Who's the most despised sports broadcaster on the air today? Well, if you ask a couple of bloggers I read, the answer is Stephen A. Smith of the Philadelphia Inquirer/ESPN. I talked about this over the phone with Rob Visconti just last week, and it looks like Steve Silver is in the same boat with the two of us.
Don't get me wrong: Smith knows the NBA as well as anybody in the business. He's clearly both smart and savvy when it comes to the league both on and off the court. Then again, Smith is exactly the reason why some brilliant television engineer came up with the concept of the "Mute" button, as his on-air style has more in common with a Jerome Bettis rush up the middle than anything else.
Even worse, ESPN retained Smith in favor of veteran reporter David Aldridge, a man who was as smart and stylish as Smith, but without the nerve-rattling delivery.
Granted, Smith isn't the only on-air personality on ESPN that grates me this way -- with former NFL quarterback Sean Salisbury being just the leading example. And if ESPN keeps insisting on promoting "hot" personalities like Smith and Salisbury at the expense of folks like Aldridge, there's bound to be a backlash in the ratings.
I’d say Salisbury is even worse than Smith, because he’s got a complete lack of knowledge and savvy, in addition to the off-putting delivery, and virtually non-stop network presence. Salisbury also throws in the added tic of giving all of his opinions that I-played-the-game-and-you-didn’t sneer, even though he was one of the worst quarterbacks in NFL history.
Don’t forget that they have Stephen A and (almost equally awful) Stuart Scott deciding what kind of talent ESPN is looking for on Dream Job. This network has lost me.
I wonder if that is really Stephen A’s personaility or whether it’s something he and/or ESPN devised for him to use on the air. I say this because I recently had the opportunity to see him recording a piece for ESPN standing outside MSG right after a Knicks game, a couple of days after the Artest incident. About 100 fans had gathered and starting asking him questions about Artest, the incident, the Knicks, etc. He answered them all calmly and intelligently, with all the Stephen A bluntness and cockiness, but without the shouting. He played to the crowd perfectly, when many personalities would have simply ignored us.
Was he ever on TV prior to ESPN? What was he like?
The Michael Irvin-for-Sterling Sharpe swap seems of a piece with the trend, as well, may it soon be reversed.
I’m still an ESPN viewer, and it’s highly unlikely that that’s going to change. But I just wish people on my television would stop screaming at me. Is that too much to ask?
Stu Scott is soooooo much worse than Sreamin’ A, who is at least entertaining. And if you really want to hate someone–or four someones–hate the Fox NFL team. Make that eight someones–hate the CBS NFL team too. Never has backslapping we’re-all-pals horseshit been so painfully transparent, or more devoid of actual insight onto NFL football games.
Barry Melrose really bugs me, and admittedly most Detroit fans. Every game, he seems to think this goalie is the best in the world and always conflicts his own opinions. ugh. I don’t have to agree with your opinions, but at least be consistent!
Stephen A could have the best information on the face of the earth, but because of his decibel level, I immediately tune him out, as a matter of fact, I’ve stopped watching shows he might be on.
David Aldridge was very good, I’m not an NBA fan, but I was always interested in what he had to say.
Shrill sells, folks. Blowhards get the attention and the reaction; if their at all coherent, it’s a bonus. More understated guys don’t elicit viewer response, so they get sidelined.
This principle works in talk radio and newspundit programming (and even, really, columns and blogs). Naturally, it’s going to work on ESPN.