So...you're saying if we want great sports reporting from a web publication like Grantland then we should pay Comcast for cable?
I think he's being sarcastic or trolling.
Yeah, that doesn't make sense. I dont know how Grantland was doing financially, but its unrelated to cable. In fact, things like Grantland could be viewed as diversifying away from reliance on cable viewers.
Where do you imagine their financing came from?
ESPN just did a round a big layoffs last week and dropping TV revenue was a big reason for that. Grantland was never really expected to turn a big profit and was always the concept car of ESPN's journalism enterprise. It was about branding, prestige, and "doing good work" and was never about money. But when it comes time to lay people off and cut costs, it is hard to justify keeping a project that will continue losing money for the foreseeable future.
Aren't cord cutters the one watching the ESPN app on apple tv roku etc? I blame the ESPN digital guys for not selling the ads on those channels and running house ads constantly, despite ample, growing audiences.
at the very least, comcast could buy the ad space and try to persuade cord cutters on the merits of paying $150+ / mo for stuff you can watch on the internet anyway.
Maybe cordcutters don't need/want ESPN?
ESPN is the reason a lot of people take to long to cut the cord. Fortunately you can watch it online if you have a friend who is still paying for cable.