One thing that annoys me is that other writers and sports personalities need to offer an alternative on some level. You can't just look down on a show from the Sports world of academia like you're too good for it.
A lot of other people had their chance and didn't hold our attention. I'd take PTI over this show. I'd take Sports Reporters over it. But they had their shots. This show won. I realize people can like mindless trash, but obviously someone likes the show and I'm not willing to say my taste is better than theirs or that I'm somehow wiser because I don't watch it and they do.
I don't get the Honey Boo Boo thing either. I try not to think about that.
The show has its place in the world is all I'm saying. Apparently that place is on people's TVs
Dumb peoples' TV's. One of the biggest problems I have with the country's media right now is that we're equating popularity with quality. IE, 'If that show pull 200,000 households a day, they've gotta be doing something right. We could take a page from their book.'
It just becomes a race to the bottom.
On at least some level I think popularity is quality though. A sort of quality anyway. I mean why is Godfather so loved? Because it's good right? Why is Ben and Jerry's ice cream so loved? Because it's good right? I mean Gladiator may not have been the BEST film that year (actually the other nominees weren't that great. Chocolat, Crouching Tiger, Erin Brokovic, Traffic) but it won for a reason, right?
I mean yeah Ben and Jerrys probably just dumps a bunch of sugar and butter into their ice cream. That's why it's so good, right?
I think you're getting at the gist of the problem (in my eyes). Things can be popular because they're good. But things are not good because they're popular.
Example: Cheeseburgers.
McDonald's Cheeseburgers and Burger King's Cheeseburgers are probably the two most purchased cheeseburgers in the country. Some people prefer McDonald's, some BK's, people have even debated which one is the best. They're always available, easily recognizable, and have a butt-load of advertising power.
But do any of those things make them 'good'? No man, they're junk food. You shouldn't equate quantity to quality.
Now we're getting apples and oranges although I always think that's a very worthy discussion.
I mean the best burger in the world is probably in someone's grandmama's kitchen but if everywhere you go you ask people where can I get a good burger and they say "Well you can go over to that McDs..." I mean that counts for something.
Availability and recognition don't mean excellence though. It just means its out there, and people know about it. Would First Take get half as many viewers if it wasn't on ESPN, and didn't have ESPN's ad machine behind it?
A good example of this is with beer. Did you see this commercial during the super bowl?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpAj5q2ZRz4This is made by Miller. It is a craptastic beer. Its made to provide a counterpunch to the more creative craft beers. People know about it because Miller made it.
And its terrible.
But because it was on a superbowl commercial, I tried it. I hate myself a little for it, but I tried it. Now, I've promised myself I'll try
this beer, to make up for it. Because excellence should be rewarded.
I mean by this logic the best sports show in America might be coming from someone's garage. And actually I admit whatever that show is I'd rather watch it than First Take or Jim Rome.
Well in all likelihood, the best 'show' out there is probably coming in the form of a podcast, but it doesn't mean its obscure. One of the most popular sports podcasts in the world is also likely one of the best, and its the BS Report. Then you've got like, the Dan Patrick Show, etc..Mike and Mike is even pretty good, and they try that debate stuff sometimes.
I guess my point is, just because its big doesn't mean its good, and first take ain't good. There are no winners there, only losers.