Fiend at Court Unplugged
I subscribe to Tennis Channel Plus and ESPN+, the two primary paid streaming services for tennis coverage. As a tennis super fan that writes a daily tennis blog, it would only be surprising if that was not the case. Access to great matches that will never be granted a moment of airtime is a clear benefit to me. However, the matches I elect to watch are also a form of tennis activism. It sends a signal to the tennis broadcast companies on what the public might also want to see.
Broadening the aperture just a bit, I strongly believe that people should subscribe to at least one online source of news that derives significant revenue from paid readership. “Free” media sources monetize only through ads and that impacts what each of us individually see when visiting those sites. When we are served only content that the algorithms predict will induce a click, it is pretty easy to fall into an echo-chamber at one extreme or the other. That has a polarizing effect on society. Social media algorithms work the same way.
To ensure that I am consuming balanced perspective on current news events, I pay for two premium news subscriptions. That includes the Wall Street Journal, which skews slightly right of moderate, and The New York Times, that scores slightly to the left of center. (A link to the resource I use to make that determination is in the footer.) This practice supports professional journalism which is important to society as a whole. It also provides me with high quality and balanced news coverage.
Tennis broadcasts carried on the Tennis Channel and ESPN primarily monetize through commercial advertising which is directly tied to television ratings. That is why every moment that the superstars of tennis are playing will be shown at the expense of more competitive matches between lesser known players. Even worse, both channels have recently elected to replay matches involving marquis players when other live matches were ongoing. It’s a travesty.
The current broadcast practices are bad for the future of tennis. The vast majority of the viewing public has been conditioned to only watch tennis if they recognize the players who are competing. Unfortunately, most of those players are about to retire. The future of broadcast tennis could be very bleak.
I don’t for a moment believe that the viewing choices of any one person on the premium streaming services will make any difference. However, if a lot of people use these sources and avoid streaming the big names in the early rounds, it could send a signal to the broadcasters that more balanced tennis coverage might be appealing to the tennis consumer if they would give it a chance.
I stream a lot of doubles and early round singles matches between players that most tennis fans have probably never heard of. Perhaps if we are all more intentional with our streaming choices, we can nudge tennis broadcast media to a better place. In any case, we will all watch better tennis while trying.
- The Media Bias Chart Version 9.0, Ad Fontes Media, viewed 3/11/2021.
