed, but minus the Knicks hatred (i can deal with his bias of the celtics, he's a fan)

 

[Borussia Teeth]

We need a Bill Simmons, not a Skip Bayless.

A local version of the brilliant Bill Simmons - How awesome would that be!

Even for online articles and podcasts, not necessarily TV or radio presence.

 

[Gigantor]

On the whole - I really enjoy most of the shows on Fox Footy.

Try following another sport in Australia if you reckon there's a problem.

 

[calyam]

We need a Bill Simmons, not a Skip Bayless.

Both would be amusing but a Bill Simmons-type would be fantastic.

 

[ozgamer]

Skip Bayless

arsewipe media troll and for that f*** ESPN, the WorldWide Tossers.

Bill Simmons

Boston Homer. Nuff said.