That was fantastic. (Speaking as someone who has never been a Cowherd fan, including from childhood experiences listening to him on the radio in his Portland local-market days. My opinion of him just ratcheted up.)
It’s so difficult to let criticism roll off you in the ways he talks about being productive for him and for sports journalists. In some ways — thinking back to the Napear piece, and some of what it said about elite codes, and how those who grow up in the right environments are well-versed in how to talk the talk, and in what you DON’T say -- maybe part of that “coding” doesn’t happen on a level of content or what to say, but in terms of an orientation toward criticism: one learns that one is supposed to tiptoe around it, to not be confrontational, to generally take it quite seriously when someone is upset with you. That creates quite an opportunity for people like Cowherd who are a little more freewheeling and who are able to come across as genuine even when it might spark blowback — because, as you say, audiences are hungry for that.
I found myself thinking about an equation that Ethan made that I think might not quite be true, and might b driving part of the push toward anti-opinionism.
On the show, Ethan (and Collin) basically said having a take was a kind of honesty, while stepping back from that was fake and inauthentic. I'm in my my 30s, the majority of my sports media consumption was in the ESPN embrace debate era, and that sort of commodified opinions in a particular way. It was so produced that even if you didn't literally know, it seemed like they were grabbing sides to take out of a booklet before it happened. It all felt contrived.
That is/was part of the appeal of Ethan's work all the way back to WarriorsWorld and the Warriors stuff even before that. Sure, there was opinion, but that wasn't the thrust, there was analysis and breakdown. There was authentic questioning and different perspective. And I wonder if this generation not interesting in being crushed on twitter does that in part because it was raised on a model where opinionists came off as perpetually phony.
It should be added that the opinion economy somewhat merges with the being hated economy, which in turn is very lucrative. The college football polls are pretty directionless opinion-ing, but they're guaranteed to trigger a lot of folks, and triggered folks means attention which often means money.
I'm going to assume that you're not from America, which is fine and I'm happy to have non American subscribers. So I'll let you in on this, if you don't know already: All of our cable news channels are absolutely bat shit insane right now. All of them. The shit on Fox. The shit on CNN. The shit on MSNBC. This doesn't absolve Fox of any sins, but it partially explains why I don't flip out about Fox in particular. I'm not operating under the assumption that there's utopia ahoy without its existence.
Yes, I'm Australian - you have a lot of Aussie fans in here. I see what you are saying, but only one of those networks has spent 3 decades denying climate change, for example. And only one of them pretended the past US election was rigged. I'm certainly not saying the other networks are pristine, nor am I an apologist for the batshit crazy left. I am just a scientist who believes in truth over cherry-picking, obfuscation and spin. Love your work, keep up the healthy skepticism, and thanks for the answer.
I very much enjoyed this discussion, but found myself disgusted at one point. When Cowherd pumped up fellow Fox commentators on the non-sports side of things, and merely described them as highly successful "opinionistas", there was no pushback from you, Ethan? Those people are not just putting forward opinons! They label themselves as journalists and news reporters, but they are blatant PROPAGANDISTS who have, for decades, pumped misinformation and lies to their audiences at the behest of a billionarire cabal headed by their benefactor Rupert Murdoch. The have brazenly lied about topics of crucial importance to the entire global population such as climate change (and a range of other crucial environmental issues), the drivers and consequences of ever-growing wealth inequality, and the validity of democratic elections in the US and abroad. I couldn't give two shits about controversial opinions in the sports commentary sphere - they add to the flavour - but when we give a free pass to people who openly lie about crucial topics that affect the lives of billions, I think a line has been crossed and those people should be labelled what they are - propagandists pushing the agend of the mega-rich.
Just how many hours a day are you watching US cable news networks in Australia? As someone who lives in the US, I can assure you that all cable news networks are vile propaganda vehicles with none better or worse than the other. Just because your echo chamber tells you Fox News is a blight on humanity, doesn't mean that CNN and MSNBC aren't equally as bad in their own way.
There is a difference between running a political line on something - which news media should not be doing full stop (and I accept most networks do that even though they shouldn't) - and literally ignoring the facts, making up a fantasy, and feeding it to their audience. Again, Fox has spent 3 DECADES doing this with climate science that was already robust in 1989 when the first IPCC report was released. And they actively promoted election conspiracies only a year ago. And if I could be bothered I could cite many other examples. Please give me an example of a subject or two on which other networks are spreading literal misinformation, I'm interested to know.
Please answer my question. Do you actually watch any of the US cable news networks? If not, you aren't speaking from experience, just second hand anecdotal stories from online echo chambers.
And to actually answer your question, the Russian Dossier story.
That was fantastic. (Speaking as someone who has never been a Cowherd fan, including from childhood experiences listening to him on the radio in his Portland local-market days. My opinion of him just ratcheted up.)
It’s so difficult to let criticism roll off you in the ways he talks about being productive for him and for sports journalists. In some ways — thinking back to the Napear piece, and some of what it said about elite codes, and how those who grow up in the right environments are well-versed in how to talk the talk, and in what you DON’T say -- maybe part of that “coding” doesn’t happen on a level of content or what to say, but in terms of an orientation toward criticism: one learns that one is supposed to tiptoe around it, to not be confrontational, to generally take it quite seriously when someone is upset with you. That creates quite an opportunity for people like Cowherd who are a little more freewheeling and who are able to come across as genuine even when it might spark blowback — because, as you say, audiences are hungry for that.
I know Ethan can't respond to this one, but do y'all think that's Kellerman he's referring to as Captain Safe Take at 24 minutesish?
No idea. Your guess as good as mine
Has to be... I originally thought Greenberg but he praises him by name elsewhere in the pod (albeit not for his takemanship)
Came here to ask that myself
This was a really good, thoughtful conversation about the business. Enjoyed it.
I found myself thinking about an equation that Ethan made that I think might not quite be true, and might b driving part of the push toward anti-opinionism.
On the show, Ethan (and Collin) basically said having a take was a kind of honesty, while stepping back from that was fake and inauthentic. I'm in my my 30s, the majority of my sports media consumption was in the ESPN embrace debate era, and that sort of commodified opinions in a particular way. It was so produced that even if you didn't literally know, it seemed like they were grabbing sides to take out of a booklet before it happened. It all felt contrived.
That is/was part of the appeal of Ethan's work all the way back to WarriorsWorld and the Warriors stuff even before that. Sure, there was opinion, but that wasn't the thrust, there was analysis and breakdown. There was authentic questioning and different perspective. And I wonder if this generation not interesting in being crushed on twitter does that in part because it was raised on a model where opinionists came off as perpetually phony.
It should be added that the opinion economy somewhat merges with the being hated economy, which in turn is very lucrative. The college football polls are pretty directionless opinion-ing, but they're guaranteed to trigger a lot of folks, and triggered folks means attention which often means money.
PS I really hope you read my comment below and reply because I'd be fascinated to know what you thought, if anything, when Cowherd made that comment.
I'm going to assume that you're not from America, which is fine and I'm happy to have non American subscribers. So I'll let you in on this, if you don't know already: All of our cable news channels are absolutely bat shit insane right now. All of them. The shit on Fox. The shit on CNN. The shit on MSNBC. This doesn't absolve Fox of any sins, but it partially explains why I don't flip out about Fox in particular. I'm not operating under the assumption that there's utopia ahoy without its existence.
Yes, I'm Australian - you have a lot of Aussie fans in here. I see what you are saying, but only one of those networks has spent 3 decades denying climate change, for example. And only one of them pretended the past US election was rigged. I'm certainly not saying the other networks are pristine, nor am I an apologist for the batshit crazy left. I am just a scientist who believes in truth over cherry-picking, obfuscation and spin. Love your work, keep up the healthy skepticism, and thanks for the answer.
I very much enjoyed this discussion, but found myself disgusted at one point. When Cowherd pumped up fellow Fox commentators on the non-sports side of things, and merely described them as highly successful "opinionistas", there was no pushback from you, Ethan? Those people are not just putting forward opinons! They label themselves as journalists and news reporters, but they are blatant PROPAGANDISTS who have, for decades, pumped misinformation and lies to their audiences at the behest of a billionarire cabal headed by their benefactor Rupert Murdoch. The have brazenly lied about topics of crucial importance to the entire global population such as climate change (and a range of other crucial environmental issues), the drivers and consequences of ever-growing wealth inequality, and the validity of democratic elections in the US and abroad. I couldn't give two shits about controversial opinions in the sports commentary sphere - they add to the flavour - but when we give a free pass to people who openly lie about crucial topics that affect the lives of billions, I think a line has been crossed and those people should be labelled what they are - propagandists pushing the agend of the mega-rich.
Just how many hours a day are you watching US cable news networks in Australia? As someone who lives in the US, I can assure you that all cable news networks are vile propaganda vehicles with none better or worse than the other. Just because your echo chamber tells you Fox News is a blight on humanity, doesn't mean that CNN and MSNBC aren't equally as bad in their own way.
There is a difference between running a political line on something - which news media should not be doing full stop (and I accept most networks do that even though they shouldn't) - and literally ignoring the facts, making up a fantasy, and feeding it to their audience. Again, Fox has spent 3 DECADES doing this with climate science that was already robust in 1989 when the first IPCC report was released. And they actively promoted election conspiracies only a year ago. And if I could be bothered I could cite many other examples. Please give me an example of a subject or two on which other networks are spreading literal misinformation, I'm interested to know.
Please answer my question. Do you actually watch any of the US cable news networks? If not, you aren't speaking from experience, just second hand anecdotal stories from online echo chambers.
And to actually answer your question, the Russian Dossier story.
Thank you, Ethan. I’ve been waiting for this since day one 😂
Okay but has anyone told you that you look like the guy who plays the guy who killed Versace?
Andrew Cunanan went to the high school next door fwiw
It’s all starting to make sense.
This was solid. You guys gel well. "Populist snob", I'm stealing that one for my day-to-day convos.