ESPN

"It's days like this that make us wonder if sports really matter."

This statement (and many like it) has been said dozens of times over the last two days, as people react to the shootings at Virginia Tech. It is also heard whenever there are major tragedies in this country. It speaks to the thin line that sports lives on as an escape from reality; the average fan uses sports as a way to escape from politics, society, and dozens of other important daily occurrences. However, what is it also seems to say is something that gets addressed very rarely in this world: are sports too important?

It's a valid enough question. Sports these days make billions of dollars from fan attendance, advertisements, television deals, and so on. Should something that boils down to "shooting/running/hitting/kicking an object into another object" be of such worth in the modern world? Should someone really be getting paid anywhere near a million dollars to throw a ball?

However applicable, these are ultimately trivial questions. People will keep buying tickets, jerseys, shoes, hats, and everything else they can get their hands on from their favorite team, and so the money will continue to flow. Perhaps the better question is less about the sport itself, and more about the coverage it receives. Thanks to ESPN, sports is only rivaled by politics in sheer levels of punditry. Every visible moment in sports is scrutinized, analyzed and reanalyzed until everyone knows every conceivable aspect of every play ever. Hours are spent waxing on whether or not someone might be drafted, or someone might be signed, or someone might be hurt. And because these are mostly sports writers we're talking about, the opinions that get endlessly regurgitated on show after show tend to be identical, with the only discourse coming from those who are bored from the lack of discourse and feel the need to spice things up a little bit (Around the Horn is COMPLETELY built around the idea of making an argument, whether you believe it or not).

So why do people who cover sports constantly wonder if sports are that important in the face of tragedy? Because they're worried. Their livelihoods are at stake. The local sports writers will always remain; I'd be surprised if Sid Hartman hears Virginia Tech and doesn't automatically think about their offensive scheme. However, on a national scale, there simply is not that much to talk about. Unless a player makes an offensive comment or somebody says something insulting towards another player or a coach calls out the referees, basically all that is available to talk about is what is Inside the Lines. And that can't really fill a whole days' worth of programming (ask ESPNEWS)

The best example of this mentality permeating sports media happened a few years ago at a journalism workshop I attended. Throughout the days at this workshop, we would attend seminars taught by certain industry professionals. One of the last seminars we ever attended was about sports journalism. This, of course, was particularly exciting because 1) IT'S SPORTS and 2) it was being taught by a woman. However, my initial excitement died when she started to talk about how sports coverage wasn't about scores anymore; it was about the people behind the games. It was about knowing what and who these people were more than what they were producing on the field. She even went so far to insinuate that those who read sports coverage for the scores and stats were a dying breed.

This is something that I have a fundamental problem with. It is this sort of analysis of character that turns the possibility of one of the most momentous events in American sports history happening this season into 2nd-tier news. Sure, Barry Bonds will soon cement his place as one of the greatest hitters in baseball history, but he's such a jerk! Phrases like "clubhouse killer" and "bad character guy" get thrown around with such reckless abandon that you'd think someones personality affected his ability to swing the bat or catch a ball.

It would help if they represented multiple points of view, but that also never happens. The best example of this would be the Pacers-Pistons fan brawl a few years ago. The next day, in response to the attacks, the correct idea would have been measured responses about how no one made the correct decision. Instead, what happened was all three panelists - Greg Anthony, Stephen A. Smith and Tim Legler - completely and only attacked the fans for their actions. You had THREE PEOPLE! Couldn't you have convinced ONE to say "hey, maybe running into the stands a punching people was worse than throwing a beer". To hear these three grown men essentially give the "they started it!" excuse was absolutely inexcusable. ESPN is less fair and balanced that FOX News.

What does all this add up to? ESPN makes its bread and butter by banking that people are willing to shape reality around something that, at its core, is meant to be an escape from reality. After finally admitting this to myself, I'm going to make a concentrated effort to watch less ESPN. I think my life will be better for it.