Enough: ESPN exec wants less Tim Tebow coverage
Tim Tebow
One thing I’ve always enjoyed is applying the lessons of free markets to stories that might not be considered political, philosophical, or economic at all. This story, at first glance, seems to be a simple story about sports media. The President of ESPN has essentially apologized for talking about Tim Tebow too much. Tebow is a controversial figure in sports, primarily because he is devoutly religious, and secondarily because he has enjoyed tremendous success, despite a seeming lack of physical talent, relative to other players at his position. He’s one of the most talked about and dynamic figures in all of sports, he’s among the most loved and among the most hated. Everyone has an opinion about Tim Tebow.
So, one would think (correctly) that a media outlet whose entire justification for existence is to talk about sports, would talk about Tebow frequently. And they have. Much to the dismay of those who are anti-Tebow, he is talked about and obsessed over to a degree that most athletes, including many who have been more successful than Tebow, could never dream of. And it has been very good for business. In this very interview, the President of ESPN admits that whenever they talk about Tebow, ratings go up.
So what has any of this got to do with freedom? Look at some of the quotes from the President of ESPN and tell me if you can’t spot the warning signs of a central planner. The ratings, in this case, represent the market. The market has spoken, and it loves Tim Tebow. When the talking heads on ESPN start talking about Tebow, it causes more people to watch, not less. This is exactly how the market is supposed to work. Suppliers respond to customer demand, and as the demand for a particular product (in this case, Tebow discussion) increases, the supplier is incentivized to provide more of it.
But not so, in this case. The central planner has decreed that they are simply giving the public altogether too much of what they want. Here’s the exact quote:
We all know that if you focus on the Tebow story, for the next 10 minutes you’re going to do better. But the question is trying to take a long-term perspective and saying, ‘Guys, let’s not get over excited about one story and hyping it.’
The President of ESPN seems to present this as some sort of tradeoff. Talking about Tebow might cause ratings to rise in the short term, at the expense of long-term harm to the company. I’m quite curious as to what this prediction of long-term calamity is based upon. The ratings are already available, so we know that in the short-term, Tebow is good for business. I’d like to know exactly why this would somehow have the opposite effect in the long-term. Rather than filling the obvious demand for Tebow coverage, the President of ESPN is attempting to dictate to the public what it should want. Talk in the sports media blogosphere is that Tebow does not deserve the coverage he gets. Does that sort of language, harping over what people deserve sound familiar? Any parallels to politics in that one?
One last note – for those who claim that ESPN is simply drawing a line in the sand to preserve some semblance of journalistic integrity, please, don’t even bother. They crossed that bridge a long time ago.
Bob Murphy crunches the numbers on the “fiscal cliff” and the result is rather shocking. I can’t say I’m surprised this is the case, but I’m surprised at the enormity of the result. Based on CBO projections, going over the dreaded fiscal cliff would result in such terrible consequences as a dramatic lowering of the deficit (nearly cutting it in half the first year, and then again in the second) without any significant cuts in spending whatsoever, primarily through increased revenues.
The second amendment, as currently enforced, is an absolute joke and is completely contrary to what the founders actually intended. It was included specifically and solely as a check on government power. The founders believed in the absolute right of a population to resist a tyrannical government by the force of arms if necessary.
The media loves pointing to the fact that in the past, nominal tax rates on the upper tax brackets were much higher, and that some of the time, this occurred when economic growth was high and the deficit was low.
Federal law may have unintended consequences for schoolkids at lunch | New rules lead to more waste, fewer healthy choices, some complain
I’ve got a huge backlog of articles I’ve been saving to eventually discuss. Here’s one by everyone’s favorite 
Dude, Where's My Freedom? 
Gun Control: The Seen And The Unseen
Note: I actually wrote this post on Tuesday, the 18th, prior to my computer issues But it includes some great resources so I wanted to post it anyway. Enjoy!
Man Attempts To Open Fire On Crowd At Movie Theater, Armed Off-Duty Sergeant Drops Him
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: How People Are Murdered In The United States
My overall point here is that, like anything else, gun control is an economic issue. One must weigh the costs versus the benefits. The costs of America’s toleration of the private ownership of firearms are easily seen. The media blasts them at full volume on a nightly basis. The benefits are virtually unseen. Most defensive firearms uses do not even involve shots being fired, and few ever make the national news. Those that do certainly don’t get the sweeping coverage that a multiple-victim public shooting does. Those who favor stricter gun control presume that the availability of firearms in America offers no benefits. This is a foolish presumption. But the benefits are much more difficult to measure than the costs. When someone is dissuaded from attacking an individual because they brandished a firearm, we have no way to know whether that person might have been murdered or simply robbed, assaulted, raped, etc.
The economic calculations involved in this matter are not simple. But to the extent that they can be done, they already have been, by John R. Lott. I suggest anyone who is seriously interested in this topic pick up a copy of More Guns, Less Crime, and learn for themselves.
In the meantime, I urge everyone to step back from the debate for a moment and take a few days, weeks, or months to really process the relevant information, and then return to it. Making important decisions with huge societal ramifications while still reeling from the effects of an emotionally-charged strategy is a very poor idea. One need not go that far into the past to find incidents of this happening in America, with absolutely terrible consequences.