Mediaboss Marketing

The First Amendment is even for those embrace-debate sports shows you see on ESPN and Fox Sports 1. You know the ones. Guys yelling about why this coach should be fired and why that quarterback should be benched and why the Dallas Cowboys are the best (or worst, depending on the last game) team ever.

And while sometimes they say some ridiculous things, its good to know that the First Amendment is for them, too.

That was proven this week when a lawsuit by legendary football Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre against Hall of Fame tight end Shannon Sharpe was dismissed.

This all goes back to a rather serious topic: Favres alleged involvement in a Mississippi welfare fraud scandal. More than $77 million intended for the poor in Mississippi ended up on a variety of other projects, including a new volleyball facility at the University of Southern Mississippi, where Favres daughter was playing at the time. Favre also was involved in other parts of the story, although he has yet to be charged with a crime.

Back when he was on the Undisputed show with Skip Bayless on FS1, Sharpe said things such as Favre stole money from people that really needed that money.

Favre sued, claiming he didnt steal money from anyone. But a federal judge dismissed the suit, saying Sharpe, who now works at ESPN, was just using rhetorical hyperbole.

U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett wrote in his 12-page ruling: No reasonable person listening to the Broadcast would think that Favre actually went into the homes of poor people and took their money that he committed the crime of theft/larceny against any particular poor person in Mississippi. Sharpes comments were made against the backdrop of longstanding media coverage of Favres role in the welfare scandal and the States lawsuit against Favre. Listeners would have recognized Sharpes statements as rhetorical hyperbole robust language used to express Sharpes strong views about the new information that emerged about Favres participation in the welfare scandal.

Starrett went on to write, The context in which Sharpes remarks were made including the tenor of the Broadcast as a whole, the format of the program and its audience, and the fact that viewers were told Favre was not charged with a crime forecloses Favres claim that a reasonable viewer would have thought Sharpe was actually accusing him of committing larceny. Because Sharpes comments are constitutionally protected rhetorical hyperbole using loose, figurative language, they cannot support a defamation claim as a matter of law.

The ruling could not have been any more dismissive of Favre, doing just about everything shy of calling him a crybaby.

Favre also previously had sued podcaster Pat McAfee. Favre eventually dropped his suit, even though McAfee did not apologize or pay Favre any money.

So this all is good, right? First Amendment victories, yeah?

Well, not so fast, Deadspins Julie DiCaro writes. She wrote, Because in taking on Sharpe, who is thought to be worth around $14 million, Favre took on someone who had the money to fight back against what seemed to be a lawsuit designed to infringe upon free speech. Same with McAfee. Once word got out about Favre suing McAfee and Sharpe, some outlets likely backed way off criticizing Favre, and I wouldnt be surprised if some even scrapped stories entirely. At least one other reporter was threatened by Favres legal team, though not sued, for making similar comments about Favre on Twitter.

DiCaro asks if Favre (as well as other suits filed by former Major League Baseball pitcher Trevor Bauer over allegations of sexual assault) are even meant to win in the court of law.

But, DiCaro wrote, they are extremely effective in chilling free speech. That means people who might have otherwise negatively reported or commented on Favre and Bauer now refrain from doing so in order to avoid being sued. Thats bad for journalism, and bad for our country, which depends on an informed and educated electorate.

Continuing with the sports theme today, here are two more items of interest

Game 2 of the World Series was played last Saturday between two teams the Arizona Diamondbacks and Texas Rangers that were among the last to even make the playoffs and arent exactly marquee franchises in the eyes of most fans. Thats strike one.

Strike two: Game 2 went up against college football.

And, the final score was a blowout 9-1 for the Diamondbacks. Strike three!

It was a strikeout among fans. The game averaged 8.153 million viewers on Fox and another 225,000 on Fox Deportes. That 8.378 million total made for the least-watched World Series on record.

That comes on the heels of the least-watched Game 1 of a World Series on record. An average of 9.17 million viewers tuned in.

But wait! Were not done.

Game 2 was the least-watched World Series game until Monday nights Game 3. The viewership for that was only 8.126 million watched, meaning that is now the least-watched game. (Game 3 went up against Monday Night Football, and that game between the Detroit Lions and Las Vegas Raiders drew 15.2 million viewers, according to Sports TV Ratings.)

Why are the baseball numbers so low?

Well, for starters, Front Office Sports Michael McCarthy writes, TV ratings for the Fall Classic have been falling for years as baseball becomes more of a regional than national TV draw.

The Athletics Richard Deitsch adds, This series was always going to be viewership challenged as anyone who studies or writes about sports viewership would have told you prior to the first pitch. The question was how low would the numbers be. These numbers are low. You cant spin them. Because fans too often personalize this stuff, its important to note this isnt an attack on either team. Its actually a fascinating baseball matchup. But the Diamondbacks and Rangers are not national draws based on historic television data outside of when they are playing a team with broad appeal or a series going long (which is what Fox has to really hope for with this series).

A scene outside Newark Liberty International Airport in Newark, New Jersey. (AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey)

If you follow sports closely, you know the names of reporters such as ESPNs Adam Schefter and Adrian Wojnarowski, and Shams Charania from The Athletic and Stadium. They make their living, mostly, from breaking stories: trades, firings, signings, and so forth. And its a good living. They are paid in the millions.

But is it a good life?

Check out this story. On his podcast, The Woj Pod, Wojnarowski, who covers the NBA for ESPN, relayed how he broke the big news early Tuesday that superstar James Harden was being traded from Philadelphia to the Los Angeles Clippers.

Wojnarowski said, Really got into it Monday night. I was at Newark airport, I was getting ready to fly to LA to go out and be out with our NBA Countdown crew this week and NBA Today. It was suggested to me to not get on a plane, that you might be its always my worst fear with this job that youre on a plane and the wireless is spotty and you cant get to what you need to do so I sat in Newark airport, watched the place close down and then almost start to reopen again. So from like 5 p.m., they threw me out of the (United) lounge at 10:30 p.m. when it closed and then I just went and sat downstairs until I left about 3:30 in the morning.

Sitting in the Newark Airport until 3:30 in the morning?

The Big Leads Kyle Koster wrote, Thats dedication. And just a nightmare lifestyle if you really think about it. There are certain moments when the news pops and the television cameras are rolling that the whole enterprise looks glamorous but a sad New Jersey airport growing increasingly deserted is a bleak office for the day. At least the copious aggregator accounts that shared it minutes later presumably have the comforts of home to enjoy while they wait for the action to begin. But hey, like Don Draper said, thats what the money is for.

The News Leaders Association, an organization of journalism editors formed in 2019 by the merger of the American Society of News Editors and the Associated Press Managing Editors, has recommended to its members they vote to disband the group, according to a memo sent to members Tuesday.

Alison Gerber, NLA board president, said the decision was a difficult one, but necessary to ensure that NLA-run efforts including leadership training, an annual news industry diversity survey, press freedom efforts and journalism awards could continue in the hands of other nonprofits the NLA is selecting.

From the beginning, the new NLA has faced obstacles, starting with the COVID-19 pandemic combined with the vast challenges facing the news industry and the financial markets, Gerber said. These headwinds created a perfect storm, making it difficult for the NLA to expand and flourish.

Voting will take place in November.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, sign up here.

Originally posted here:
Opinion | Those guys yelling on sports shows? Yeah, the First ... - Poynter