ESPN = Jenny McCarthy?!
This ESPN article, along with the million other ESPN articles on the Madden Curse this past week, pissed me off. We insist on mythologizing a phenomenon that has pretty much been proven to be a classic case of mean reversion.
I understand the likely reason behind writing about the Madden Curse. ESPN’s core business as a sports site is entertainment -- journalism is merely its vessel. Writing about the Madden Curse is 1) inflammatory enough to draw a response from the player (Richard Sherman, for the record, says he does not believe in the curse), which then 2) allows it to sell articles and consequent page views, especially when the individual in question happens to be one of the most polarizing figures in the sport. Put it differently, ESPN could write a mean reversion article. It’d be the only article on the topic, and it wouldn’t be that incendiary. The alternative is much more financially attractive: mining the dregs of the Madden Curse discussion for eternity. You might even resurface a few athlete names for terribly meaningless and fiercely argued debates! So I get the practical side of things. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s irresponsible for ESPN, the site where a majority of U.S. sports fans go to get their reporting. In the world of serious news coverage, the publications in the upper echelon (e.g., NYTimes, WSJ, and Economist) are lauded for journalistic excellence despite doing so from the loftiest and most influential peaks. ESPN has similar influence in the sports world and definitely the potential to do so (e.g., 30 for 30, long-form essays). The demand is out there as well (e.g., Grantland). Perhaps predictably, though, ESPN has opted to churn out poorly thought-out, link-baity articles and advertise its anecdote-whoring, data-poor, cognitive-bias-inflicted talking heads (please don’t get me started about Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless). Even as commenters poke fun at ESPN’s obsession with trivial topics that draw glance views (e.g., “Hm…wonder what Lebron would think about this, ESPN”), other commenters realize that ESPN has already won, by attracting even its detractors’ glance views to the site (e.g., “If it’s so stupid, why are you posting here then?). All in all, it’s a bit depressing to think about the new legion of sports fan raised on a site that prides speed over accuracy and volume over nuance, especially since the foregone opportunity to breed a more savvy sports fan is right there.