I have always found what Deadspin did with the “Bristolmetrics” pretty interesting, so I decided to take a page out of their playbook and take a closer look at how much time and to which sports our very own highlight show spends its time on.
I set the DVR to record every late night SportsNet Central on CSN Bay Area for an entire week. With a stop watch and a spreadsheet, I documented what went on. It wasn’t always fun, but the end results–I hope–will be worth it.
It should come as no surprise that at this time of year the Giants were the run-away winners in the amount of coverage received (after all, they are part owners of the station). In a distant second were the A’s, followed by the Raiders (whose numbers were boosted by the “Meet the Rookies” segment) and the Warriors.
Here is the full breakdown of time spent:
|Team/Sport||% Time||Total Time|
|Giants||52.46%||1h 12m 3s|
The rest of the coverage included the San Francisco Bulls (who signed their first player), the Sabercats and CSN employees singing the National Anthem at the Giants game.
In terms of sports covered, MLB was the big leader, followed by the NFL and NBA. For fourth place, the U.S. Olympic Trails beat out the Euro Cup and Golf. I am not sure how much of that is NBC Sports wanting to try to get people pumped for the Olympics or just a sign that CSN thinks people don’t care much for European Soccer.
Here is the full breakdown by sport from last week:
In the opinion of CSN Bay Area, the Giants are the biggest story in the Bay Area. They got over half of the total coverage and had five times that of the second place A’s. They also were the lead highlights six out of seven days, being upstaged only by the NBA draft. But, even then, the pre-highlights were heavy on Giants.
Though the Giants love makes sense (even this site has much more Giants coverage than other sports this time of year), it is still pretty astonishing that it would be so far and away the leader.
What do you all think of CSN’s coverage of Bay Area Sports? Let us know in the comments.
To be honest it isnt just the reporting that tilts toward the Giants but it seems like every special they have is either about the 2010 Giants, Willie Mays or some other Giants focused theme. It would be nice if they had shows on other athletes in the Bay Area that didnt wear orange and black. Its bad enough that the 4-5 hrs they have during Giants games seem to be more on the marketing aspect of the team than the actual game itself.
I'm liking the opposites of Urban and Steinmetz on 95.7. Urban doesn't quite know what tact to take as Matt has been of a different view on almost everything. You know-like what happens to us in the real world,but "play happy" is what sports radio mostly is.
One thing about Comcast at 5? They offer very little critical talk of the A's...you would think that the A's would be scorched...instead, Ratto and Killon both who have been critical of Slick Billy..aren't there when the A's are brought up. Instead,its Barry Tompkins.yawn. Baer showing the rich protect there own?
The data reflects whats hot...but if you listen to Comcast at 5...the results seem to follow what sports demographics are advertising profit..and that's why the Sharks get waaay too much air time-all year. Its dead air to me. Same for Earthquakes.who also get a constant trickle of time out of proportion to popularity. The 49ers also seem to be near no.1 all year as talk show fodder..unlike the Raiders who have arent reported on by much more then just Paul Gutierrez. I hear they just added Vic Tafur..who I know has talent too..to Raider talk.
Always thought the" rule" was unless something happened monumental in the earlier game, the later game got the first story to catch up on those who didn't stay up (i.e. me on Tues night ). I woke up Weds morning, turned on CSN to check out the A's stirring comeback win over the Bosox that I just found out about. Got to see the A's highlights....after the first 8 minutes were occupied by the Giants inconsequential lopsided loss to the Nats in the lastest version of "Whats wrong with Timmy" (98.7's favorite topic as well).
Bravo for the self torture in the name of good journalism, Scott. I'm curious to see what will happen "IF" the wheels fall of the mighty Giants and our scrappy little A's start making serious runs. So many Giant fans are post 2010 fans with silly hats, it's nauseating. I bet Timmy's meltdown will get more play on the Game tomorrow than the A's sweep. Sad commentary.
This is why CSN and KNBR have next to ZERO credibility or journalistic integrity. They both are partly owned by the Giants and serve as a 24 hour hype and propaganda machine. I mean, I understand that the Giants are a hot commodity right now, but it's one thing to pay a little more attention to the team and another to act as the Giants version of Fox News.
Good point Stan; was actually enjoying Urban with Steinmetz today and even a little bit with Wolford on Mon/Tues (whom I normally don't care for). The programs were very good had good thoughts and was less "grab ass" when that twerp Lund is there-making more fuel to my point of letting him go.
The A's don't move the needle Espn isn't owned by any teams yet tends to gravitate towards certain teams. Why? Because they move the needle. Lets see something like this once a month for a year and no doubt you'll see the trends change based on what's in season correlating with what moves the needle. Don't like that ratings dictate coverage? Too bad, cause that's just how it is. I love the sharks and outside of the giants they're the most successful major sport franchise in the area for the last decade yet have and always will get less coverage than the horrid warriors. It is what it is.
KNBR and CSN cover the Giants because they get big ratings. Ratings dictate the programming. Same with any TV show. American Idol gets big ratings. Hence, many sites like tvguide, entertainment weekly, etc. spend huge blocks of time cover Idol.
Well, I guess we just disagree on the motivations of these two media outlets. Certainly, I agree that ratings are a huge aspect of their decision making, but I think increasing and promoting the Giants "brand" comes before their journalistic integrity. Even though you may disagree about the strength of their bias, you can't disagree that both outlets have a vested interest in seeing the Giants specifically succeed. That fact undoubtably colors their credibility.
Journalistic integrity as you define it is pretty much non-existent in sports as you define it. Whether motivated by ratings or your ownerships interests, ultimately it comes down to being self serving. We can argue all we want over what degree they're motivated by ownership vs. ratings, or we can look at 95.7 the game, the a's own flagship. Take away the actual a's broadcasts and more of their airtime is spent discussing the giants than the A's. If their flagship station is doing it, what does that imply about stations with no interest in seeing the a's get coverage? Sorry, it sucks for you guys but as a sharks fan I really can't sympathize very much. They put on what moves the needle, and as I'm sure the trends will show over the next year, it'll be 1/2. Niners/giants, 3. Raiders, 4. Warriors, 5. A's, 6. Sharks, 7. Everything else Something else to consider beyond the pure ratings is that giants/niners tends to be catering to more affluent types in sf and the south bay vs the raiders/a's audience. I don't mean that as a put down, more as an observation that a programming director will make when trying to maximize advertising dollars. By the way, I'm not an A's or giants fan, but I follow baseball and this is just my take. I don't doubt the ownership stake affects the programming, but ultimately ratings and advertising dollars are king. I think the key influence that will have is in how critical KNBR and csn will be of the giants, particularly the ownership.