ESPN: Not Playing Hardball Anymore

ESPN's presentations--the funny promotional ads, the energy, the explosive graphics--are almost enough to make me wish I actually cared about sports. Even the opening panel in ESPN's morning, about NASCAR--which I should have identified with having survived the slog up the 110 to Pasadena list night--didn't quite do the trick for me, however. Broadcasting legend Brent Musberger, on stage for the panel, marvelled at the number of laptops he saw in the audience. I hope he will take no personal offense to learn that I was using mine, at least part of the time, to check stock quotes.

I do care about TV series, though, so I was eager to see clips from the summer miniseries, The Bronx Is Burning, based on the Jonathan Mahler book about how the 1977 New York Yankees became a shining light for a city suffering through a blackout and the Son of Sam killings. The series looks promising, with John Turturro as manager Billy Martin, Oliver Platt as George Steinbrenner (he may finally have found a part he can't overact) and Daniel Sunjata of Rescue Me as Reggie Jackson. (Only Sunjata showed up for the panel.)

But I was surprised to see ESPN describing The Bronx Is Burning as the network's "most ambitious" scripted show ever. I think most critics would consider that title to belong to Playmakers--the outstanding, scathing pro-football series a few years back that critics loved, audiences watched, and ESPN cancelled--essentially, because the NFL hated its portrayal of steroid and drug use. Since most of the (mostly male) TV writers in the room actually seemed to know something about sports and asked questions involving points of baseball history, I took it on myself to ask the party-pooping question: were Bronx (and Ruffian, an inspirational horse-racing movie coming up) indications that ESPN's scripted shows had to be more positive about the sports they covered, post-Playmakers?

To his credit, ESPN senior VP Ron Semiao gave me a straight answer: Yes. "Playmakers was a work of fiction," he said, "and it upset a very important rights-holder." I was surprised, having spent years hearing TV execs weasel out off questions like this. But maybe they just prefer their straight talk in the sports world; or, maybe in the sports world, where there's a more collusive relationship between the networks and the leagues they cover, there's just not as much shame in rolling over to appease a big partner.

Either way, kudos for ESPN for being unafraid to tell the ugly truth. Except on, you know, the actual shows.