ESPN’s Doria on Twitter: A big headache; Worries about diminished standards

Vince Doria does have a Twitter account. He is pictured with his perfectly-groomed white beard.

And that’s about all you’ll get from Doria on Twitter. He has yet to post a tweet.

“Somebody went behind my back and signed me up,” Doria said.

Doria, ESPN’s senior vice-president and director of news, has little use for Twitter. In fact, when asked about it, he said the whole social media thing gives him “a headache.”

Of course, this attitude flies in the face of the importance of Twitter to ESPN. NFL reporter Adam Schefter has 1.6 million followers who hang on his every tweet about football.

The majority of ESPN’s personalities are well into six figures when it comes to followers, and they stay connected with 24/7 tweets. It’s 2012. Tweet or die.

Yet Doria’s concerns about Twitter are telling and highly relevant for the entire media industry, not just ESPN. Social media definitely will a topic during this week’s Associated Press Sports Editors convention in Chicago. Many are sure to take note of their former colleague’s views: Doria was a sports editor at the Boston Globe and the National in a previous life.

Indeed, I can’t believe how much I’ve written about Twitter since I started this site two months ago. It has provided me plenty of material.

And now I have some more Twitter talk. Here’s my Q/A with Doria.

Why did you say Twitter is a headache?

Well, yeah…(long sigh) if social networking never existed, we wouldn’t miss it. We wouldn’t know it ever existed. We wouldn’t feel our life was impaired in any way. We lived without e-mail. How did we operate without it?

What are some of the pitfalls?

I’ll give you an example. You may recall (somebody at) the Washington Post hit a wrong button and prematurely reported John Wooden’s death. It was out there. Somebody saw it and sent it to Adam Schefter. Adam retweeted it. The next thing I know, I see Adam Schefter reported that John Wooden had died. All he did was pass it along.

I said our guys, why are you doing this? It’s not your stuff. You’ve got to let your followers know that the Washington Post is reporting John Wooden died?

If your identity touches it, people want to lay it on you, particularly if you’re ESPN. It’s one of the dangers.

But you know Twitter is essential these days in this business.

Look, social networking is a terrific resource. The ability to directly to interact with viewers, listeners, readers.

But it also makes it very difficult when you have a process in place to properly vet material to the point where you’re satisfied with sourcing. Social networking flies in the face of that.

We all get it. We all appreciate the immediacy of it. On the other hand, trying to do that and maintain the traditional standards of journalism is a challenge. There’s no other way to put it.

Specifically, what do you see that’s being compromised?

There’s so many people chasing stories. Everybody is a wire service now. Anybody can break a story. Once they’re out there, you’re not always sure of the accuracy of them. I can’t speak for everyone, but there’s not the same concern for being accurate. In some cases, it’s ‘here’s what we hear.’ Here it is. Maybe it’s right, maybe it isn’t.

But the very nature of that, you can’t have that kind of information and expect everyone would adhere to the standards of journalism that have been in place for so long.

Isn’t this all about being first with a story on Twitter? And then you’re first for about 35 seconds. 

There’s no doubt that some of being first is diminished by the fact that everyone has it within 10 seconds. They may have it, but you don’t know they’re sourcing. Why you certainly can attribute the story, you wonder about the veracity, particularly with the crowded landscape. It’s one thing to be satisfied with sourcing from the Washington Post or New York Times. It’s another thing when it’s a blogger or somebody tweeting it who is essentially unknown to you. You don’t know their sources; you don’t how diligent they’ve been.

How important is it for ESPN’s reporters to break stories?

There may come a time when maybe that won’t matter anymore. But if you came up in the journalist era I did, it’s still important to be first.

Yeah, we want to be right more than anything. But right after that, yeah, you want to be first. There’s an expectation that we’re going to be first on stories. We can’t be first on all of them, but we’ve branded ourselves the World Wide Leader of Sports. Not sure what that means, but part of it is trying to get out in front of stories. We hope we can bring fresh reporting to it. Fresh perspective. But being first still is a part of it. It’s in your DNA to a certain extent.

You know there are people who say Doria is behind the times. If you were 25, you would be all over Twitter.

Yeah, but it’s got its inherent risks. For every good piece of information that comes out on social networks, a lot of mindless patter comes out too.

You have many great thoughts. Why have you resisted tweeting?

Social networking provides a lot of information. That’s great. It also provides a lot of vapid discussion that I can’t believe anyone is much interested in. It also provides a great risk in terms to entities in terms of putting their foot in their mouth. I’ve seen plenty of examples. That’s the reason why I’ve resisted.

People who know me well know I like to be sarcastic. Given my role here, objectivity is very important. For me, the danger of social networking is the appearance that I’m not objective in a certain area. I’d prefer not have that perception.

So we shouldn’t expect any tweets soon from Vince Doria?

No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who needs ESPN? NHL exec: Playoffs validate choice of NBC Sports Network

ESPN’s Vince Doria definitely stirred the ire of hockey fans last week. In an interview with this site, he attributed hockey’s limited presence on SportsCenter to the sport not generating “a national discussion.”

When I asked John Collins about the comment Monday, the NHL’s COO and Commissioner Gary Bettman’s right-hand man for business and media, took it in stride.

“The national discussion definitely is increasing around the Stanley Cup,” Collins said.

Indeed, Collins and the NHL have reason to feel bullish about the first year of their long-term deal with NBC Universal. The move to televise every playoff game on either NBC, NBC Sports Network, CNBC and the NHL Network has produced dramatic results. Ratings soared with more than a combined 60 million viewers tuning in to watch first-round games on either national or local outlets.

NBC Sports Network averaged 744,000 viewers for first-round games, up 16 percent. Those are the highest numbers for hockey on cable since 2001, when ESPN’s first round coverage averaged 745,000 viewers.

The multi-network platform had an NCAA basketball tournament feel, with viewers switching from game to game. The NCAA comparison went even deeper with numerous overtime games producing buzzer beaters. It happened again last night with the New York Rangers winning an overtime thriller against Washington.

Would it have been the same if the NHL went with ESPN? Probably not. With MLB and NBA games, and the NFL draft on ESPN, the playoffs likely would have been relegated to ESPN2 on several nights, leaving the notion of being second class.

Yep, not hearing so much that the NHL needs to be on ESPN anymore.

Indeed, the NHL made the right move with potential for future growth. Yet Doria, who was ridiculed for his comment, hardly is off base. With the Blackhawks out, there has been zero discussion about the Stanley Cup playoffs on sports talk radio here in Chicago. You’ll be hard-pressed to find NHL discussion outside of cities that still have teams in the hunt. It’s not that way for the NBA.

Also, the league is faced with the likely prospect of having a non-traditional hockey team in Phoenix or the No. 8 seed Los Angeles Kings in the finals. Not exactly the same drawing power as recent West winners: Detroit (2008, 2009), Chicago (2010), and despite being a Canadian team, Vancouver, with its stars and stories, had significant U.S. appeal in 2011. Los Angeles might be big market, but the Kings aren’t the Lakers.

I addressed those issues and more in a Q/A with Collins.

Given what’s transpired, how does the NHL feel about its decision to go with NBC and the NBC Sports Network?

Collins: The thing we felt was lacking from a marketing standpoint was the idea of national scale.

(In 2010), 40 percent of the games in the first two rounds weren’t on national television. None of the Flyers games in the first two rounds were nationally televised. The Flyers were a Cinderella story (going to the finals against Chicago), but nobody knew the stories on a national level. The first time they popped up was in the finals, and frankly at that point, it was too late.

Now we have every game on. We’re able to show the casual fan how unique the Stanley Cup playoffs are. They can see how tough the road is.

It’s been very satisfying. The ratings are up. We attribute that to the way NBC has embraced these playoffs.

Would you have gotten the same kind of treatment from ESPN?

Collins: We spent a lot of time talking to ESPN. There was a lot of interest. One of the deciding factors to go with NBC Universal was that hockey would be the centerpiece of their entire programming (for NBC Sports Network). That’s not to say ESPN wouldn’t have devoted more time to hockey than they did in the past.

But for (the NBC Sports Network), the Stanley Cup playoffs are their focus. They have dedicated all their time to building this platform. They’ve offered us enormous flexibility. They’ve changed their schedule on the fly to accommodate us.

How does the league view Doria’s comments on hockey not generating the national discussion?

Collins: The national discussion around the Stanley Cup definitely is increasing. We hope ESPN will validate it with the amount of coverage for hockey on SportsCenter.

They’ve been pretty good to us in our big moments. They went to the Winter Classic. They’ve been at the last couple of Stanley Cup finals with Steve Levy and Barry Melrose

What we’re working to do is to round out that schedule so that it’s more than the Stanley Cup finals. Now it’s all four rounds of the Stanley Cup.

How does the NHL increase the discussion for hockey on a national level?

Collins: An important step was getting all the playoff games on national television. We checked that one off and go from there.

We’re working to expose fans to our storylines. The power of (HBO’s 24/7 documentaries) is showing fans something they haven’t seen before. Then when you have all the games on, and people discover or re-discover Martin Brodeur or the team aspect of the Rangers. Those stories start to resonate with fans.

Also, we have so many markets where hockey does well locally. In important markets like Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Washington, hockey does better ratings than basketball. Maybe, that will be the case one day in Chicago. It’s another sign of the potential to have (increased) national discussion.

How does the NHL feel about the prospect of having a non-traditional team in the finals?

Collins: Any sport, whether it’s baseball or basketball, would love to have its big markets (going for) the championship. It doesn’t always work out that way.

A lot of myths got broken last year. The idea that you needed two big U.S. media market teams to get ratings. Boston-Vancouver exploded that myth.

We’re seeing casual fans getting turned on to our stories during the playoffs. There are a lot of healthy signs. At the end of the day, the ratings are ratings. If you look at the first year, the Stanley Cup ratings is not the only metric of success. We’ve made a lot of progress, and it’s only going to get better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESPN doesn’t hate hockey, or so it claims

The question was direct.

“Why does ESPN hate hockey?” I asked Vince Doria, ESPN’s senior vice-president and director of news.

Doria tried to suppress a frustrated laugh. He protested, “We don’t hate hockey.”

Hockey fans, though, know ESPN definitely doesn’t love their sport. There’s a limited presence on SportsCenter since its networks no longer carry games. You won’t find the First Take guys talking much about the Phoenix Coyotes.

According to Deadspin’s Bristolmetrics, which tracks SportsCenter’s dedicated time to a particular sport, hockey accounted for 4.7 percent of its coverage from Jan. 7-April 26. The NBA, meanwhile, had 23.4 percent. Hockey couldn’t even beat “other,” which had 8.8. percent.

Now to be fair, ESPN has raised its hockey allotment during the playoffs. Last week, hockey rose to 15 percent. However, a big part of that might have been due to the New York Rangers winning their series in seven games. Nothing like an iconic New York team to get ESPN excited.

Doria admits ESPN won’t ever get too pumped up about hockey. In a recent Q/A with Doria, he explains why hockey doesn’t move the meter in Bristol.

Why does ESPN hate hockey?

Doria: We don’t hate hockey. When I worked in Boston (as sports editor of the Boston Globe), I probably went to more Bruins games than Celtics. There’s probably not a better in-the-house sport than hockey. Watching it live. My own personal feeling is that it never transferred well to television. I’m not exactly sure why that is.

Why does hockey get a limited presence on SportsCenter?

Doria: It’s a sport that engenders a very passionate local following. If you’re a Blackhawks fan in Chicago, you’re a hardcore fan. But it doesn’t translate to television, and where it really doesn’t transfer much to is a national discussion, which is something that typifies what we do.

Baseball fans are interested where Albert Pujols is going. NBA fans are interested in the Miami Heat. For whatever reason, and this is my unsubstantiated research on it, hockey doesn’t generate that same kind of interest nationwide. You look at national talk shows. Hockey rarely is a topic. People in Boston aren’t that interested with what’s going on with the Blackhawks.

Would it be different if you were a rights holder?

Doria: Well, we were at one time. It wasn’t that different. Listen, I guess if we were rights holder, there probably would be a little more attention paid to it. It’s typical that would happen. We might throw it to commentators who were inside the building. Now we’re not inside the building.

Even though ESPN doesn’t have hockey, you decided to keep Barry Melrose. Why?

Doria: When we lost it, we wanted to keep a hockey presence. We wanted to keep Barry, the best there is in my mind. But now the only place to put Barry is on SportsCenter. If you look at the first few years, after we lost hockey, Barry probably was on SportsCenter more after we lost it than when we had hockey.

Before, he would appear on NHL Tonight. Sometimes, we’d put him on SportsCenter. But there was no real demand to put him on SportsCenter. NHL Tonight was his job, and they’d do all the highlights.

NBC Sports Network has locked up hockey for a long time. What’s going to be ESPN’s approach to the sports going forward?

Doria: We’ll be out at the Stanley Cup. If you watch our show, we do highlights and report scores.

But if you go to our radio and television shows, there’s not a lot of hockey talk. It doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of yammer out there to give us hockey talk.