tyke1doe
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 54,350
- Reaction score
- 32,734
Most people can see this isn't political, but rather, budgetary.
Well... I think most people can see that. Maybe I am wrong.
Not everyone sees it. I think what's at play here is:
Larger salaries vs. smaller salaries
1. Journalists and reporters particularly at ESPN get paid handsomely, including the top guys. That includes salary and benefits. Companies use layoffs to purge the top of the salary structure because salaries and benefits make up more than 50 percent of any company's budget.
Media traditionalists vs. media progressives
2. There are many journalists who are of the old school. They just want to report the stories. They don't want to give their opinions or engage the readers/viewers with opinions because they have been taught to keep their opinions to themselves. The new wave of journalists are very opinionated. And companies in this digital age want more of that engagement. That's one of the reasons I didn't return to journalism after I was laid off. I know I give my opinions here. But I was uncomfortable giving my opinions or engaging readers in the way that it's done today. I don't like this mixing of journalism and opinions. And it's being done more and more not just on the editorial side but in the news reporting.
Brand names vs. non-brand names
3. It's all about who has a brand. Stephen A. Smith has a brand. Skip Bayless has a brand. Scott Van Pelt has a brand. Trent Dilfer does not. Jean-Jacques Taylor does not. Ed Werner does not. They're just commentators, writers, on-air talent - a dime a dozen. If Stephen A. Smith leaves, it will hurt ESPN. If Werner leaves, eh.