Sports Media Watch presents 20 notable sports media stories of the year 2010. The list concludes with the #1 story of the year.
#1: The Decision
The Decision was like red meat for the sports media in 2010, giving writers easy targets at which to take aim. The participants could not have been more perfect: LeBron James and ESPN. LeBron was young, spoiled, ungrateful, arrogant, strutting, preening ? everything certain writers and fans have been complaining about for decades. It doesn?t matter if any of it is true; perception is reality. ESPN, meanwhile, epitomized excess; glitz, glam, money, hype, synergy, high flying dunks, home runs, style over substance. Nevermind that sports is both business and entertainment ? nevermind that what ESPN offers viewers is a reflection of what fans want to see.
It?s easy to criticize arrogant, selfish athletes and flashy TV networks, and such criticism was commonplace in the months following The Decision. Rehashing all the incendiary things written over the past five months is unnecessary. Instead, let?s really examine this story.
Between his elimination from the playoffs on May 13 and his one-hour special on July 8, LeBron James participated in just one television interview ? on CNN?s Larry King Live June 4. That contrasts with the frequent accusations that James was attempting to hijack the country?s attention.
That doesn?t mean James wasn?t plastered across television screens and newspaper headlines; in fact, he was. The sports media devoted excessive attention to James throughout the summer, with footage of him walking in and out of buildings and constant (mostly inaccurate) rumors about where he might go next. Between May 12, 2010 (the day after James? Cavaliers lost Game 5 to Boston) and the end of July, LeBron James was mentioned in 331 New York Daily News articles. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was mentioned in 179.
Surely, this wasn?t a hijacking. It was more like an obsession. At the same time they complained about James commanding so much attention, members of the media continued to shower him with said attention. The Daily News? Mitch Lawrence was so mad about James overshadowing the NBA Finals that he mentioned him in nine separate articles during the Lakers/Celtics series — sometimes just to express how sick he was of hearing about him. Take this snippet from his Game 7 preview, for example: ?[W]hat are the chances that the Lakers would win only one of three games on their home court in the Finals? About the same as LeBron announcing today where he intends to play next season? (New York Daily News, 6/16/10).
One could argue that the media had to cover James and his free agency saga; after all, it?s news. But there?s a difference with sports. None of the on-court, game-related activities are news; they’re entertainment. While some news stories have to be reported, even if the interest isn?t there, inconsequential entertainment news does not ? and James? free agency decision certainly qualified as such. There was no ethical obligation to cover the story. Sportswriters owed their readers news about LeBron in the same way entertainment writers owe their readers news about Lindsay Lohan.
One could also argue that the media had to cover James because people were interested. In that case, where does the ?hijacking? part come in again? People were indeed interested in James. If anyone in the media was so repulsed by that, they could have objected (and not one of those Mika Brzezinski/Paris Hilton look-at-me objections, but stone silence). Clearly, nobody had a problem with the widespread national interest ? or if they did, they decided to go along with it. Again, it?s tough to see how that reflects on James instead of fans or the media.
Even as James stayed generally out of the limelight, he was still the center of attention. There was a parade in Los Angeles ? but it wasn?t for the Lakers, it was Clipper fans pleading for James to play for their team (Associated Press, 5/28/10). There was a rally in Cleveland, with fans pleading for him to stay ?home? (Associated Press 7/4/10). A fan in New York even ate a five pound sandwich in some bizarre offering to James (New York Daily News, 6/30/10). New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pleaded for James to come to New York. President Barack Obama advocated James come to Chicago in one interview, and then said it?d be best for him to stay in Cleveland in another. The news there? The President of the United States was asked about LeBron James in more than one interview.
Did James ask for any of that? Did he ask for the President to voice his opinion or for the mayor of America?s biggest city to essentially beg for his presence? Sure he played a role in stoking the fires, with sly quotes about looking forward to 2010 because it would be a ?big day? (nytimes.com, 11/25/08). Sure, there?s little doubt he enjoyed it ? how could he not? But how was he possibly responsible for any of it? He wasn?t exactly a passive observer, but he wasn?t driving the coverage, either.
Which brings us to The Decision itself, one of the most universally criticized television programs in recent memory. From the moment it was announced, the show attracted criticism ? and a wave of national television coverage. It was covered, before and after, by Good Morning America and World News with Diane Sawyer on ABC, John King USA, Campbell Brown, Larry King Live and Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, Hardball With Chris Matthews, Countdown With Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report on Comedy Central. In other words, the idea that ESPN was the only culprit in the James hype, or even the worst, is ludicrous. One minute of James coverage on CNN is more ridiculous than one hour of coverage on ESPN.
James merely took advantage of the hype surrounding him. All the talk of his ego and narcissism indicates that he thinks he?s something he?s not. But was James really not supposed to think he was a ?big deal? after generating such an absurd level of coverage? And how was he wrong for trying to capitalize on that absurdity? The Decision wasn?t James inflicting himself on America; it was James taking advantage of an intense level of interest that already existed. It was a shrewd move, if not for the execution.
He gave people what they wanted ? and the near-record audience ESPN drew for the show (the third-largest for a non-NFL program in the 30 year history of the network) was evidence of that. Nobody had to watch James? special. Anyone who wanted information on where he signed could have just gone to any website in the immediate aftermath ? cnn.com, msnbc.com, abcnews.com, cbsnews.com and nytimes.com all had James? decision as their top story that night. It?s not as if people were surprised by the content; details about the show were readily available beforehand. Yet they watched, in near-record numbers.
The backlash must have been confusing for him, his handlers, even ESPN. After all, why would ten million viewers willingly sit down in front of their televisions and watch something they knew ahead of time they wouldn?t like ? and then proceed to complain about it for months? If there was so much interest in where James would sign, why was there so much anger when he merely satisfied that interest?
Again, nobody had to watch the special; nobody had to cover James’ free agency so excessively to begin with. It’s easy to make ESPN the scapegoat, or simply blame James’ ego. They’re easy targets, after all. But one imagines that the one-hour special would not have existed if not for the frenzy over James’ free agency ? a frenzy that itself could not have existed without help from the media (and not just ESPN). In essence, the same people who continue to trash James months after the fact had a major role in creating The Decision. They set the stage on which James, Jim Gray, and the rest could perform. If The Decision is to be the albatross around the necks of both James and ESPN for the foreseeable future, let there be little doubt that others deserve to share that burden.
