Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television

Most TV Completely Ignores Women's Sports, a 30-Year Study Finds (niemanlab.org) 340

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Nieman Lab: In a paper summarizing 30 years of sports coverage on televised news and highlights shows, researchers began by quoting a short segment dedicated to a WNBA game between the L.A. Sparks and the Atlanta Dream. The broadcast was unusual, authors Cheryl Cooky, LaToya D. Council, Maria A. Mears, and Michael A. Messner pointed out, in that women's sports were mentioned at all. They found that 80% of the televised sports news and highlights shows included zero stories on women's sports. The overall portion of sports coverage featuring women had been low for decades and, in 2019, an overwhelming 95% of the sports coverage included in their study focused on men's sports. But, they wrote, the WNBA segment was typical in other ways. The 23-second-long clip was the only mention of women's sports in the six-minute long sports segment -- and it was also the shortest. Other coverage included Major League Baseball games and the men's Wimbledon final, but also segments on a celebrity golf tournament and a competitive hot-dog eating contest. "In short, the WNBA story -- the shortest in duration of the six in the broadcast -- was eclipsed by five longer reports on men's sports, stories ranging from in-season sports (MLB, pro tennis), an out-of-season sport (NBA), to human interest and comedic entertainment only tangentially connected to what most people think of as sports news," the report found.

The study analyzed sports coverage on local network television (the Los Angeles affiliates KCBS, KNBC, and KABC) as well as highlight shows like ESPN's SportsCenter over the 30 years. In 2019 -- after sport media producers and others suggested televised news and highlights shows were not as relevant as they once were -- the researchers started to include online and social media sources, like Twitter accounts for the networks. The proportion of coverage dedicated to women's sports in email newsletters and Twitter was higher than TV news and SportsCenter, but only if the researchers included espnW and its online newsletter. ESPN stopped producing espnW's weekly newsletter, however, and, when researchers removed the data from their sample, the proportions dedicated to women's sports mirrored that found on TV news and highlights shows.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Most TV Completely Ignores Women's Sports, a 30-Year Study Finds More

Most TV Completely Ignores Women's Sports, a 30-Year Study Finds

Comments Filter:

  • In Other News... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    People more interested in watching sports and men's sports.

  • It ignores crap men too (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nagora ( 177841 ) on Thursday March 25, 2021 @10:46AM (#61196600)

    There are sports where women and men can or could compete together (archery, for example). Where they can't, basically womens' sport is watching a group of people who are second-rate and I've no more interest in that than I am watching second-rate males doing sport (unless I have some personal connection).

    • I think this is it in a nutshell. I don't even think we should have gender segregated sports anymore. Who knows, a few of the top performing people in the female leagues might make the grade for the male teams if given a chance but there is no reason to force it either.

      • Re:It ignores crap men too (Score:5, Informative)

        by JBeretta ( 7487512 ) on Thursday March 25, 2021 @11:42AM (#61196950)

        I think this is it in a nutshell. I don't even think we should have gender segregated sports anymore. Who knows, a few of the top performing people in the female leagues might make the grade for the male teams if given a chance but there is no reason to force it either.

        No. No they wouldn't. You don't get it do you? Venus Williams (or her sister, to be honest I don't remember which of the two it was) was absolutely SMOKED by a male player ranked about 200th in the world (among other men). She was the undisputed top female player at the time. The male later said (and he wasn't being a dick) that a male ranked 400th still probably would have beaten her.

        Chess? Sure.. That's mental. The female has no disadvantage. But if the sport requires speed, strength, or endurance, no woman is ever going to make the grade. End of story.

        If you want females to have sports, then they must remain gender-segregated. There is no debate here from a scientific/biological perspective.

        And only an idiot would even suggest that a woman wouldn't be killed (literally) if she attempted to play US Football. There isn't a female walking the planet who could survive some of the harder tackles. Their spines would snap.

        • You're picking sports that prove your point and ignoring ones that don't.
          Perhaps we actually need to come up with better sports, that don't naturally favour ANY physical advantages that aren't worked for. Or have some categories as does boxing. I get annoyed that I have no chance in competitive volleyball because I'm only average height, and those people who are at the top level are there primarily due to their height, which is of no credit to them at all...they're just freaks of nature.... Or change the ga

          • What you are saying makes sense for Childrens and recreational sports where the object is to be fun for the participant and fitness but not for competitive pro/Olympic sports where the object is to determine the best. In boxing it really only makes sense because you see different styles in different weight classes. That is more akin to different games played in dart and pool tournaments.

            "Perhaps we actually need to come up with better sports, that don't naturally favour ANY physical advantages that aren't w

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by JBeretta ( 7487512 )

            You're picking sports that prove your point and ignoring ones that don't.

            Bullshit. I qualified my statement by saying sports that require "speed, strength, and stamina.

            Perhaps we actually need to come up with better sports, that don't naturally favour ANY physical advantages that aren't worked for.

            And there we have it... The lefty argument.. We don't need to have a sport that measures speed because it's? What? Sexist? Not inclusive enough? For fuck's sake... You folks have lost your grip on reality.

        • "If you want females to have sports, then they must remain gender-segregated."

          I don't see the point in forcing this beyond elementary/high school sports which are really just about active play and fitness. In that arena it makes sense to encourage maximum enjoyment levels for everyone.

          In pro and Olympic level sports where sports are about being the best of the best it doesn't make sense to do anything for the purpose of artificially enabling a variety of genitals in the arena.
        • "No. No they wouldn't. You don't get it do you?"

          I get it. You have some obsession with assuming the outcome... I'm content to remove the artificial barrier and if you are right and there is a reality barrier I see no reason to do anything about it.

          I neither support someone like you who feels some need to beat in the idea someone can't succeed based on their identity NOR support those who demand equity of outcome. My solution of dropping all segregation and a harsh meritocracy in the game with no regard to e

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Venus Williams (or her sister, to be honest I don't remember which of the two it was) was absolutely SMOKED by a male player ranked about 200th

          He was 203rd and beat both of them
          https://www.marca.com/en/more-... [marca.com]

          Up stepped a German known as Karsten Braasch who was ranked 203rd in the world and after first beating Serena 6-1, he then disposed of Venus 6-2.
          "I didn't know it would be that difficult. I played shots that would have been winners on the women's circuit and he got to them very easily," said Serena.
          "They wouldn't have had a chance against anyone inside the top 500 because today I played like someone ranked 600th to keep it fun," was Braasch's assessment.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • These [youtube.com] two female Olympic gymnastic champions disagree with you. "This is like depressing watching this 'cause these are skills that I could never do."

        Pray tell, do you believe your opinion trumps theirs?

    • There is some evidence to support this theory. No one watched all of the attempts to start second rate men's football leagues either. And few people watch second rate men's college sports unless they have a social connection to the team. Maybe we have all been trained by watching the top performers (ignoring sex) and simply dislike watching second rate performances. I will admit to watching women's basketball and laughing at some of the errors made compared to what NBA pro players would do. So is this a se

    • There are sports where women and men can or could compete together (archery, for example).

      The men are usually much better.

      eg. Pool (which actually is open to both sexes). There's no logical reason men should be better than women at pool but women struggle to get into the top 100 in world rankings. You simply won't see them in any world championships for that reason.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nagora ( 177841 )

        There are sports where women and men can or could compete together (archery, for example).

        The men are usually much better.

        eg. Pool (which actually is open to both sexes). There's no logical reason men should be better than women at pool but women struggle to get into the top 100 in world rankings. You simply won't see them in any world championships for that reason.

        Chess is the same, but if a woman was in the top ranks I'd not have any problem watching her compete.

      • There's no logical reason men should be better than women at pool but women struggle to get into the top 100 in world rankings.

        Without really examining it in further detail you probably wouldn't be able to tell one way or another. It's entirely possible that women are just less interested in pool than men so the sport ends up with far fewer top women competitors because they'll never bother to pick up a cue.

        It could also be that men are better for biological reasons. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that men have greater upper body strength than women, but what about something like upper body motor control? That's probabl

    • There are sports where women and men can or could compete together (archery, for example). Where they can't, basically womens' sport is watching a group of people who are second-rate and I've no more interest in that than I am watching second-rate males doing sport (unless I have some personal connection).

      True, though in things like track and field I'm not sure that makes a difference. The product is the competition, potential records, and the hype. I don't think an Olympic sprint final is much more competitive than a World Championship or even Golden League, but the Olympics dwarfs all due to the hype.

      There's some team sports where the sex differences do make a big difference, though at the same time most viewers throught the women's Olympic Hockey Final was more exciting than the men's. So at least some of

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Have you watched women's football? It's often a lot better than men's football. More fluid and you get less time-wasting and stupid tactics.

      Besides which, aren't almost all teams and individuals in sport second rate? There's literally one fastest guy in the world at the 100m dash and everyone else is just an also-ran, right?

      Much of the enjoyment people get out of watching sport is seeing the underdog struggle, or watching someone develop their skills and career. I've been following Tochinoshin, a Georgian s

    • I can guarantee you that the average WNBA game is of higher skill than the average college game. Yet the male college games get more viewership. The women's tennis game (other than the horrible grunting) is more interesting to watch than the men's game due to the longer volleys.

    • archery, for example

      Nope. [archeryinfocenter.com]

      Archery is all about accuracy which is affected by the speed at which the arrow is traveling. If the arrow is traveling faster through the air it will fly flatter and hit the target with greater accuracy. An arrow that is traveling faster through the air will also be less affected by wind interference.
      Male archers can pull a heavier draw weight on their bows which allows them to put more power into their shots and fire the arrows at a quicker speed than a female archer. This woul

  • Hopefully we'll still have sports after Covid-19 gets through with it's run.

  • TV broadcasters need an audience (Score:5, Insightful)

    by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Thursday March 25, 2021 @10:48AM (#61196608)

    TV broadcasters broadcasts content for which there is an audience. If WNBA stories had an audience they would run more of them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TWX ( 665546 )

      Chicken and egg problem.

      Something is ignored because it has no audience.

      Audience doesn't really know about something because the news sources they watch or read doesn't cover it well.

      I'm not even expecting 50% coverage, but if there was a professional women's league game that the players take seriously then it would be nice if it got some reasonable mention, highlights not dissimilar to the men's game, etc. If nothing else, providing at least a little more coverage of womens' sports might attract a greater

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dirk ( 87083 )

      So do you think there is a bigger audience for hot dog eating contests or the WNBA? Because the hot dog eating contests get more sports news coverage than the WNBA on average. The WNBA averaged 6535 fans per game in 2019. I have a hard time believing that hot dog eating contests matched that level of interest.

      • So do you think there is a bigger audience for hot dog eating contests or the WNBA? Because the hot dog eating contests get more sports news coverage than the WNBA on average. The WNBA averaged 6535 fans per game in 2019. I have a hard time believing that hot dog eating contests matched that level of interest.

        I would prefer to watch the hot dog eating contest

  • Could it be possible, even if going against the PC mantra that everyone is equal....that most TV sports eyes belong to men, and they (*gasp*) generally are interested in men's sports and not so much women's sports?

    If this is true...could that suggest that TV channels, who are trying to make the most money tend to cater to where the most sports related advertising eyes are with the content that will generate the dollars?

    Hell, guess what....not that many ads for tampons, panty shields and spring fresh douch

    • There's just one small problem with that argument. Technology. Where one can get an indie channel on a Roku, and the global network to connect everyone. Niches are much bigger and more diverse than they use to be.

      • There's just one small problem with that argument. Technology. Where one can get an indie channel on a Roku, and the global network to connect everyone. Niches are much bigger and more diverse than they use to be.

        Ok well, sure....so, where are all those new women's sports channels that should be popping up and generating income?

        I mean, you are right, the means are there...but apparently the demand is not.

    • that most TV sports eyes belong to men, and they (*gasp*) generally are interested in men's sports and not so much women's sports?

      Well, men wanting to watch muscular men get all sweaty while tackling each other down, then pressing their bodies against their opponents, and afterwards again among their bros in a huge collective hug is... well, let's just say I myself derive more enjoyment from watching women to those things than from watching bulky men do them.

      Also, when I play video-games I like to chose the female lead, if available, and play controlling her. If I'm going to sit in front of a screen for hours on end watching someone's

      • I think the idea behind picking your same gender character is the idea of imaging yourself as the character that then gets to explore the amazing world you are about to enter.

        As a teenager I always played male characters for that reason. Then I started picking my characters based on how the overall models looked performing actions in the game. Sometimes the female characters just looked so much better at doing whatever action sequence they were involved in.

        Great example. World of Warcraft. Night Elf males s

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Then I started picking my characters based on how the overall models looked performing actions in the game.

          This is known as the Tomb Raider Effect.

        • Night Elf males shoot a bow like a retard-ganster sideways thing. Looks dumb as can be. The Night Elf females shoot the bow with perfect posture and sight.
          I was to say exactly the same thing, even letter wise.

          My only other female char is draenei warrioress, because the males look so ugly (wanted to try the racial healing ability).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by TWX ( 665546 )

      But news coverage is not the same as the time spent covering a live event in realtime.

      I've been to a few WNBA games. They're fun. They're more like how the NBA was in the eighties before agility and finesse were we replaced by un-called traveling, body contact, and breaking stuff. It should not be difficult for a sportscaster to cover the highlights of a game similarly to how NBA game highlights are covered, or were covered in a more civilized era of the men's sport.

      I don't think most people are expectin

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by JeffOwl ( 2858633 )

      Let me try.... Because of historical unfair treatment of women, women's professional sports has not had the same opportunity to grow as men's professional sports has over the last 100+ years, and therefore never reached the critical mass men's sports have. Men's sports came up along with the Television era when there wasn't much in the way of competition for that type of "reality" entertainment. On the other hand, women's sports now have to compete with men's sports which are already well established, have

      • It's simple.

        If there were a demand for more women's sports coverage, there would be an audience and money...it simply is not there at this time.

        How full are those stadiums consistently where WNBA and other women's pro sports are played?

  • They should ignore menâ(TM)s sports too.

  • Special Olympics (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Womens sports are kind of like the Special Olympics. Interesting fact: the Special Olympics record for Mens 100M running is faster than the women record for the regular olympics.

  • You can't ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Thursday March 25, 2021 @10:55AM (#61196642) Journal
    You can't make people want what they don't want. Not consistently, anyway. Or in areas where they still have some freedom left, like choosing what to watch on TV.

  • You can't Title IX Advertisers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chispito ( 1870390 ) on Thursday March 25, 2021 @10:57AM (#61196650)
    You can't Title IX Advertisers.

    • I would bet that if a network showed one WNBA and one NBA game a week and promoted the WNBA game 10 times more than the NBA game, the NBA would still score 10 times the viewers.

  • I wonder if there is also risk aversion (Score:5, Interesting)

    by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Thursday March 25, 2021 @10:59AM (#61196670)

    Listening to sports radio there is a constant stream of extremely harsh criticism about male athletes, teams, and coaches from the hosts and callers alike. I wonder if there is fear that doing the same about women's sports could get them canceled.

  • The real reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GoJays ( 1793832 ) on Thursday March 25, 2021 @11:03AM (#61196676)
    You know why Women's sports don't get the coverage? The reasoning is simple but all these SJW's today just can't seem to grasp it. The people who watch sports aren't watching sports because they love men and hate women. They are watching a sport they love and in doing so they want to see THE BEST POSSIBLE ATHLETES play. Doesn't matter if they are men or women, black or white or whatever trait. If there is a freak of a woman who can throw a baseball at 102MPH... I want to watch her play. But hate to break it to the SJW's... There isn't. There are physical differences between men and women and women just can't compete with men when it comes to physical activity. When a woman can knock out a guy like Mike Tyson, I'm watching. When a woman can run faster than Usain Bolt, I'm watching... when a woman can run, dribble and shoot like C. Ronaldo... I'm watching. But they can't. I want to watch the best possible product on the field/ice/court... I don't give a flying %#%^ what colour their skin is or what is between their legs, if they can destory a line of scrimmage with bone crushing hits... I'm paying to watch. If they are just average, why would I watch when there is a better product readily available?

    • Re:The real reason (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Thursday March 25, 2021 @11:39AM (#61196928) Homepage

      So if this is the case and sports fans only want to watch the "BEST POSSIBLE ATHLETES", please explain college sports to me.The players are obviously not the best because professional sports exist. So why exactly do college sports draw the audience they do, having clearly not the best athletes, if the only thing sprts fans want sot see if the very best athletes in any sport?

      • Re:The real reason (Score:5, Insightful)

        by GoJays ( 1793832 ) on Thursday March 25, 2021 @11:50AM (#61197000)
        Humans by nature are tribal. College sports are only popular due to the social affiliation to the team (they are part of the school's allumni, a current student, it's their home town etc). Nobody in England is watching US college football when they can watch the NFL.

        Of course there are also those crazy fans who will watch anything a sport has to offer. So they watch college football so they can see a future legend play before they are a legend... eg. Seeing Tom Brady play for Michigan.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by thejam ( 655457 )

        College athletes are often the best at their age level. Since most future professional athletes pass through the college system first, you get a glimpse of the next generation and can speculate who the next greats will be. Jordan was a master at NC Chapel Hill before the Bulls, etc.

      • Probably because college is where the next group of studs is coming from in the next 2-4 years, no different than looking down the horizon on any other interest.

        And lets be honest, the people who take things down to the college (or even highschool level) are either nuts about that particular sport or into making bets and gambling (which is also probably the bulk if not half of the loyal college fan crowd). Most of the other people I know that watch college sports religiously are actual students, former stud

    • Re:The real reason (Score:4, Insightful)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday March 25, 2021 @11:51AM (#61197006)

      You know why Women's sports don't get the coverage? The reasoning is simple but all these SJW's today just can't seem to grasp it. The people who watch sports aren't watching sports because they love men and hate women. They are watching a sport they love and in doing so they want to see THE BEST POSSIBLE ATHLETES play.

      Then why does the revelation that an athlete was doping destroy their legacy? There's a lot more going on than peak performance.

      Frankly, I think the big reason women's sports suffer isn't performance, it's hero worship.

      The major viewers of sports are men. And they tend to look up to professional athletes as heroes, as the pinnacles of a certain kind of masculinity, and as a way to live vicariously through the people playing.

      I think it's really hard to sell those men on watching women's sports because they're not going to get that same kind of hero worship nor are the male viewers going to imagine themselves in the women's shoes (or skates).

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by nagora ( 177841 )

        You know why Women's sports don't get the coverage? The reasoning is simple but all these SJW's today just can't seem to grasp it. The people who watch sports aren't watching sports because they love men and hate women. They are watching a sport they love and in doing so they want to see THE BEST POSSIBLE ATHLETES play.

        Then why does the revelation that an athlete was doping destroy their legacy?

        Because it shows that they weren't the best possible athlete after all. I'm not seeing your point here.

    • I agree with you pretty much 100% with one small exception.. Women's tennis more interesting than men's. Ironically it is because the women don't have the power to serve aces over and over and over.. they actually have to serve and volley and win the point. The volley time is much longer than the mens and builds more tension. That being said, I haven't watched tennis for either gender in decades but if I had to choose, I'd choose the women's game. Also, it's probably not a coincidence that I have this opin

    • They are watching a sport they love and in doing so they want to see THE BEST POSSIBLE ATHLETES play.

      Nope, sorry. You're going to have to show some evidence for this beyond your personal opinion. I know plenty of people that watch niche sports, lower level teams and lower level competitions. In fact, if what you say is true, nobody would watch any football except when Brazil play Germany. You certainly wouldn't get pubs full of people watching Scottish football league games, because they'd only watch La Liga or Italian Serie A.

      Its good that you got your dog whistles in though, so at least we know your disi

    • Then I suggest you watch the next women's soccer world championships.
      So your silly point of view gets corrected.

  • Broadcasting costs money. This is not just sports. Anything on TV or streaming has to have funding or it folds.

    No bucks, no buck rogers. That's life

  • And how many professional soccer teams has YOUR city been through?

    Chicago's had something like SIX. They run for a few years. Crash and burn. Then in a couple years, someone tries launching a new team.

    It's not that there's no market.
    It's just that the market isn't sustainable and the competition of PPV and ESPN sports channels in addition to local broadcast basically saturate what market there is.

    It's not misogyny. It's like opening up a McDonalds restaurant at an intersection with three other McDonalds

  • For anyone who thinks this is a problem, simply tell them that women have better use for time than watching people play sports, so why do they have a problem with women being more sensible than men?

  • it's in the news to complain about women making too loud of a sound when playing tennis.

  • Gender Doesn't Matter (Score:4, Insightful)

    by inhuman_4 ( 1294516 ) on Thursday March 25, 2021 @11:23AM (#61196802)

    Professional women's sports will never be successful because gender doesn't matter. The appeal of these professional leagues is that it's made of up the best players. So you to watch the game played at it's highest level, a match up of the best vs the best. It's got nothing to do with the gender of the athletes. That the best are men is just a consequence of biology.

    Running a league of the best players that are women, just isn't appealing. For the same reason why a league of the best players who are left handed or bald isn't appealing. When you arbitrarily narrow the pool of talent to draw from you get a less competitive league.

    • What nonsense. If what you say it true then each country in the word wouldn't be able to have their own football leagues. Everyone would be to busy watching La Liga, Serie A or whichever one is considered the best. Yet even small countries of 5 million like Scotland can support professional football with multiple leagues. Maybe its just another problem unique to the USA, because I notice we get women's football on TV all the time over here, and I don't even watch sport.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nuggz ( 69912 )

      The best players don't always make for the most interesting game.

  • Comeing soon an womens rsn fee and espnw espnw2
    All forced into your basic cable level you bill may go up $5-$15/mo to cover this

  • The title should have been "Most US TV ignores women's sports", as that is what the study is for.

    I don't think sports coverage here in Europe ignores women's sports as much. If we're shown heroic efforts by women athletes, we cheer for them too, but yes I agree that women's sports are not watched as much as men here either.
    Beside many reasons already mentioned (rooted in money, money and money) I think the relative lack of women in US sports news coverage can also be described by the culture in the US being

    • I doubt there's any significant difference between viewership in Europe and the United States. What do you think gets more coverage in European countries? Men's football (soccer) or women's? I'd imagine that if you compared it to basketball coverage (or other metrics such as revenue, etc.) in the U.S. market it would look similar. The other most popular sports in the U.S. (football and baseball) don't even have professional women's leagues to compete for viewership, so it's hardly surprising there's no cove

  • - Men are more interested in watching sport
    - Men are more interested in doing sport competitively
    - Men are simply better at sports (for obvious physical reasons), and people want to watch sports at the highest level
    - Cultural background: sports is a men's thing, that part is changing but slowly

    TV just responds to demand. Judging by my conversations at work, the ones who want to watch sports are men watching men's sport. And more men watch women's sports (in addition to men's sport) than women watch sports a

  • Most tv watchers -- and everyone else, too -- ignore women's sports. But tv has to lose money to indulge the woke?

    • No doubt you would refuse to watch women's beach volleyball because you wouldn't want anybody to think you were "woke".

      Or maybe for another reason...

  • Tribal angry high-stakes monkeys (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fleeped ( 1945926 ) on Thursday March 25, 2021 @12:07PM (#61197130)

    I've been to a football stadium to watch a match exactly once in my life. It's pretty evident why broadcasting targets men. It's super-tribal (us versus them, up to violent levels), it's a physical outlet for aggression and repression, even as a spectator (shout, curse etc etc), and high-stakes behavior of athletes is being rewarded when successful (and from experience, high-risk/high-reward is more of a male trait).

    Imagine a football stadium filled with women, shouting for their team. Women spectators, not just athletes. You can't? Well, that's why broadcasters don't give a $%!.

  • Correction: Most TV ignores low rating events (Score:3)

    by stikves ( 127823 ) on Thursday March 25, 2021 @12:17PM (#61197220) Homepage

    I don't watch women's sports. My wife does not watch women's sports. My daughters don't watch women's sports. There is probably a pattern here...

    There is a "winner takes all" in all TV shows? The great sci-fi you loved, that scored 0.8 on rating? Gone. Same idea, but especially more so for sports in TV.

    You have a 2 hour slot for sports? NBA, NCAA, or women's sports? Which will will they pick?

  • Physical sports are for the intellectuals, not the brutes. They always have been. While the players get paid to permanently damage themselves, the owners take in the bulk of the money. A few players make millions but most players make modest salaries. Almost no one gets a sports scholarship. Kids who get free rides to college write papers, get good grades, and do community service.

    Video Games are where nothing matters but intellectual ability and basic physical skills that don't require a gym to master

  • Fixed the headline for you.

    This is not 1970 where there was no womens sports available. Womens sports is now widely broadcast, whats more, we can all stream it whenever we want.

    Despite ESPN carrying WNBA, NBA games still get 10x the ratings of WNBA games. Yes, WNBA is still growing, but the gaping chasm to climb, is real. Sports is a business. 10x the viewers means 10x the dollars.

    If you want to support the WNBA, then stop whining about sportscasters and start getting people to actually watch the games that are being broadcast.

    A related but important point is the fact that overall viewership of sports in general is rapidly falling, as we have so many more options for entertainment now. Gen Z has very little interest in sitting and watching sports in TV, no matter who is playing. So, the NBA and WNBA are going to be battling for an ever decreasing number of eyeballs.

  • Who watches TELEVISION anymore?

    That medium died years ago.
    I can't remember the last time I used my SmartTV for normal television. It's mostly Youtube, Netflix, Prime etc. But TV!? As in full-of-ads every 5 minute old media with low resolution and bad reception? Even digital TV is far behind the internet media today.

    TV is dead.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close