East Coast Bias

In the time since she took over as ESPN ombudsman, Le Anne Schreiber has provided what I feel are excellent columns that offer important critique of ESPN’s practices. I often wonder about the degree to which the network is addressing the issues that she is raising and I wonder whether or not having an ombudsman who levels these critiques is just a way of attempting to pacify those of us who voice significant concerns about the network’s practices. I end up wondering if ESPN uses this as a cover, allowing themselves to say that they address this because they have a forum that does so, while in reality their practices see little change. Still, it is nice to have at least have someone stating some of the issues that Schreiber brings up. For an archive of her columns, see here.

In last week’s column, Schreiber examined bias—particularly East Coast bias—in ESPN coverage. Ultimately, she concludes that the bias is not so much an explicit bias toward the East Coast as it is a bias toward the continuing promotion of superstars. As Schreiber puts it, “To my mind, if there is collusion at ESPN across platforms and programs, it is in the creation, maintenance and promotion of superstars with the potential for crossover appeal among diehard and casual fans and followers of popular culture.”

I don’t disagree with Schreiber’s ultimate conclusion. I would, though, suggest that more needs to be said on East Coast bias in sports coverage (and perhaps in national news coverage outside of sports as well). Perhaps one of the reasons Schreiber’s analysis does not address this so fully is her specific focus on ESPN’s own practices, rather than on industry-wide practices within which ESPN works but that also apply far beyond ESPN. That’s fine, given that Schreiber’s mission in the columns is to look specifically at ESPN; although, in saying that’s “fine,” it is very important to acknowledge the context of her analysis and her column and, in the process, recognize the importance of looking beyond ESPN to the industry in general.

One such place to look to the industry in general would be to examine more deeply the politics and ramifications of what Schreiber calls the “‘best story’ factor.” We might look more fully at how industry definitions of what constitutes the “best story” have historically been defined (and subsequently taught to reporters, editorialists, and other industry professionals). As part of that process, we might look at the biases that are contained with those definitions—including any East Coast bias that may be a part of that. For instance, using the example of coverage of baseball (which Schreiber uses extensively in the column for the basis of her examination), any “best story” that is designated as such because it draws on historical rivalries is bound to have a bias toward the Eastern United States because until the 1950s, no baseball team existed any further west than St. Louis.

Additionally, one of the most fundamental places in which we see East Coast bias in sport is in how national outlets for sports news present the standings of the professional sports that they cover. On a local level, the division or conference of the local team is often featured first. So, for instance, in Ohio, Central Division standings often appear first in the standings in newspapers or other sports news outlets. Similarly, in Arizona, Western Division standings come first. (Though, notably, after putting the “home” division at the top, many of these local outlets revert to the national standard for the remaining divisions.) On the national level, divisions and conferences for professional sports are almost always placed from east to west, thus embodying the idea that the east comes first and that the further west you go, the less important you are in the hierarchy of sports news.

These two examples suggest that the issue of East Coast bias in sports coverage has a number of deeper levels that deserve fuller examination.

Yet, even as I have offered this critique of Schreiber’s column, I remain a big fan of her columns in general. I would encourage everyone who has an interest in sports to read her columns for the significant insights that they offer. I also do not argue against her claims about the role of promoting superstars in driving ESPN sports coverage … indeed, I think she has a very good and a very important point. However, I think the issue of East Coast bias needs more examination.