NFL Draft Overnight Best Since '14 Did Political Leanings Affect ESPN's Bottom Line? Manfred Still Confident In ESPN's MLB Coverage Final Round Golf Struggling On Broadcast TV Cord-Cutting, Rights Fees Put ESPN In Bind SI Films Creates Doc On Mets' Fan Group ESPN Personalities Address Company's Layoffs ESPNU Studio Ops Moving From Charlotte To Bristol ESPN Adding MLB Net's "Intentional Talk" Nets Agree Not To Tip Picks On Social Media
Upcoming Conferences and Events
May 31 - Jun 1
MORE MIXED REVIEWS FOR FOX FOOTBALL EXPERIMENT
Published December 12, 1995
Reviews continued from media writers on Fox's experiment using Terry Bradshaw and Jimmy Johnson serving as co-analysts with no play-by-play announcer during Saturday's game. In Washington, Leonard Shapiro says to give Fox a "smidgen of credit" for the move, but adds the broadcast "desperately needed" someone to inform viewers of the action (WASHINGTON POST, 12/12). In New york, Richard Sandomir calls it a "dismal experiment/publicity stunt" (N.Y. TIMES, 12/12). NEWSDAY's Steve Zipay calls it a "bad" experiment and suggests increasing graphics and turning up the audio of the stadium announcer (NEWSDAY, 12/12). In Dallas, Barry Horn writes "maybe expectations were too high," and notes the idea could improve. Or, it "may have been a one-shot deal, a gimmicky ratings grab for what should have been a very missable game" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 12/11). In Detroit, Steve Crowe calls it a "rousing success" -- but as "a once in a while" move (DETROIT FREE PRESS, 12/11). In Boston, Jack Craig writes the Fox duo "ranged between being subpar and a joke" (BOSTON GLOBE, 12/12).