Three months ago, Le Anne Schreiber wrote her last column as ESPN's ombudsman. Many large news organizations employ an ombudsman, who effectively serves as the voice of the readers. Schreiber was the voice of the fans at ESPN. Not that Schreiber was texting "SportsCenter" about how, omg, her team rockz!!!1! Rather, she fielded comments and complaints from readers (of ESPN.com and ESPN The Magazine), viewers (of the innumerable ESPN television stations), and listeners (ESPN Radio), and each month combined fan sentiment with her own experience and instincts as a professional journalist to write a column on what ESPN could do better.
Schreiber was the best thing to happen to ESPN in the last 10 years, maybe longer. When the company initially hired an ombudsman in early 2006, I criticized the choice of George Solomon as someone who "comes across more as an apologist than as a critical observer." Solomon probably meant well, and ESPN deserved praise for bringing in an ombudsman at all, but Solomon had too many existing relationships with ESPN personnel — including his son Aaron, a producer for "Around the Horn" — to objectively critique the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader." Solomon's final column, in which he did an excellent job of summarizing and clearly — at times even eloquently — expressing fans' concerns, joked around and half-heartedly admitted these conflicts of interest.
Schreiber had no such connections, had no such biases. She even admitted in her initial column that she didn't have much interest in watching sports. That distance, I think, gave her credibility, and also an interesting opportunity to critique ESPN from the context of someone whose life had never previously been affected by Skip Bayless or Stuart Scott. This perspective proved very valuable in the ombudsman. ESPN has stood alone atop the world of cable sports for basically as long as cable sports has existed. The company's goal, since it was purchased by Disney in 1995, has been to expand viewership beyond just sports fans. The conventional wisdom is that diehard fans will watch ESPN no matter what, because they pretty much have to, so programming can be aimed at casual fans and even non-fans. Schreiber represented the latter group, the target audience.
What the network may not have anticipated was that Schreiber would so often agree with the diehard fans. Her first full column as ombud was titled, "Too much shouting obscures the message." Read it. It's not short; the piece will take a few minutes to get through. It's worth five minutes of your time. Read it. This is what Schreiber brought to the position.
Her second column was on conflict of interest, ESPN's perceived over-promotion of its own events and occasional neglect of sports news that didn't appear to fit the bottom line. Every month for two years, this was what Schreiber gave us. She did, for the most part, an excellent job of voicing fans' complaints, and I believe that she sometimes made a genuine difference in the way ESPN presented certain issues, as well as the way some of its personalities conducted themselves in print and on the air.
If you have noticed, in the last two years, that it seems like ESPN has scaled back some of its offenses against fans, you have Schreiber at least partly to thank. If you think eliminating booth guests from "Monday Night Football" made Monday nights fun again, if you feel like "SportsCenter" has had less fluff and more actual highlights, even if you just believe that ESPN has gotten worse a little more slowly than you expected, this is partially a reflection of Schreiber's work. She consistently gave voice to the complaints of fans, and she spoke directly to ESPN higher-ups about the most important issues. She called out anchors and hosts when they behaved inappropriately. Schreiber brought dignity and journalistic professional to an enterprise sorely in need of both. She did not solve all or even most of the problems, but her contributions have helped in ways that are apparent to anyone who watches ESPN regularly.
Schreiber's final column as ombudsman was published in the middle of March, about 3½ months ago. ESPN has yet to name a successor, and it now appears that they may phase out the position altogether. That would be a great loss for sports fans. I know that in this economy, many companies have cut back on what they view as luxury positions, ombud being among those. But this position was important, especially important, for an organization that generates as much attention and criticism as ESPN. The company deserves credit for bringing in an ombudsman in the first place, but it would deserve just as much criticism for letting the position remain unfilled now.
ESPN owes it to its fans, and I think to itself, to name a new ombud, someone who can pick up where Schreiber left off. The sooner, the better.
Leave a Comment