Somebody is going to have to pay for the billions that regional sports networks are shelling out for rights fees to franchises. And that somebody will be you.

Yet another example.

From Multichannel News:

DirecTV will expand its regional sports network surcharge in the spring to include existing customers chairman and CEO Mike White told analysts Thursday.

DirecTV began implementing a $3 monthly surcharge in August for regional sports networks in markets that had multiple RSNs, but only to new customers. That surcharge, mainly in markets like New York and Los Angeles, will expand to existing customers in those areas in the spring, White told analysts on a conference call to discuss fourth quarter results.

Other distributors have followed DirecTV’s lead with the RSN charge – Verizon’s FiOS TV began implementing a $2.42 monthly charge for RSNs in California, Texas and Florida in February, with plans to expand to its remaining sates in March. In Maryland and Virginia, the surcharge will take effect in April.

Analysts have expected other distributors to follow suit to help offset the high costs of RSNs, but so far no cable operators have taken the bait.

White has been a vocal opponent of rising programming costs, and on the conference call, said the surcharge doesn’t come close to covering its RSN costs.

“I think it’s a judgment you have to make based on responsible churn,” White said. “We’ve made choices not to carry certain sports unless we can carry them ala carte.”

Maury Brown, writing at Bizofbaseball.com, believes consumers have reason to be concerned.

Deals will continue to be brokered as media rights deals expire, but the battle to get them on the major carriers, or getting the massive deals that have been recently inked, will continue to be an issue.

Of course, none of this is good for fans. While the financial flexibility is something every sports fan loves to see their favorite club have, if it means a large spike in their cable or satellite TV bill, it comes with a price. The pin is positioned near the bubble. When will it make contact is the question.

ln the final edition of Costas at the Movies, director Barry Levinson talks about The Natural (Monday, 8 p.m. ET, MLB Network).

More sound bites from Levinson:

On the film’s climactic scene with Roy Hobbs hitting a home run into the light tower:

What’s interesting about that, it was a point where I felt like if you could have a mutiny, this would have been it. Because every night at the end of the night, we’d have Redford heading to first base and then we would blow up a light stand with all the fireworks. Then, we’d round second and we’d blow it up…Night after night after night, we would end with that and the crew has gotta be going, “What in the world are we doing?”…To put it together was a really complicated sequence to do, but I always remembered I would see the faces of our crew going, “What is he doing?”

On the fantasy aspect of The Natural:

Through the years, these things which are outlandish actually [happen]…like Kirk Gibson hitting the home run and limping around the bases. If you put that in a movie, you’d say, “Well, that would be outrageous.”…Curt Schilling with the blood on the sock in the World Series…and Hobbs had the blood on his shirt, the opening of the wound…These things, in one way or another, [are] the amazing aspect of what baseball is…That’s what’s so amazing. It’s what makes the game extraordinary. As simple as it is in a certain way, there are these amazing things that happen that are beyond credibility and, yet, that’s the game. That’s what makes, I think, The Natural exciting, is these circumstances that are larger-than-life, and it’s great fun.

On the film’s iconic song by Randy Newman:

We were racing to try to get this movie out in time and we were in one room and then there was a wall and Randy’s in the other room. One of the great thrilling moments is I heard him figuring out that theme…You could hear it through the wall as he was working out that theme and I’ll never forget that.

On the possibility of casting a real Major Leaguer in the role of The Whammer:

I think I met with, I believe it was, Harmon Killebrew. I might’ve met Boog Powell, I can’t remember…That was part of the issue, too. Well then, this is going to throw us off [because] this is a [big] name person.

On being the play-by-play announcer in the background of the movie:

I did all the announcing because I laid it down as a temp track and we didn’t have a chance to really finish it, so I never got a real announcer. So every time I hear it, it drives me crazy.

On whether people still talk to him about The Natural:

It comes up. It’s amazing. It’s one of the things about movies, which you don’t know. Sometimes you do a movie and it can make money and people [don’t] really talk about it. Sometimes you do a film and it’s like it goes from generation to generation, so I still hear about it all the time, actually in some ways even more so than when it first came out.

On Robert Redford’s talent as a baseball player:

He was pretty good. He was a big fan of Ted Williams. That’s why he wore [the number] nine. He did it quite well. The hardest thing to do, I’ll never forget, is there is a time when he strikes out. He kept fouling the ball off and kept fouling the ball off. I said, “Bob, you just to have to strike out here.”…He actually hit a couple out of the ballpark.

On Robert Duvall:

He’s so talented. One of the great things when you work with really talented people is that you can make suggestions…because they have the ability to do that. Some actors, they really, this is all they can do. With Duvall, there’s all kinds of moves that you can do, that you can play with. Sometimes, you want to explore it and see which way to handle it and try it. It’s like somebody who’s great at an instrument, but they can do it half-a-dozen different ways, and he’s one of [those] great actors.

On the distribution of the film being held back by TriStar Pictures:

Here’s something that we sort of forget. The Natural was going to be the first release of TriStar Pictures, which was going to be a new entity in the business, and we were going to be the first movie. They got cold feet, thinking that The Natural wouldn’t work and ended up putting out Where the Boys Are ’84 as their first [distributed] film.

I doubt Jim Harbaugh has many regrets in his life, but this might be one of them. This cameo is making the rounds this week.

These are cranky times in Boston. The Red Sox were terrible; the Patriots got knocked out; and Rajon Rondo is gone for a long time.

Now add to the mix this piece in Boston Magazine. Writer Alan Siegel basically torches the folks who normally do the torching. Note: This is one of the unflattering photo-illustrations that ran with the piece.

Siegel writes:

To put it bluntly, “The Lodge”—as Fred Toucher, cohost of the 98.5 The Sports Hub morning radio show, mockingly refers to the city’s clubby, self-important media establishment—is clogged with stale reporters, crotchety columnists, and shameless blowhards. Their canned “hot sports takes” have found a home on local television and talk radio, but do little but suck the fun out of a topic that’s supposed to be just that. And we haven’t even gotten to Dan Shaughnessy yet.

I don’t live in Boston and don’t follow the sports coverage on a daily basis. I know many of the writers from sitting next to them in the press boxes through the years. They are some of the best in the business.

However, Siegal’s piece implies the coverage has become lazy. He cites national media beating Boston beat writers on stories on their beats. It also has become predictable.

Siegel writes:

As forward-thinking as that sounds, the newspaper’s core approach to sports coverage—which still relies on boilerplate game recaps, columns, and weekly “notebooks” offering bullet-point takes on the happenings from the various sports leagues—hasn’t changed much over the years. In fact, not much in the Boston sports media has—not even the photos on the wall.

Siegel concludes:

Were the Globe to stop publishing sports tomorrow, how much loss would readers feel? Certainly some, but much less than even a decade ago. That’s because Boston fans have gotten increasingly used to following the ups and downs of their favorite teams in national outlets rather than local ones.

The message to The Lodge is clear: Change, or die the death of utter irrelevance.

Is that it? C’mon folks, move on down the road. Nothing more to see here.

For more than a week, America has formed a massive gaper’s block over the Manti Te’o saga. But unless Te’o truly is found to be more than a naive victim of a hoax, I think the story ended with Katie Couric’s interview airing yesterday.

Really, is there anything more to say? As I watched the show, I couldn’t help think how sad this whole thing is. Bottom line: These are people with some serious issues here.

I thought Couric did a good job. Keep in mind, this is a woman who has interviewed presidents and other world leaders. Ask Sarah Palin how she feels about Couric. She knows what to do.

Will Leitch of Sports on Earth had an entertaining column, attaching numbers to the interview.

* Number of times Ronaiah Tuiasosopo was called a “Christian crooner:” 1

* Number of times Katie Couric asked a question and, before Te’o could answer, the show cut to commercial or a montage of more questions: 6

* Number of times Katie put on her glasses to ask a question: 2

* Number of times Te’o denied knowing anything about the scam: 1

* Number of times Te’o claimed there was something he “couldn’t fake:” 1

Now it’s over. Some people had a good laugh. Some people got to spout off about the sorry state of journalism. Many others just simply gawked.

But that’s enough. Time to move on to the next bizarre story.

I want to give special mention to a special event in Chicago. Thursday is the annual Comcast SportsNet Sports Awards.

The event honors the top athletes in Chicago. The big winner, though, is the March of Dimes, which receives the proceeds of this event.

Now celebrating its 25th year, the event has raised more than $11 million for the March of Dimes. This year’s headliners features Ernie Banks, Frank Thomas, Otis Wilson, Bob Love, and many others.

However, the highlight of the evening always is the presentation of the Inspirational Athlete Award.

A shout out to long-time producer Mike Leiderman, Bill Barry and his crew at the March of Dimes, and Jim Corno, Jeff Nuich and the CSN Chicago staff, who work tirelessly on the event. Due to a Blackhawks game, the dinner will air Thursday at 11 p.m., Central. Be sure to set your DVR if you can’t stay up late. The show also will air again Sunday at 11 p.m.Central.

Here are the details from CSN:

WHAT:  An impressive line-up of Chicago’s best-known current and legendary professional athletes will take center stage to receive honors at the 25^th Annual Comcast SportsNet Sports Awards presented by BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois.

WHEN:  Thursday, January 24, 2013

Reception (5:00 PM) — Dinner (6:30 PM) — Awards Ceremony (7:30 PM) — CSN air time (11:00 PM)

WHERE:  Hilton Chicago (International Ballroom), 720 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL

HOST:  David Kaplan

HONOREES:  The honorees chosen are top athletes from Chicago’s professional teams who have made considerable contributions to their teams and the Chicago community. This year’s honorees include:

Richard “Rip” Hamilton (Bull of the Year)    Bob Love (Bulls Legend)

Dave Bolland (Blackhawk of the Year)          Eddie Olczyk (Blackhawks Legend)

Darwin Barney (Cub of the Year)                  Ernie Banks (Cubs Legend)

Chris Sale (White Sox of the Year)                Frank Thomas (White Sox Legend)

Roberto Garza (Bear of the Year)                  Otis Wilson (Bears Legend)

Patrick Nyarko (Fire of the Year)                   Frank Klopas (Fire Legend)

Connor McHugh (Inspirational Athlete Award)

PRESENTERS:          Chris Boden                David Kaplan

      Susannah Collins        Stacey King

      Gail Fischer                 John Mullin

      Chuck Garfien             Mark Schanowski                   

I might rename this site, Te’omania.com. There’s so much good stuff flying around, it demands our attention. Even if we’ve long since overdosed.

******

Will Leitch writes on Sports on Earth that he is getting hate mail from people who think he still is associated with Deadspin; he isn’t. Not sure if this bothers him more than watching the sinking Illinois basketball team. Beware Nebraska tonight, Will.

From his post:

About 36 hours after Deadspin broke the Manti Te’o story, I started to notice, on my Twitter timeline, a bunch of people calling me an asshole. Now, I haven’t worked at Deadspin for almost five years and had nothing to do with that story — I learned about it the same time the rest of earth did — but I understand: I founded Deadspin and will likely be associated with that place the rest of my life, even after Bleacher Report buys them in 2023 and just turns the joint into a series of penis slideshows. I’m OK with it.

Because people assumed I was still with Deadspin — or just saw Deadspin in my Twitter bio — the Twitter mentions were coming fast and furious. (And Deadspin itself was, of course, inundated with hate mail.) The viewpoint, coming almost entirely from Notre Dame fans, was clear: Deadspin had an anti-Notre Dame agenda, and they were just trying to take down Manti Te’o and their storied university from the get-go.

*******

And here’s a link to those letters that Deadspin received.

An example:

With regard to recent reporting I have it on 80% certainty that the Deadspin site is dropping the spin from it’s name and will now simply be Dead. Thanks.

And that was relatively tame.

********

Michael Bradley of the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana writes a column off my post on Jeremy Schaap regarding his interview with Te’o. I talked to Schaap about saying he felt Te’o was credible during his reports on ESPN.

Bradley discusses whether Schaap should have injected his opinion

When journalists are trained, they are taught to report on events and work to provide the truth to readers or viewers. The facts are the most important things to consider, and anything less is unacceptable. But what about anything more? Schaap’s assertion that he was expected to share his opinions with people shows how things have blurred. He did a fine job – as usual – with the interview and with getting Te’o to respond to the questions people wanted answered. But was he then really expected to provide a verdict on the credibility of his subject’s account?

In the old world of journalism, no. He was to report and let the people acquire enough information to make their own decisions. But today’s climate is much different. People want to be told what is right and wrong, by people whom they can trust. Some of that is laziness; in order to get a complete story, people have to do more than just refer to one source. They don’t want to do that. But part of it comes from today’s personality-driven media world. The idea of interviewing someone who just conducted an interview is a relatively new concept and tied primarily to the 24/7 cycle that must be filled. Part of it comes from media outlets’ needs to produce stars that will attract and retain news consumers’ eyes and ears.

*******

Richard Deitsch of SI.com talks to Pulitzer Prize winners Ken Armstrong and Amy Nutt on how we all suck as reporters. Yes, I am tired of people using hindsight to say how reporters should have known.

From Armstrong:

As for the post-mortems, kudos to those reporters who have opened their  notebooks, revealing how they got sucked in. That’s got to be painful, but it’s  something we all can learn from. What’s clear from these accounts, especially  Pete Thamel’s in SI, is the danger of deep and early buy-in. Even when details  couldn’t be documented – there was no record of the girlfriend graduating from  Stanford, there was no record of her being hit by a drunk driver – all that  happened was, those details got cut. The story as a whole remained unquestioned.

One more thing: It’s worth noting that this kind of mythologizing – “Win One  for the Gipper,” the Babe’s called shot to center field – is not limited to  sports. When it comes to spinning a story, the U.S. Army is the equal of anyone.  Just remember what the military did with Jessica Lynch. And with Pat Tillman.  The lessons of the Te’o story – the need to be wary of inspirational tales with  details that run light or are contradictory – extend beyond the playing field.

You mean the Babe didn’t call his shot? Well, there goes that book I’m writing.

******

And that’s all for now. More to come, I’m sure.

More inside info on Jeremy Schaap’s interview with Manti Te’o. This time from the photographer.

Ryan Jones, writing a first-person piece on Journo2go.com, details the experience of getting the call and then being in the room when Schaap did the interview. He wasn’t there for long. He writes:

Jeremy led the way back into the conference room, followed by Shawn and myself. After a quick introduction and shaking Te’o’s hand, I had just enough time to adjust my camera’s settings and fire off three shots before the interview began.

“Is the photographer going to be in here the whole time?” Te’o asked.

That was my cue to leave. I was in shock and utterly terrified. I left the room wondering just how badly I ruined the night by only managing to grab three mediocre photos and started praying that I’d have a chance to redeem myself by the time this thing ended.

Jones did get another chance to take more photos as the interview wound down a couple of hours later. Then he writes about a surreal experience: watching the ESPN report with Te’o.

Not long after the final images were turned over to ESPN, I had the chance to relax as Shawn ordered pizza around midnight and I was able to start my attempt at wrapping my mind around what exactly happened over the last 8 hours. With Te’o and his attorney in the conference room down the hall, Jeremy and Shawn left me in the lobby to unwind with a medium pepperoni pizza all to myself as they went outside to get ready for the live post-interview broadcast. Also, I am both proud and ashamed to admit that I ate nearly all of that pizza by myself; I thankfully managed to convince Te’o to take a slice as he walked by and back toward the conference room.

Actually, I did believe a couple of things Lance Armstrong said. He called himself an “arrogant prick.” Highly believable.  Then when he began an answer by saying, “Why would anyone believe me now?”

Indeed, Armstrong knows he has as much credibility as Jon Lovitz’s liar character on SNL. Do you believe him when he said he wasn’t doping in his last two Tour de France races? If you do, I’ve got a story to tell you about Manti Te’o’s girlfriend.

You couldn’t believe a word Armstrong said Thursday during part one of his big interview. The guy is a serial liar and always will be.

Still, it made for good TV. Oprah Winfrey did a good job for the most part. Opening with quick yes-no questions on the key issues was solid scene-setter. I do think Winfrey missed the opportunity for some follow-up questions, especially on Armstrong’s Italian doctor.

But Winfrey did make Armstrong squirm. There was some satisfaction in watching his humiliation. I’ll tune in for round 2 tonight.

Here’s a round-up of what they’re writing today:

Richard Deitsch, SI.com:

It was interesting theater, at least for those who could find the  little-watched network, and a night where the interviewer came off far better  than her subject.

Winfrey wasted little time in asking Armstrong a series of yes-or-no  questions, including whether he had used the blood booster EPO, whether he had  used cortisone and HGH, and whether he doped for each of his seven Tour de  France victories. He answered “yes,” to each of her first five questions and  then said he did not believe it would have been possible to win the Tour seven  times had he not doped. On the surface, it was curious choice by Winfrey to opt  for such closed-ended questions at the start, but it worked. Armstrong’s  affirmative answers shifted immediate power to Winfrey and she controlled most  of the 90-minute interview, even if the former cyclist was often light on the  details to queries.

Bonnie Ford, ESPN.com:

It was a typical Lance Event, although it was about as far from the bike as it gets. It was about spectacle and managed production and trying to craft another chapter in a punctured epic that has lost its helium and sunk to earth.

It was about what it is always about with Lance Armstrong: hubris and control, the same tightly intertwined strands of his DNA that convinced him he would never be exposed, that the dozens and dozens of people privy to his pyramid scheme would remain muzzled forever.

It was desperate. And huge chunks of it ranged from disingenuous to unbelievable. There was far too much defiance and contradiction of evidence and abdication of responsibility to respond to in one column, although I will start by saying that I don’t believe for a minute that he was clean in his comeback. And we’ve seen only half the footage from the Oprah Winfrey interview.

Philip Hersh, Chicago Tribune:

Armstrong’s admissions in many areas were incomplete, and that failure to tell the whole truth for whatever reasons — legal protection or more defiance — will continue to impugn his credibility. His failure to make a public apology for the lies he told about other people also undermined Armstrong’s attempt to turn the interview to his benefit.

Christine Brennan, USA Today:

If it was possible to like Lance Armstrong even less, his 90-minute interview with Winfrey on Thursday night went a long way to accomplishing that fact. If he was hoping to win over some supporters in the court of public opinion while trying to return to some semblance of public life less than three months after being officially banned and stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, it’s hard to imagine how he might have accomplished that.

He was even more unlikable than one might have imagined. He was smug. He was curt. He was cold and unfeeling. And he doesn’t yet seem to get what he’s in for if he ever wants to even consider having a chance to come back to compete someday in age-group triathlons and marathons.

Will Leitch, Sports on Earth:

Rather than pile on Lance Armstrong after watching Part One of his interview with Oprah Winfrey on Thursday night, I decided to do some math.

Yes/No Questions Asked By Oprah in the first 20 seconds: 6

Times Lance touched his chest: 7

Times Lance said the word “technically”: 2

Times Lance said “biological passport”: 3

Times Lance said “absolutely not”: 5

Times Lance denied something: 27

Times Lance admitted something: 28

Times Lance said “I deserve this”: 2