Knuck Chox
New member
Good points being made all around, imo. However, I think this discussion actually might be over the how we define the terms "hate" and "bias."
The way I read some of these comments makes me think some fans equate a lack of interest or ignorance regarding the Hawks by the national media with an actual antipathy toward the team. This is the "tinfoil hat" viewpoint that many (including myself) find a bit extreme.
My take is national networks absolutely target their coverage to the largest markets (NY, N.E., LA, Dallas, etc.). This is just Business 101: cater to the lowest common denominator — in this case, the greatest number of viewers/listeners.
As well, as someone who works in the communication field, I can tell you controversy will garner way more reactions, and therefore greater interest, even if the story is not nearly as universally impactful. New topics (rookie QBs, ascending teams) and those that can compel people to love or hate a team/person (the Browns) will thus rise to the top of the coverage. Whereas time-honored and "boring" topics (such as a robot QB and a coach who uses an archaic — yet still fairly successful — formula to build a team and play games) are relegated to the bottom of the broadcasts.
Our team is time-honored, steady, and drab. Who wants to talk about that? Not the national media. To me, it's not because they "hate" the Hawks, it's because viewers/listeners are more attracted to the next shiny thing, or something they can become emotionally involved in. Neither of these descriptions fit our Seahawks, and that's just fine with me.
The way I read some of these comments makes me think some fans equate a lack of interest or ignorance regarding the Hawks by the national media with an actual antipathy toward the team. This is the "tinfoil hat" viewpoint that many (including myself) find a bit extreme.
My take is national networks absolutely target their coverage to the largest markets (NY, N.E., LA, Dallas, etc.). This is just Business 101: cater to the lowest common denominator — in this case, the greatest number of viewers/listeners.
As well, as someone who works in the communication field, I can tell you controversy will garner way more reactions, and therefore greater interest, even if the story is not nearly as universally impactful. New topics (rookie QBs, ascending teams) and those that can compel people to love or hate a team/person (the Browns) will thus rise to the top of the coverage. Whereas time-honored and "boring" topics (such as a robot QB and a coach who uses an archaic — yet still fairly successful — formula to build a team and play games) are relegated to the bottom of the broadcasts.
Our team is time-honored, steady, and drab. Who wants to talk about that? Not the national media. To me, it's not because they "hate" the Hawks, it's because viewers/listeners are more attracted to the next shiny thing, or something they can become emotionally involved in. Neither of these descriptions fit our Seahawks, and that's just fine with me.
