Hacker News Reader

Comment by mark-ruwt | Hacker News Reader

"If you see any article that tries to blame ESPN’s economic struggles on the 'liberal' tilt of the network, use those to line your birdcage. First, it’s not true. Second, it seems to be a reaction to the fact that ESPN actually has a laudable commitment to diversity and putting women, black people, and people of color in a position to actually talk about sports. This sends the alt-right sewers of the Internet and their minions at publications like the National Review into fits of hysterics. It’s an unserious argument made by unserious people."

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-espn-layoffs-are-s...

View on HN

We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14234881.

The Nation is not exactly a great source to use on this particular topic. It also has virtually nothing to do with the "alt-right" I know a lot of moderate people that stopped watching ESPN simply because sports is an escape and ESPN has attempted to make it not one. I guess "the alt-right" is now what the left is using on everyone on the right because people associate it with racism. To be fair, the alt-right is entrenched in racism...but that's not the National Review, nor is it conservatism or libertarianism. It's like when people on the "right" call everyone on the left a Communist. Not even remotely true, though some are. Blanket statements and broad categorization of political views is not good for political discourse, it's actually part of the problem, imo.

> The Nation is not exactly a great source to use on this particular topic

Agreed, they have a clear bias.

> I know a lot of moderate people that stopped watching ESPN

How many? 10? A statistically significant number?

I grant you it's an anecdote, but I think there are poll numbers to support that people tend to shy away from sports broadcasts that are more political. I believe they did polling on Colin Kaepernick and his effect on NFL ratings. I can't find a direct ESPN study, but I can link you to tons of articles of them being political and generally left leaning.

> I can link you to tons of articles of them being political and generally left leaning

Isn't that falling into the trap of repetition = truth? People repeat falsehood and rumors as much as the truth, and they rarely check the facts. Humans are hardwired to follow social norms not verify facts - e.g., the scientific method didn't arise for thousands of years, and takes great discipline - if everyone is repeating something, that becomes the norm. Propaganda campaigns, some that lead people to far more awful things than criticizing ESPN, rely on it.

I can find a ton of articles and far more online posts saying that the science of climate change is inconclusive, but that's not true. (And a related point: For thousands of years humanity had misconceptions about nature; everyone repeated them; but they weren't true.)

That's why I'm interested in a factual basis, but not in what people repeat. If they are repeating something factual, then there will be a basis for it.

> I think there are poll numbers to support that people tend to shy away from sports broadcasts that are more political

That would be valuable. But I'd like to see it (and it depends on the definition of political).

No, I mean I can link you to ESPN published articles that are overtly political. I don't mean to say that I can link you to a blog article claiming it's political.

Would you consider Linda Cohn, who has anchored more SportsCenter editions than anybody in ESPN history [1], an "unserious" person?

[1]: http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sports/news/linda-cohn-spo...

For the record, the correct ideological slur for the National Review is "neocon", not "alt-right".

What a ridiculous quote. I like how if you think that ESPN has become politicized you're a racist and a misogynist. And likely a member of the alt-right, I guess. Not surprising from The Nation of course, which is for the feeble minded.

ESPN stated they're becoming more political. That they're going to focus more on how culture and politics intersects with sports.

>This sends the alt-right sewers of the Internet and their minions at publications like the National Review into fits of hysterics.

Calling the National Review alt-right is an affront to the English language.

The National Review made a famous issue "Against Trump" and constantly has editors slamming Trump and "the new right." The "new right" is actually the "alt-right." Trump himself openly attacked the editors and everyone that is Alt-Right essentially despises the publication. The Nation doesn't even pretend to approach things objectively.

Agreed; as someone posted above, the correct ideological slur for the National Review is "neocon".

And I doubt anyone at the National Review would consider that a slur.

Well to be precise the National Review is referred to as a minion of the alt-right. Also it's a quote from the Nation so, as a liberal I think they shouldn't have wasted the keystrokes.

No. You are mistaken.

The National Review is a vociferous opponent of the alt-right, and has been since the beginning of that movement. The National Review is American conservative small government. The alt-right is European-style nationalist big government.

The National Review has opposed President Trump from the beginning for this reason. Its editors, perhaps most notably Bill Kristol [0], has been a leading voice for the Never Trump conservative movement.

[0]: http://www.nationalreview.com/author/william-kristol

The National Review is not alt-right. Don't believe me, read it and decide where it fits on the spectrum of things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com