I don't like turning tragedies into rallying cries. I'm absolutely torn up, as we all are, about the loss of 43 people aboard the flight that was carrying Lokomotiv to their first game of the season. It hurts the hockey world - and it should upset people in general, regardless of if they're fans or not - to see 43 people die in a heartbeat.
As the hockey world mourns, news organizations are picking up the story. Around 1:00 today, this was the BBC's homepage:
And this is the Worldwide Leader in Sports':
Things more important than the death of 43 people? NFL power rankings, Junior Johnson, and the SEC accepting Texas A&M.
Two hours or so later, at 3:00, this was CNN's main page:
Finally, ESPN decided to update their homepage with the story, last place in their breaking news ticker:
When you go to read that story, and scroll to the comments, you'll notice that in real-time ESPN is deleting comments critical of their (lack of) coverage of this tragedy. What would get them to cover it like it mattered? Did an American have to die? Did this have to be a football team? What defines a tragedy for them - nationality and sport?
I'm not calling for a boycott (though not watching them isn't hard for me - their baseball coverage, while existent, blows), but I am saying that the top sports media outlet in America just got bested by the BBC on a story that they needed to run front and center. What doest that say about ESPN's dedication to sports other than their own pets?
This crash was horrible, but hockey fans need to stop going overboard with the way they attach themselves to the tragedy. Were you really "torn up"? On another message board, I read from countless internetters about how they were "in tears", "holding back tears", or something similar.
ESPN disrespects hockey fans like we're the lowest form of sports fans. We tend to be alright with it -- we don't need them even more than they don't need us. However, this is just disrespectful. ESPN is a joke, and always will be.
First of all, RIP to all who perished in the tragedy and condolences to their loved ones. Second of all, why do hockey fans care so much about ESPN? There were more comments in the ESPN articles about the coverage than the tragedy itself. If you don't like ESPN, then go to them. You guys sound like the loser who keeps trying to get an ex-lover back, and then b!tch to everyone when he/she doesn't give you any attention. There are other media outlets that cover hockey ... what's up with the fascination over ESPN?
ESPN is the most famous and profitable company in the history of media, and is as big as the major sports leagues themselves. They are present at all the major events, and can get any exclusive interview any time they want. All the sports fans in the US consume it, whether it's TV, radio, print, or internet. ESPN is the "worldwide leader" in sports. They have coverage priorities, and they have obligations, both journalistically and financially, to cover the biggest stories first. Face it, the NHL is very low on that totem pole, and a Russian hockey team with ex-NHL players on it is even lower. Baseball, basketball, and football is what ESPN's customers want, that's what they will deliver first.
If the hockey story received as many hits as the stories on Peyton Manning's neck, the Texas A&M football team, the Braves-Phillies game, the tweet by Nyjer Morgan, etc., then the hockey story would get the same placement. If you owned a music store, and guitars and violins were flying off the shelves, and very few cellos were selling, you wouldn't be wasting window space on cellos, would you? Seriously, hockey fans need to back off ESPN for their own good. SportsCenter, PTI, Around the Horn, and others are highly-rated and very profitable shows. I don't think ESPN wants to lose loads of viewers who want baseball, basketball, and football coverage in favor of a handful of viewers who want hockey coverage.
ESPN is run by people who are bitter about hockey leaving for another channel. They've done everything they can to spite hockey by denying it any coverage unless it's something negative. Great examples are PTI and Around the Horn, where they cover every accidental head shot like it's the end of the world but only give the entire first round of the playoffs 30 seconds to do quick, baseless predictions.
BTW, just to prove this point even more, ESPN covered Sidney Crosby's press conference more than this tragedy, and all they did was make ridiculous statements about this being the beginning of the end for Crosby and that hockey will never recover from it.
Agreed. I turned on Sportscenter around ten in the morning to get any possible news I could but they were talking about football. The crash wasn't even listed among the upcoming stories and the ticker's breaking news was about Peyton Manning with not a word about the crash. This isn't even a "no hockey news on ESPN" complaint. It's an "ESPN has no soul" complaint.
It's "funny," in that one of the things I remember most about 9/11(/01) is what a remarkable job ESPN *spit* did in covering each and every angle of the events of that day as an actual news organization that had reporters on the ground coast-to-coast.
Puck Daddy should also apologize for using a random file photo of a different plane crash! Much worse! At least Puck Daddy kept the comments there pointing it out in their initial post, but they never offered a correction or apology in the blog post before they switched to an AP photo.
@ChrisLau12 Handful of viewers, hardly.
As I said above, we do not need ESPN, and they do not need us. However, when you are the self-proclaimed "WORLDwide leader in sports", it would be logical for you to not only burden yourself with top news stories in American sports, as is your main goal, but to also cover events which are truly newsworthy in the entire sports world, not just the smaller worlds of the various "American" sports.
@SeanLombard SOOOO TRUE!! I witnessed the same thing yesterday. & it happens day-in & day-out. I've excepted that ESPN disassociates with hockey. But to turn a cold shoulder on this is disgraceful . . . reprehensible.