A Cubs-Sinclair Partnership May Be Cause for Concern
It’s been long known that the Chicago Cubs would likely form their own regional sports network (RSN) after their partnership with the White Sox, Bulls, Blackhawks, and Comcast ends at the conclusion of the 2019 season. The news that the White Sox, Bulls, and Blackhawks would stick with Comcast, as reported by Bruce Levine, left the Cubs needing their own partner for a new network. The specific details vary, with the Sun-Times reporting the Cubs had agreed to a deal with Sinclair Broadcast Group while Bruce Levine indicated Sinclair were merely frontrunners, with Jon Greenberg hearing the same. In addition to the Cubs, Sinclair is also in the bidding to buy 15 more FOX RSNs. That should worry Major League Baseball, but perhaps not just for the reasons many think it should.
Sinclair has been in the news most recently for its political leanings. According to FOX Business, Sinclair “control(s) more than 200 stations in over 100 local markets. The local media empire was built on snapping up these stations around the country and adding an extra element of right-wing commentary to its programming.” The company has come under fire for its content practices across those affiliates and been defended by the President for the same. Those content-based criticisms are surely a concern for many, but their business model also presents a separate potential issue for baseball. While baseball is trying to expand its reach and ensure young people have access to the sport, Sinclair is tied to an older model that could threaten massive carriage fee disputes and blackouts for fans in local markets.
The vast majority of the Sinclair-owned stations are the traditional, over-the-air networks like FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the CW. Anyone with an an antenna and in range of the broadcast tower can view those networks for free, but cable and satellite providers aren’t allowed to simply broadcast those networks. Instead, cable providers must pay a retransmission fee to broadcast those networks on their cable packages (here’s a primer on retransmission fees). Sinclair has leveraged those fees in the past and been a part of the largest blackout in television history.
The biggest issues with Sinclair’s retransmission fees occurred in the lead-up to its eventual purchase of the Tennis Channel. Back in 2015, Dish Network, which has had its fair share of carriage fees disputes, indicated that it had reached agreement to broadcast 129 Sinclair-owned stations, but was being blacked out due to Sinclair’s attempt to gain leverage in its carriage negotiation with an unnamed cable network it was planning to purchase. Roughly five million Dish customers went without local programming.
In 2016, Sinclair bought the Tennis Channel, which was then available in about 30 million homes, and said it planned to pair negotiation for that channel with its broadcast networks. For the most part, the plan worked. The Tennis Channel now has roughly 55 million subscribers while nearly every other cable channel has been seeing its numbers drop. But those increases did not come without collateral damage. In addition to the previous Dish Network blackout:
- In the beginning of 2017, Frontier Communications and Sinclair could not agree to a deal in a dispute that affected customers in the Pacific Northwest.
- In September, failure by Sinclair and Hulu to reach an agreement led CBS corporate to undercut Sinclair in markets with a Sinclair CBS affiliate.
- PsVue and Sinclair couldn’t reach an agreement earlier this year.
Sinclair’s attempt to buy half the regional sports networks offering baseball comes on the heels of a failed merger with the Tribune Company that might have meant an even greater reach of local broadcast networks, including those in Chicago and New York. That deal failed when the FCC determined that approving the merger would violate the law that caps the percentage of households into which one owner can broadcast. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai found fault with some of the sales Sinclair proposed to bring it under that cap, saying the sale “would allow Sinclair to control those stations in practice, even if not in name, in violation of the law.” Tribune Media Company has since sued Sinclair for the part they played in halting the deal.
A deal for the Fox RSNs would not require FCC approval, as they are cable channels, but would fall under anti-trust regulations. The problem for baseball is less the federal regulations, and more in how Sinclair would negotiate carriage fees. Of the cities with Fox RSNs, Sinclair owns local stations in Minneapolis, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Milwaukee. They also own stations in a whole host of smaller markets in Michigan, Ohio, California, Texas, Georgia, Florida, and New York. It’s not difficult to imagine how Sinclair might attempt to leverage retransmission fees to extract even more money for the RSNs. With few exceptions, RSNs have had little difficulty gaining entrance to cable providers basic digital package. This isn’t a situation analogous to the Tennis Channel, as the RSNs are already in a large percentage of homes. But if Sinclair raises the price higher than providers are willing to pay, disputes become more likely.
We could also see the RSNs used as leverage to gain greater access for the Tennis Channel; Sinclair could make getting an RSN on cable contingent on the provider accepting the Tennis Channel as well. Both situations would find the RSNs that broadcast baseball games caught in the middle of disputes having very little to do with the popularity of the sport or the desire of fans to watch baseball. While carriage disputes are in some respects inevitable, the results, with the Dodgers being the prime example, can be messy and deprive fans of access to the game and limit the number of new fans the sport can draw. With Sinclair potentially owning the rights to the broadcasts of 16 teams in 16 different markets, might they let a dispute drag out in Cincinnati or San Diego if they thought they could get a better deal in large-market Dallas?
As baseball moves forward, it’s imperative that it avoid these types of disputes, particularly as its audience grows older. Sinclair’s current difficulties negotiating with newer streaming platforms like Hulu and PSVue could be a warning sign that the company will likely cling to its older methods of extracting revenue from customers, and disputes could get worse as the number of cable subscribers shrink. That would be bad news for baseball as it tries to reach the consumers who are ditching cable for these streaming services.
Disney is in the process of buying a large number of Fox Entertainment assets. In order to receive regulatory approval for that purchase, it agreed to sell Fox’s RSNs to ensure that Disney, which owns ESPN, wouldn’t control too much of the cable sports market. The first round of bids was just received and were apparently underwhelming, coming in below the more than $20 billion expected price. According to reports, Sinclair is currently in the driver’s seat to purchase the RSNs if all of the networks are sold as one. It’s possible the RSNs aren’t worth the $20 billion, as initial estimates proposed, but a large part of that misestimation could be because MLB has said it retains control of the digital streaming rights, leaving any potential buyer with an uncertain future and more negotiations to contend with. It could be that at some point, MLB joins the fray in bidding for these networks, so as to easily combine streaming and broadcast rights, but it seems likely they would prefer someone else pay for that guarantee. In the end, Fox may attempt to buy back the stations they’ve sold, but if the highest bidder ends up being Sinclair, it could be in the league’s best interest to make their own bid and ensure a bigger say in controlling its own future. There is considerable risk in making such a purchase, but Sinclair’s track record indicates there is also significant risk in letting it control who gets to watch baseball across the country.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Oh, Sinclair. Scaring 90-somethings everywhere with a nightly “Terror Watch Desk”, because the first ten minutes of a local news channel and its murder and fire of the day isn’t enough.
I don’t like this company in general, but even if it weren’t trying to scare people for ratings, it seems like a bad idea to let one company control more than half the MLB markets. A nice TV contract isn’t worth shutting fans out of the game; the case is well made above for why you might expect to see tactics that lead to blackouts.
If you’re dealing with very large carriers such as AT&T, Comcast, RCN, then it probably helps having scale to compete with these carriers who dominate many markets. It’s akin to a CPG company buying adjacent brands so they can get better slotting in negotiating with very large grocery store chains. The Cubs run a smart operation. I’m sure they compared this to other options and found this fit their needs best.
“In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies; today, 90% is controlled by just 6 companies.” (Business Insider, 6/4/2012)
This isn’t a good thing. Antitrust law was written 130 years ago, because Standard Oil and railroad barons. Monopolies are generally bad news for a free market, and in the case of broadcast media, they mean that fewer and fewer power brokers control the traditional media. It’s a double whammy of information dissemination, on top of it being in our interest to ensure fair business practices, or to try to. This, to me, is quite a bit more potentially harmful to society at large than a few thousand minor league baseball players not subject to labor law on account of an exemption from the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The FCC removed a number of regulations last fall which make acquiring broadcast and print media companies easier than it already was. Nobody gets to vote on the FCC or whatever it decides to do. Many places in the US have only one choice for internet/TV; there was no Comcast alternate where I last lived. The law was written so a competitor wouldn’t *have* to David/Goliath a giant carrier, but I also think your example would make more sense if the Sinclair (or whoever) company trying to buy up RSN’s wasn’t also a Goliath.
“In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies; today, 90% is controlled by just 6 companies.” (Business Insider, 6/4/2012)
You talk about Sinclair scaring 90-year-olds and you allow yourself to be scared by supposed “concentration” in the media business. In 1983, you had something like 10 or 12 channels to watch. Now, we have 100’s with plenty of over-the-top providers. Not just NetFlix, Amazon, Disney, and HBO, but from networks and providers all over the world. We are awash in television entertainment choices. Not sure what your fear about concentration is all about.
It’s also amusing how Fangraphs alternates weekly between “If incidence A keeps occurring, Baseball is in grave danger since young minorities won’t watch” and “Baseball’s business is exploding so why isn’t (mediocre free agent) getting a $200M contract?”
You have 100’s of channels…all owned by the same 6 parent companies.
Plus all the OtP providers. How many companies do we need? How fragmented does the market need to be to satisfy you? Do people want a la carte ordering of channel by channel or do we prefer just having a relatively cheap big cable bundle? Meanwhile has the elimination of Net Neutrality (which now simply allows carriers to charge more for more data usage) hurt anything?
I think people are allowing left-wing outlets to scare you all silly. Turn off your TV, keep your phone in your pocket. Take a walk, get some fresh air. It’s all going to be OK.
You are confusing content variety with market fragmentation, which are two completely different issues. Consumer choice has basically no bearing on monopolistic practices.
I am pretty sure that if you ran on a platform of nothing but “we will make sure you get to watch things on TV without paying for the Tennis Channel” you would get a ton of votes. Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure that the media–well aware of what it would mean for their cartel-like business model and that it would require numerous antitrust prosecutions–would either ignore it or wage full-scale war on it.
A merger of the TV Rights Party and the Rent is Too Damn High Party would get my vote
I was expecting the usual automatic opposition to Sinclair because it’s a conservative network and liberals always attack and demean any such network on sight, but I was pleased to see some logical arguments supporting opposition made.
On the other hand, it is reassuring to see that there have been no such pleasant surprises from Johnaton.
getting real tired of false equivalence and being told to respect both sides I’m not going to respect an outlet just because it “provides an alternative worldview” or whatever. people should dump on sinclair because it pushes fear and xenophobia.
If it were a conservative viewpoint presented in an intelligent and logical manner, then they would have earned my respect. This “both sides” garbage is nonsense. Not every opinion deserves respect or a platform.
This cannot by upvoted enough.
What’s that quote?
“If one person says it’s raining and another person says it is sunny, a journalist’s job is not to quote them both. It is to look out the window and see which is true.”
I don’t know anyone in their 20s who subscribes to satellite or cable tv. It’s a dying business model.
Must be all that avocado toast
I just upvoted for the name
If there is another way to watch in market baseball please enlighten. It is the only reason I have cable.
SlingTV
Politics everywhere I go
The hazards of living in a polis.
The Left thinks politics (and especially its awful identity politics) absolutely must be inserted into everything. Hence we get political comments on ESPN and even on baseball analytic websites like this one.
I long for the days when Fangraphs was politics-free.
Seems to me you’re inserting politics when you claim to know what the “left” thinks.
Craig Edwards inserted politics into this piece for no apparent reason. Also elements of the left are constantly bleeting so it’s kind of hard not to know what they are thinking.
People who blather on about some mythical, monolithic left should not be taken seriously. And going with the subset “elements of the left” is akin to saying nothing. If you can’t make a point without it being tied completely to the idea of “the left,” then you don’t have a point.
If you weren’t on the Left, you’d understand the Left very differently. You take your privilege for granted.
The reason is very apparent: Sinclair uses its broadcast outlets to push a political message of its choice and it’s not unthinkable they’d decide to exercise veto power over say, how Addison Russell is covered or whether or not teams are quietly colluding on suppressing free agent salaries.
Of course, the more honest take here is you’re upset that what you consider *liberal* politics are being inserted into the matter, not politics in general, because it highlights conservative views are very much political and not mere facts of life that can go unquestioned.
Folks like Johnston complain about “politics” being inserted into baseball but baseball has never ever been non-political (everything from the national anthem before games to integration to labor negotiations to anti-trust considerations to broadcast rights have a political aspect to them) and folks like him really don’t oppose politics in baseball. They’re upset that politics *they don’t like* are being discussed because it makes them uncomfortable. They’d be perfectly happy if baseball players or owners agreed with them and they’re perfectly happy if other people are made uncomfortable by their politics being espoused.
And frankly, considering the reaction some people have to baseball being “political” it’s absolutely relevant to mention that Sinclair is primarily known for using its media outlets to explicitly push a particular brand of politics. To argue otherwise is to not really have a problem with politics overall but merely a certain kind.
So the Republican strategy of spend like crazy on handouts for the rich anytime your in power, and then cry about the deficit you created, while complaining any time the other side tries to do anything that helps the average citizen, really seems to be working.
Congress with an 18% approval constantly refuses to take up legislation that has 70%+ public support(common sense universal backround checks! Like why shouldnt you have to be able to pass a background check to acquire any gun. Either you always need a background check or you never do pick one there is no middle ground), and in the time when they control all the chambers and the white house they cant pass a single piece of legislation outside of a giant corporate tax cut that does shit for everyone else(See how much you saved this spring).. All those stock buybacks propped the market up until this month and now the shit hits the fan. The Republican party is literally the dog that chased the car and caught it, now they have no fucking clue what to do. Once they couldn’t just throw token talking points legislation at the wall that they knew would be instantly vetoed they had no idea what to do. Govern much? Oh wait Kansas a R+23 state that just elected the first Dem Governor in forever knows what Republican policy in action looks like and they said HELL NO get that shit away.
Fundamental fact Republicans miss. You cant spend, cut taxes, and keep the deficit down! The math does not work, now deficit spending on things like infrastructure usually has enough economic benefit to return more value over the medium term then it costs in debt, and debt services (interest). This is what the fucking New Deal was, its why so many New Deal programs were building Dams, Highways, Bridges, Ports. Those types of things pay for themselves eventually and create jobs and economic stimulas in the short term.
But in Republicans nakedly blatant power grab in Wis where they are trying to overrule the will of the voters by curbing the power of the winner of a free and fair election. One thing that they are doing is stopping Evers from having power over the Foxconn deal where Wis a 0% corporate tax state is paying 4B in order to get a factory built that is now providing 20% of the projected jobs it was initially reported to. The deal is so bad Walker and the Republicans refused to mention it during the campaign, and it cost reps from that part of the state seats. The end cost per job created in terms of corporate handouts to Foxconn it will cost Wis 235,000-324,000 per job created and will take in the neighbor hood of 100+ years to payback the upfront investment. Yet this is ok for the Republican party, grasp at any last chance at stealing power for a little longer, so you can pay back the corporate fat cats and get yourself a little cushier landing once your inevitably voted out of office.
This is literally socialism in its worst most corrupt form where the company is the one getting the welfare, and you could just as easily allocate all 4B to public works projects creating far more jobs and economic benefit. Its funny how R’s hate socialism but love to keep making outdated military hardware that is flushing money down the toilet because it employs to many people to cut. Its rank social welfare where the MI companies take a huge cut because they can afford to pay lobbyists. If we want to do some socialist style welfare programs we could at least call it what it is and spend the money as wisely as possible instead of just lining corporate pockets.
Be glad that more people are civically engaged, and that power hungry politicians cant just pull one over on the unsuspecting public.
So, then the grand compromise should be that if politics can never find its way into baseball, then baseball can never find its way into politics. Unfortunately, people like John Kerry have insisted and will continue to insist upon “trying to relate to the working man” by cheering on “Manny Ortez”, so I guess we have to suffer through, what, reading about economics, law and market analysis on a site analyzing a sport run by front offices doing the same thing.
My favorite “Sammy Sousa and Mike McGwire” the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Yes politicians will always insert themselves into sports (baseball especially), doesn’t mean we have to do so, although its a protected right. Personally I enjoy sports as a refuge, but realize unfortunately politics creeps into all aspects of life.
So, then the grand compromise should be that if politics can never find its way into baseball, then baseball can never find its way into politics. Unfortunately, people like John Kerry have insisted and will continue to insist upon “trying to relate to the working man” by cheering on “Manny Ortez”, so I guess we have to suffer through, what, reading about economics, law and market analysis on a site dedicated to analyzing a sport run by front offices that surely are doing more than none of that. How exactly would there not be overlap?
Ah yes, “The Good Ol Days ™”. Glad someone busted out this ol chestnut to provide some insight on things.
Amen. This is why I have went from checking this site 5 times a day and reading every word to checking it once a week and probably eventually once a month. A lot of this is due to talent drain, but all the subtle digs and Mr. Edwards not so subtle dig has worn me out.
I have SOME conservative leanings so I know I am a nazi, bigot, racist, homophobe, etc. I also understand being this way I should not be heard and my opinions are awful and should not be a part of the conversation.
Baseball should be an escape, but this is appelman’s company not mine.
Exactly, the political nature of Sinclair had nothing to do with the actual article itself, so why was it even mentioned?
Major League Baseball is a brand and surely is aware of those concerns, whether it plays into its decision making or not.
Because it is just one of the major controversies related to that shit hole business they run!
What controvers? Is there a part 2 of this article I missed?
They want to own every single station in America if they could and they force shit content on the local news casts of every station.
I was waiting for it to become relevant but it never did. It was like a weird side-jab for the sake of political opinion.
The rest of the article was well reasoned and relevant.
Did you vote? Are you well informed? Literally your only responsibility when it boils right down in return for all the benefits and freedoms of America is to behave like a responsible citizen, and stay informed while participating in your civic duty of voting!
Man, I bet our communities would be in a lot better shape if we felt obligated to serve, even if it didn’t mean putting on army boots.
Look at how many EU nations have mandatory service where its military or civic. Make high school grads serve in some way for 2 years before college, and then people attending college will act more like real adults. Spend 2 years partying in your off hours while working for the US in your on, no homework and shit for a while, take a break get a better sense of yourself then decide what you want to do as a career.
Does your user name come from the fact that you are 477 years old?
This is a very nice job laying things out, I just wanted to add one thing, which is political by nature but not aimed at Sinclair. As the content provider and delivery industry contracts, more and more disputes on acquisition are going to end up in the regulator’s hand to determine how much concentration is too much. When the politics gets intense, as it increasingly has, you are more likely to see disparate application of the laws, with sports programming access being less important than news and editorial content. Regulators may be more inclined to insist on harsher divestment terms from “unfriendly” sellers than from those more ideologically aligned. And since sports programming can be very profitable, it can be seen as an economic buffer for purchasing more marginal stations where major editorial changes are planned (and promised).
“When the politics gets intense, as it increasingly has, you are more likely to see disparate application of the laws”
What’s menage a trois, or, that is
What is sex when you have three people?
What are laws if they ain’t fair and equal?
Pro tip from Q-Tip
The Low End Theory is one of the greatest hip hop albums of all time! TCQ
Were already so far past to much concentration 3 major alcohol companies, one search engine, one main social network in the gen 1 style.
Great article Craig. I have no idea why the Cubs would want to partner with a trash ass gas station like Sinclair. I loved the dinosaur as a kid but my god the company has gone completely downhill.
Sinclair is a station which is ideologically aligned with Cubs ownership based upon donations. Worth mentioning?
That second paragraph specifically mentions the political leanings of Sinclair and, as the reader, I was waiting for how that information tied into the rest of the article. It didn’t, but your comment would have been useful info for the article.
I was just thinking this shitty option (for fans and perhaps democracy) might not be an accident is all.
Are controversies involving the subject the author is about to discuss not relevant to a piece about it? When NPR was doing stories on the Louis CK of the week last winter, they would mention at the end of each piece the own allegations their now former senior VP for news was facing. It was tangentially related to the given story, but it also might have been stranger to omit it. I felt that choice was made in the interest of journalistic credibility in reporting on those stories.
I also think no one has mentioned that Craig quotes from Fox Business in the paragraph that some readers did not appreciate. It suggests to me that the information included is a generally acceptable overview into parts of both major political spheres. It may have been stranger to omit Sinclair’s prominence in today’s US since Craig moved on to cover several examples of how Sinclair’s business practices could have negative effects for the sport and/or for specific media markets within the sport. I would have been more concerned from an objectivity standpoint had the information been sourced from a left wing think tank or something. It’s a major broadcast news network and leans right, to put it gently, with the editorial programming.
Baseball is so entrenched in our culture and has been a staple of many different eras of controversy, social upheaval, etc. American issues have bled into baseball throughout its history, and as a reader I certainly don’t mind the writers treading into waters that clearly overlap with the institution of the sport today. I would actually argue from a product standpoint that you could just as easily see it as a point of differentiation from other outlets.
It’s probably the case every the ownership of every team in MLB is probably ideologically aligned with Sinclair’s ownership, so it probably isn’t worth pointing out.
I don’t know the political leanings of most professional sports team owners. I know that the co-owner of the Cubs is currently the Finance Chair of the Republican National Committee and his family spent millions to run some of the nastiest, most divisive ads of 2016 (a monumental accomplishment) during the same week the Cubs won their first WS in a century. It’s definitely worth pointing out. There are very few team owners as politically active as the Ricketts on either side of the aisle, perhaps none.
Will Iowa residents be able to legally watch Cubs baseball, or will [they] have to resort to other means? Blackout rules are so antiquated. But ‘Baseball’ loves being out of touch with reality and seeking short term gains at the cost of long term viewership gains.
[Cubs fans in a large part] became fans because access to viewership was incredibly easy: WGN was included in most basic cable packages. Is there any likelihood that this new partnership will have the same open access and help create a new generation of fans? I doubt it. MLB is shooting itself in the foot keeping a status quo in these regional TV deals.
I never thought I’d see the day a national carrier was blacked out. But I’ve seen it a lot in the last few years. If anything these blackouts are getting worse. Maybe we need to man up like hockey fans that bought Center Ice and were blacked out did.
I know for a fact Cleveland games are blacked out in Iowa even with MLB subscriptions. I work with a guy who’s crazy about them. He use to live in Columbus. The only way he can watch around here is by less than reputable means. Boxing tried to go full pay-per-view and look at it. You can’t isolate yourself from your fans and expect to make money.
I was really hoping (pipe dreaming) the Cubs would break the mold with their newfound broadcasting freedom. They could (technologically) easily leverage the MLB.tv platform as their main broadcast format by adding commercials. They could sell the local market to OTA broadcasters, remove all blackouts, sell national and localized commercial time, and charge the single-team MLB.tv subscription.
I guess many of us will have to continue to get blacked out content via alternative outlets.
I would challenge Fangraphs to more carefully consider its goals in articles like these that tackle something like a broadcast rights issue and force in some light-handed political commentary at the expense of the news-worthiness of the content. It’s becomming more and more common at Fangraphs and I think it’s starting to damage the product.
I would challenge you to say what you’d actually like to say.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chicago-cubs-owner-todd-ricketts-republican-committee-finance/story?id=52738979
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/24/trump-sinclair-tribune-fcc-merger-710364
https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local-tv-owner-turned-its-news-anc-1824233490
https://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/friday-letters-ricketts-support-of-trump-sours-cubs-success/
There are a lot of reasons the Cubs might be into Sinclair. It’s worth looking at. Not to mention Trump has publicly threatened the Ricketts as a family who “has a lot to hide”.
Yes, how dare these people at FanGraphs give free access to a high quality product while allowing some of their political leanings to be shared. If you’re going to give me your product for free, you should keep your politics to yourself!
“How dare these people.”
You know what a strawman comment is right? I said the product suffers for it. Never did I say what they were allowed to do or what they’re doing is shameful. Don’t be dishonest.
Just so you know, I don’t want conservative viewpoints featured in articles either when not relevant. Are you saying you’d be happy to see that? Do you want Mel Gipson talking about illegal immigration and tax rates when he gets Oscars? I don’t. I can say at least that I am consistent in my desire to see baseball experts focuse on baseball content. Their political opinion is more more valuable than yours, mine, Tom Brady’s, or Natalie Portman’s.
If the conservative viewpoint is well-reasoned and makes you think, sure, it would be good, like everything else on FanGraphs makes you think. If your idea of a conservative viewpoint is the drunken rantings of Mel Gibson, however, then, no, that would not be good, but not because it’s political or, horrors, allegedly conservative (why is fact-free hatred considered conservative?), but because it’s stupid and irrational. Hopefully, you can tell the qualitative difference between politically-tinged commentary by Craig Edwards and the simplistic drivel that came out of Mel Gibson’s mouth.
(1) Our chimp species has dumb all over (and a little ugly on the side). I’d be turned off if this was yet another place where we act like this whole damn species isn’t full of dumb, and one subsection of our dumb sample somehow has a monopoly on all the damn dumb out there. Even us Smarts are pretty damn dumb.
(2) An epic moment in televised baseball history was when Denis Leary and Lenny Clark joined the Red Sox booth shortly after Mel got sloshed, learned Kevin Youkilis was Jewish, ripped on Mel all inning, and went absolutely nuts when a pickoff/putout by Youk ended the defensive inning. Got to see it in a movie theater! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZx38i7hsk
Fangraphs is not what it once was. Left leaning media companies are collapsing. Vice was worth over $5b not that long ago. Now there is a hiring freeze and it’s dying. Mic is dead. Vox is collapsing and John Sickels sight is a casualty. There are several reasons why this is happening and a percentage of it is due to the nature of regressive leftism.
I’m laughing heartily at the idea that Vice is or ever has been a left-leaning media company.
That is a serious problem. For you.
or it’s because facts are boring. people like watching the uneducated talking heads screaming at each other. There’s very little correlation between news outlets that try to be objective and ratings. I would assume it’s actuslly a negative correlation.
I posted a comment that featured like five links connecting Trump, the Ricketts, Trump and Sinclair but its up for moderation because of all the links. There are _plenty_ of reasons to take a long, hard look at this story and most of them are political.
I agree political issues are important. That is not the issue.
It’s funny – and telling – that the response to concerns that a politically slanted, bare knuckles huge company may have control over broadcasts of baseball games, with the risks of their raising the costs to watch baseball and injecting their politics into the broadcasts, is to say “censor yourself and stop discussing politics” to a small website that provides free content about baseball.
Again you’re conflating the two portions of the article together, stuff that is relevant and stuff that is not. The political leanings of the company was never actually used in any constructive way in the article. Read it again if you don’t believe me. It’s unfortunate you’re doing it too, it’s the same thing I was raising concerns about in the first place.
Gavin,
The article says that content-based issues concern many people and then says it’s going to focus on a different issue. That doesn’t mean that the article didn’t suggest concern about Sinclair’s politics, although Craig did us the favor of not repeating details that are familiar, in order to save space for his more unique insights. Who are you to decide what is relevant and who should self-censor?
BTW, this “liberal” website allows you a free and full venue to criticize it publicly. You and several other readers use that right to tell it to self-censor, which is against what this country stands for, and to take ad hominem shots at people you perceive to have a different political viewpoint than you do. Good luck finding those opportunities with Sinclair.
I’m not using any ad hominem attacks. You’re misusing the term or misunderstanding the meaning.
I’m offering criticism in a way that I think would be constructive to Fangraphs. I care about the quality of the product.
Also, I never said Fangraphs was “liberal.” Maybe you should realize I’m not criticizing any particular political viewpoints, but instead suggesting that political opinion should not be included in what are articles about hard non-partisan baseball issues (in this case, the potential distribution issues for fans that may come with Sinclair’s business model).
I’m not sure I understand your criticism. What exactly in my piece do you see as “political opinion”? There are probably a lot of people reading who have never heard of Sinclair, making some sort of background necessary. If they were to ask who is Sinclair, what do they do, are they well-known for anything? what is the appropriate response? That information–not opinion–seems pretty relevant to the piece and leaving it out seems like a disservice to anyone unfamiliar with the company.
Okay, now that I see the defense, it makes the core question easy to identify.
How is Sinclair’s political leaning and/or controversy an important piece of background needed to fully understand the problems present in the potential distribution and broadcast availability issues? Would the problem chance if there was less political leaning? Would it change if the leaning was liberal instead of conservative? The answer is very clearly no, unless I’m missing something linking the conservative leanings specifically with the concerns on future broadcasting models.
Craig: It is disingenuous or really naive to think, in Dec 2018, that an article that adds in the comment in the second paragraph that is not really germane to the rest of the piece would not end up with these divisive comments.
So…rather than discuss what was really an interesting article (in my opinion), we get to see comments that we would normally see on MSNBC, FOXNEWS, etc. Was that really what you wanted?
Politics are part of life and I do not condone the “I come to FG for baseball and don’t want to hear about politics” crowd since it artificially limits what you may want to cover (and how it is covered). But do it in a way that helps move the discussion forward and less self-indulgent.
Thank you.
Pretending there are no political considerations related to the business of baseball is naive.
It’s also not out of bounds to point out that broadcast company known for requiring its owned broadcast outlets to broadcast political content might, you know, do the same with a new broadcast outlet.
Really?
NBC is left leaning, but 99% of their live sports are free of political commentary. Same with ABC, and even ESPN.
Political commentary permeating the live broadcasts of sporting events is not a legitimate or well-founded concern of any significance. Stop pretending that it is.
And Fox is right leaning, yet their sports are also free of politics. What’s the difference? NBC and Fox are broadcasting empires. MSNBC and Fox News are small parts of their overall businesses. Sinclair’s primary business model revolves around acquiring local news stations and adding a political slant. Their business is explicitly political in a way that is not true of any of the companies you named. I don’t think they’re going to injecting Boris Epshteyn segments into Cubs games, but it’s absolutely relevant to point out politics when discussing Sinclair, in a way that would not be true if we were discussing NBC or Fox.
What you say would be a concern if it was true.
The reality is that the American Left has grown accustomed to describing content that is not slanted to the Left as “right-wing extremism”.
Considering you are in the group that laments snowflakes and triggering, the fact that the mere mention of Sinclair’s leanings (which is standard journalistic practice) sent many of you straight to your fainting couches is pretty telling. About you.
I think it would be more credible to complain that not enough was said about Sinclair’s political leanings. But then, it was pretty clear that the point of bringing it up was to say “Hey, yes they have these political leanings which might be a problem in their own right, but I’m actually going to talk about a problem that is general and doesn’t even require a problem with their politics in order to exist.” A person that is not transfixed with a right-wing fever dream (LIBERAL MEDIA!) should be able to handle this without needing smelling salts.
If you think the article saying the political leanings themselves might be an issue in their own right is a good thing, then you are part of the problem. That literally makes it a political opinion piece and you just proved my point.
Fangraphs should inform me about baseball. I get my political information from better political sources. No one cares what a rapper or a country music star’s political opinion is unless they happen to agree with them. I think baseball writers trying to dissect politics (because we clearly need more sources of political opinion, right?) is both unproductive and unattractive, whether is liberal or conservative.
I just hope Fangraphs understands where it’s bread and butter is and that alienating half (or maybe even a little less than half) of their audience in order to give yet another online political opinion is not useful.
This is right. Edwards went out of his way to tie in Sinclair’s political leanings into an article that didn’t need them one bit. He’s a lefty who, like uber-leftist Sheryl Ring, has decided that liberal political opinion must invade yet another American institution in order to rot it from within.
You know this was on purpose when you read comments from others both up, and down, the thread. Look at how many people are upset about the political leaning of Sinclair, rather than the thrust of the argument. Edwards is smart enough to understand that this would happen and, I believe, actively encouraged it with his writing (these folks aren’t stupid, guys).
I’ll say again, just like I said after Ms. Rings diatribes, Fangraghs is at risk if it hands itself over to this nonsense. People come here to escape all that crap. I’ll ask again: Are we watching yet another supposed data driven balanced site become fodder for American leftism (538 is already a parody of itself)?
I continue to be nervous.
Ring has been the biggest factor driving me away from this site. I had Not been here for awhile and I remember why. It’s shame
It was a statement of fact. If MLB partnered with NAMBLA for a youth baseball initiative , would you be all “let’s keep politics out of this!” MLB’s association with Sinclair is an issue. It wasn’t the focus of this article, but it is very normal to mention an issue that is big but not a part of an article.
You should probably grow skin that is not made of glass if you want to live in this world. Your sensitivity would make a Berkeley drum circle cringe. Jesus Christ.
Not sensitive. I just care about the Fangraphs product. I’m sorry if that upsets you to the point of swearing. Not sure who really needs the thicker skin.
Oh my, swears! Where are my pearls? I can’t decide if you are 17 or 95 years old.
Haha, you can make fun of me if you want. Not the first time I’ve been made fun of, won’t be the last. And the fact that it got a chuckle from me helps 🙂
Anyway, I understand if you disagree with me. That’s okay too. It’s just something I care about, so I thought I’d share my concerns. This is my absolute favorite baseball website and when the author steps away from the purpose of the article to make a political point, it damages the value for me, and I can only speak for myself. If it increases the value for other readers, then maybe it’s the right call.
Either way, it sounds like Sinclair and their business model should be challenged for the sake of the fans. For that, I’m thankful for the article bringing it to our attention.
false equivalence. NBC has a left slant, but it’s not as extreme as Sinclair’s right slant. Can we stop with this “both sides do it” stuff? It’s not equivalent in magnitude.
I’m literally making the point that NBC’s politics don’t permeate their sports broadcasts. Can you name a network’s who does?
What are you even talking about?
There’s a difference between a broadcaster and an analysis website, although even broadcasters have politics in their programming, but it may be more subtle. Or maybe you miss the parts where announcers criticize players for standing up for their rights or push for government funding of new stadiums, among other things. Also, the analysis parts of NBC and Fox sports have more overt political discussions.
Look, if your sole concern is that FanGraphs may lose readership if it doesn’t eliminate political discussion, that’s a fair point, but you should recognize that it is close to asking them to censor themselves. Further, if you don’t like their opinion, they give you free opportunity to counter their positions. Readers can easily present facts to support an opposing political viewpoint. It would be great to see. Unfortunately, the counter viewpoint is usually a fact-free opinion that amounts to “liberalism is bad.”
A cornerstone of Sabermetrics is open-mindedness to look at things from different perspectives in a fact-based manner. It is much more than getting people to understand that OBP is more valuable than BA or showing video about pitch framing. If you don’t want to believe me, go back and read early BIll James, where he made these exact points. Telling an analytics website to eliminate certain perspectives is akin to telling it to cease being open-minded.
I agree about the “fact-based” manner of Fangraphs. If the author is worried about political commentary entering broadcasts, you’d think that concern would have been explored, or even just *mentioned,* right? No, it was a back-handed “just so you know…” potshot, and it’s obvious to people who have any objective disposition at all. That’s litetally the entire point behind my disappointment in placing irrelevant political leanings in articles. I’m guessing you agree with the leanings in these articles, but I think it would hurt the site if it was left leaning or right leaning, and I think you’d understand my argument if it came from the right as well.
Imagine an article titled “Donald Trump supporters are Bad for Baseball.” I’m guessing it would get the most clicks on Fangraphs history but I think we can agree it would still be bad for Fangraphs’ long term health. Like I said, maybe there are enough readers who agree that conservatism is bad. That’s fine. Just don’t see how it helps the product. Nor do I want to see “liberalism is bad” arguments in the future. That’s all.
Good reporting, Craig. Sinclair is a horrific company and as a Cubs fan, I’m bummed they’re even considering going down this road. Comcast sucks too, but I guess decent broadcast companies are hard to come by.
Informative article.
I don’t care a whit about what Sinclair or any broadcaster puts into their news coverage. I don’t trust any media company to deliver 100% truth; it is all tainted by partisan politics.
I do care about whether Direct TV will broadcast the games.
Really great read, Craig. Keep up the good work!
You have to remember the Cubs have quietly become the Evil Empire of baseball. They’ve spent almost a billion dollars in contracts the last few years. They don’t believe players are role models to kids. It’s just about the money. If this gets the team the most money, then so be it.
Sinclair seems like it is trying to become the Electronic Arts of sports broadcasting. That’s not a good thing. If Sinclair blocks MLB fans from watching games in an effort to increase profit, they’re going to challenge EA for the title of Most Hated Company in America. No one likes wealth extractors.