risco;2486519 said:
:laugh1:
Because some of you may have a heart attack. I can honestly say that my mindset is a whole lot better these days since I know longer look at ESPN for nothing. Perhaps, some of you should too, jmho.
And btw, this so call valley ranch drama- it's all to do about nothing. The ESPN crew have sucked most of you in, good luck finding a piece of mind.
A long, long time ago... on a forum far, far away (and here too)... I used to start threads which illustrated how
ESPN would unfairly focus their reporting from a leaguewide standpoint to one that narrowed exclusively onto the Cowboys. Even a media source which labels itself the, "Entertainment Sports Programming Network" should not restrict its "entertainment" coverage to basically one out of 32 teams. In my opinion, that remains a very bad operational philosophy for
ESPN, even though I must acknowledge that it's also highly profitable for them.
However, I never questioned whether or not their factual reporting shouldn't be debated because of their willingness to sensationalize other events. That is the issue here, namely, what is or isn't being reported correctly as fact.
Even if 99% of fluff can be thrown out with the rest of the trash, 1% of fact is still 1% truth. I can watch
ESPN because I'm patient enough to sift through their dirt to see gold being reported by their network from time-to-time. Frustrated? Maybe. Patient? Yes. Everything which
ESPN reports isn't an exaggeration or a lie, but some claim that everything broadcast by them is stretched or a falsehood. Neither is that the case nor can it be used as a justification for not watching that particular network.