http://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/02/19/sports-studio-hosts-draft-ernie-johnson-rich-eisen
Who would you pick as your the best studio hosts/journalists in sports? Why? How do you balance different facets of an on air personality's job—do you value their entertainment value or journalistic qualifications more?
In the past, I never payed much attention to the actual host of the sports show I was watching; only the content of the show. But after reading this article, I realized how important the host actually is to the quality of the show as a whole. For example, the article describes host Ernie Johnson as "...superb at the balancing act between being a traffic cop and just getting out of the way". And now that I think about it, that attitude towards hosting a show is what draws in such an audience; not necessarily just reliable information and exclusive athlete interviews. What I value more, however, is the reliability of the information and full coverage of all the stories that I care about. Although a good host can make a show just a little better than the competition, I value journalistic qualifications over entertainment value.
ReplyDeleteI would pick Bob Costas as the best studio host/journalist in sports. As the article stated, he has much versatility and hosts events such as the Super Bowl, olympics, and World Series. Despite the pressure and scope of these roles, Costas is always cool, calm and collected, as well as prepared. Costas is professional, knowledgeable, and an excellent interviewer. However, he is also very entertaining. I find that some studio hosts play it too straight and can lack an entertainment factor, but Costas has a charm that keeps the broadcast flowing flawlessly. I value their credibility and journalistic quality over entertainment, as someone who wants to go into sports journalism I admire those who are skilled at the craft.
ReplyDeleteI think someone like Scott Van Pelt would be one of the best studio host/journalist in sports today. Like the article said, he has a likable personality which makes him in the top ten in the article and one of the top in my thoughts. He has had quite a career which I think experience helps to being a good journalist. I think that the journalistic qualities is before personality, but you can not be a robot and be a good announcer. You need to have a personality to get ratings and ultimately to keep your job. It is important to have both, but I think you need to worry a little more about journalism rules.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, I rarely payed much attention to the actual host of the sports show I was really only looking for the highlights and the action. As you read the article it shows you how important it is to have a good host. I like Scott Van Pelt because he is a Maryland alum, and he has a very likable personality. Another guy I love watching is Stephen A. Smith because he is a character. You always see him screaming and arguing with Max Kellerman, but he also brings his points across. Stephen A makes great points, and he is a very factual reporter. He isn't one of the guys that got the job just because he played professional sports, he had to work his way up.
ReplyDeleteI value both entertainment value and journalistic qualifications but I rather listen to Stephen A because he is both factual and he has a very entertaining personality.
ReplyDeleteBeing that I've only watched a sports news host maybe a handful of times, I really wouldn't be able to determine which sport host I think is the best from watching. Off of the list from the article I would choose Scott Van Pelt for his "great personality and is genuine". If I was watching someone on TV, I would want them to show who they are by being themselves. It's boring watching or listening to someone with no personality. It would make me want change the channel or radio station because they would lose my interest. Also he has years of experience under his belt. That experience must help him to be able to bring his personality out without losing his professionalism. So between his great personality as the article brought out and his years of creditable experience I think his definitely what I would want to see/read.
ReplyDeleteI would pick Kyle Martino, a soccer analyst for NBC and former U.S. soccer player as my ideal studio host. I prefer an analyst who has a genuine love for not only his job, but the sport he is covering as well. Martino is always there excited, energetic, and most importantly showing his passion for soccer. You can hear it in his voice and see it in his eyes, the topic he's talking about truly excites and interests him. The article mentions Scott van Pelt as a genuine analyst who is up their having fun and provides a unique attitude and style. Too many analysts are almost robotic nowadays, reading whatever information is spewed out to them without a real passion for the sport, where someone like Martino simply wants to give back to the game he loves so much and that he grew up with. I value entertainment value more, but a balance between energy and entertainment with professionalism and fact needs to be found to provide the best experience for the audience.
ReplyDeleteFrom sports I’ve watched I have never been really familiar on who exactly it was commentating or who the big hosts were in many shows. I know from watching gymnastics competitions on TV, specifically the Olympics as well, which hosts I enjoyed more. I think it was those who were the most entertaining that had the best reaction from myself and other fans. However, with that comes the need for qualifications as someone who has been in the sport or has a lot of experience in the field will bring a lot more insight into what is going on.
ReplyDeleteI think that a great sports analysis is a person who can attract an audience and state information that is intriguing to the viewer. The person has to be energetic about the topic to not bore the viewer while also being knowledgeable about the facts and what is going on. Personally, because my favorite ESPN show is Sports Nation, I think that Michelle Beadle, Marcellus Wiley, and Max Kellerman all create a funny atmosphere while presenting sports news to the audience and can get into lots of debate over issues. I also think that a person who is broadcasting live has a harder job than a journalist because a journalist is not pressured to think on the spot and can use the internet to easily make references to the past. A person who is on live television has to only use their knowledge of the sport and what has happened and needs to improvise on the sport when being asked questions; they need to have strong evidence to support their claims that are not pre-planed. Also, I feel that the if the journalist is not entertaining and is just recapping with only facts, it can draw the reader away from the article. In addition, a live host can show their emotion physically on camera and can express themselves more than on paper.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Griffin I would pick Kyle Martino, soccer analyst for NBC and former U.S. soccer player as my ideal host. I would pick him because he has a love for the game and really enjoys what he does and you can see it while he broadcasts. He is also part of one of the shows I have watched between and after Premier League games. I would compare him to Kevin Burkhardt on the list, they are both popular and have a love for the sports they talk about. I would pick a mixture of entertainment and journalistic values. Entertainment because you want the broadcast to be entertaining for viewers and to draw in new viewers. Yet, journalistic values are just as important because the content of the broadcast should be good and able to give the viewers the information they want.
ReplyDeleteI have never paid individual sports broadcasters much attention while watching games or sports analysis on TV. After reading this article, I believe the best broadcaster on the list is Scott Van Pelt from ESPN. The author claims Van Pelt is universally liked, which is a rare quality for a sports host in the modern day. He also has a genuine and great personality, making him a more humanistic voice for sports. Aside from his personality, he has shown great versatility in his career. I think that there should be a balance between journalistic skill and entertainment value for a studio host. Obviously studio hosts must be able to exhibit journalistic skills, but many viewers enjoy watching sports with the entertainment aspect from the hosts.
ReplyDeleteI would pick Bob Costas as my ideal host because I believe he is able to balance anything that is thrown at him. There is famous footage of Costas during the '94 NBA finals trying to decide whether to actually announce the final, or to broadcast the famous OJ Simpson car chase taking place at that very moment. Ultimately, NBC decided to split time between the two, and Costas lead the charge on both, telling audiences around the country about both pressing matters. I feel that this encapsulates his ability to juggle between topics, and to give audiences what they really want at the same time.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to pick one host for my show I would choose Ernie Johnson. He is currently the front man of the Inside The NBA show. I am a pretty big NBA fan so I watch this show a lot leading up to tip off. He has a really great personality where he isn't afraid to say whats on his mind or put himself out there. He also acts as kind of a traffic cop or a leader of the crew. Most of the conversations seem to flow through him and he isn't afraid to tell somebody to not talk or give somebody else a turn to talk.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose which host I would want on air, I would personally choose Bob Costas. He has been a huge part of sportscasting. He is on air for NBC Sports television and has been since the early 80's. He has also been the prime-time host of over 10 Olympic games. I like his experience and also shows signs of humor at times appropriate. But the ultimate reason I believe he is the best sportscaster is because he is professional as has one of the best resumes and experience.
ReplyDeleteI think that Stephen A Smith is one the most entertaining studio hosts. I don't always agree with what he says but because of this it keeps you intrigued and wanting to watch more. I think I value entertainment the most and Stephen A really brings that out during his rants. His arguments are truly opinion based. He is a different and unique kind of journalist. There is really no one that brings the same passions as him. I would say that he is the most exciting to watch and is great at his job. But I think Bob Costas has done it all as a host "from the Olympics to the Super Bowl to the World Series to the Kentucky Derby." I like Stephen A but he has done nothing compared to Bob Costas.
ReplyDeleteThe best studio host is Mike Milbury. That's right, the guy who jumped over the boards as a player to beat a man with his own shoe has become a perfect studio host. All he really cares about it toughness. He wants to see some violence. Milbury's stupidity makes him incredibly entertaining. He is loud and obnoxious which makes it interesting to see how he deals with his guests. In order to get a balance of entertaining and seriousness, you just need to focus on what your topic is. You have to know when the right time is to be humorous and when the right time is to be serious. It's pretty self explanatory. I value the entertainment a bit more because seriousness can make things dry, but seriousness can be a big factor.
ReplyDeleteOut of all the sports shows and coverage out there I would pick Bob Costas. He is a huge personality and contributes a lot to the sports world. Covering everything from regular season games, to the big stages of the olympics, he never seems to be out of character. He is always composed and calm when on air. He makes the viewer feel very comfortable and can be very interesting to watch broadcast games. His personality will forever be recognized as one of the best.
ReplyDeleteIn a world where there are so many studio hosts/journalists, I believe Stephen A. Smith is the best out there. Although I don't pay much attention to talk shows, I am always entertained and enlightened by Stephen A. Smith. He's a hilarious guy who will always back up what he says. He may bash on some players and not give the best facts for some people's wants, but I think he's always spot on. Not to mention: the players love him and he has a great reputation. Having accurate statistics, facts and perceptions are obviously a must, but comedy and entertainment is just as important in my view. I'm not willing to sit on the couch and watch a show if I'm not entertained. Journalists' qualifications aren't as important, because if they sound like they know what they're talking about, then it don't matter. In my view, Stephen A. Smith will do a great job, ten times out of ten.
ReplyDeleteWhen watching sporting events, one of the biggest factors that determines how much I enjoy watching, is the quality of the broadcasters. Over the years, I have noticed that the most important quality in a broadcaster is how much they entertain me. Entertainment is the main goal of watching sports for me, so I like the broadcaster to have that same opinion. With that being said, some of my favorite broadcasters that entertain me are John Gruden and Dick Vitale. Both of these announcers are extremely entertaining, and that is why I enjoy listening to them. They both are loud and exciting which always keeps me engaged and entertained. I do value journalistic qualities as well, but the most important thing for me is entertainment.
ReplyDelete