Skip to main content

ESPN: brought to you by _______

Very sharp observation on ESPN by the cats at Deadspin:

We were just at the ESPN Zone at Downtown Disney this weekend. Played some games and watched a little March Madness. (Top speed on the pitching machine was an embarrassing 58mph. We demand a recount.)

Anyhoo, being at the worldwide leader's SoCal mecca just served to remind us that by and large ESPN may have become a victim of its own success. We remember watching SportCenter back in the day when every other segment wasn't brought to you by a sponsor, they actually put un-telegenic people on the air and didn't seem to have a penchant for hiring people who's only qualification to pontificate on sports seems to be that that they do it loudly.

Perhaps it's the rise of the internet, but we find ourselves not tuning into the four-letter whore so much these days. That, and they still pay Joe Morgan a salary.

Comments

Latigo Flint said…
I really liked it that one time when a lithe, staggering ball carrier could have gone all the way.

Popular posts from this blog

Clay and Adam are a couple of dorks.

But I certainly had nothing to do with this monstosity. Or did I?

Further Evidence of the Demise of Originality

I offer this: I don't object to the poster design. In fact, I kind of like it, although I would have done some things differently. But this marks the 938th time that "Terror has a new name" or some variation thereof has been used to promote a horror film. It's time to retire the line into the cliché wing of the Copywriter's Hall of Fame. Post haste. Further, it doesn't even work in this case. Which name are they talking about? The Jacket? The copy line is near the actor's name, not the title. So does this mean that 'Brody' is the new name of terror? Maybe Knightley is. Her teeth are certainly scary, but I'm not sure they inspire terror in anybody. I think you'd have to be a bit dodgy in the heart to have anything to fear from either of these two. Visually, this poster isn't an improvement on the first two, one of which offered up the ugliest picture yet seen of the not-so-attractive Keira Knightley. The first two were quite

Some things are better left uncovered

Sometimes you hear a cover and go to yourself, "hey, that's doper than Sam Perkins at Woodstock." Other times, you wonder (possibly aloud) "that no talent hack! They couldn't even carry [inset original artist here]'s guitar case!" [Ed. note: You should have seen what the author originally wanted to use as the carried item. Believe us, it wasn't a guitar case.] Today was an example of the second. Some fool whose name I cannot even spare the mental RAM for, has covered "High and Dry" by the esteemed Radiohead. This is up there. With the worst covers of all time. Some songs just don't ever need to be covered. Like this one. And like "It's My Life" by Talk Talk. But No Doubt did a decent job with that one, although they crapped all over it with that video. This one today was bad. When you do a cover, you're supposed to bring something to it. Maybe your sound is similar to the original artist's, an