FOX SPORTS COVERAGE – THE MOST BRAINLESS CONTROVERSY OF 2001
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are those
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this web site.
Sam Moses memorably wrote in 1981 that
NASCAR would not be NASCAR, or nearly as much fun, without controversy. On occasion,
though, a controversy goes beyond silliness and beyond parody and into sheer
idiocy, and right away we’ve seen sheer idiocy with anger over FOX’s
no-time-buy, no logo approach to the 2001 Daytona Shootout.
NASCAR claimed it was "caught off
guard" when FOX airbrushed the logos of sponsors that had not bought time
on the broadcast off cars used in the network’s on-air lineup graphics. Jeff
Burton claimed that for a network to do that "is wrong." Richard
Childress said, "The car owners depend…..on servicing our sponsors, and
we have to have the TV exposure." It caused NASCAR to strong-arm FOX into
relenting on this "logo war."
Now wait a minute. We can see on the
screen when the cars race who the sponsors are. During driver interviews sponsor
plugs are as common as taking a breath; it has been a running annoyance in the
motorsports press. By adding in sponsor logos in on-air graphics, sponsors are
getting what Ed Hinton calls "airtime freeloading."
"FOX," Hinton wrote on February
14, "essentially would allow as much airtime freeloading as ESPN had – but
no more. It decided that if sponsors wouldn’t buy commercial time, it wouldn’t
include sponsorship logos on the new on-air graphics of the cars." This
lead to the inclusion of some logos – those of companies that bought time on the
broadcast – and the airbrushing of others.
Hinton adds, "FOX, of course, would
like to recoup its investment by selling commercial spots. That’s how business
works in the real world that lies a few light-years away from the NASCAR garages
and luxury motorcoach compounds where self-importance is epidemic."
But the lack of logos on some cars in
on-air graphics set off a firestorm – "There were rumblings of drivers
refusing to talk to FOX reporters, even of litigation," except no one
noticed that the sponsors didn’t pay a penny and thus were not robbed of
anything.
Nonetheless, NASCAR strong-armed FOX into
relenting and thus "fork over the freebie exposure…..This was an uprising
because not everyone got the same handout – a gift of graphics to (those
sponsors) who DID buy commercial time."
The web’s online message boards have been
even shriller and less rational, with endless loose talk that not getting this
airtime freeloading would force sponsors to quit the sport – as if the exposure
provided by just sponsoring the car wasn’t enough. There was talk about how two
ARCA teams lost sponsors because the ARCA 200 was not televised live – as if
that would not have happened if the race had been aired live.
"A policy that separates teams that
buy TV ad time from those that don’t invites the perception that FOX would
provide more favorable coverage to the teams that buy TV time," wrote Rudy
Martzke in USA Today. What is he talking about? First off, if it is only a
perception, then in fact there is nothing there, as perceptions are just that –
perceptions. FOX has gone out of the way to get quality airtime to every team in
the garage area, something ESPN seemed less interested in doing from time to
time over its years with the sport.
This controversy is quite simply the most
idiotic in many years. It seems no one remembers the days when TV coverage
didn’t even have photographic graphics, when drivers called it "the
car" instead of running down the list of sponsors, when announcers focused
on the on-track and pitside action instead of paying attention to who the
sponsor was, and so forth. Not only did the sponsors not quit the sport over
this alleged paucity of exposure, they kept coming and coming. The idea that
leaving logos off on-air video graphics and minimizing airtime freeloading will
cause sponsors to have to quit the sport is more than bizarre.
The stupidity involved showed when Joe
Nemechek, interviewed on RPM2nite before the Qualifying 125s, referred to his
pole-winning Grand National car as a Chevy – then remembered that he and a lot
of other Chevy teams are running Pontiacs at Daytona.
Almost as stupid is the controversy over
the Fox Box, the top-screen continuous scroll that provides the scoring lineup
of the cars in the manner of a Wall Street ticker. Mike Joy was clearly
exasperated over online criticisms of the scroll and pointedly told viewers at
one point that they would get used to it.
It is refreshing to hear a broadcaster
stick it to these online message board critics. Reading their threads can be a
chore cubed, and the criticisms of the Fox Box are tedious and bogus. The scroll
is faster than the old 3-spot scoring graphic used last year and it is not
terribly intrusive; complaints that it distracts the viewer from the on-screen
action are befuddling, as though such critics have never heard of keeping one
eye on the action and the other on the scoring scroll – if anything, the scroll
engages the viewer more by making him pay attention more.
The Fox Box is a better idea than the old
graphic, and viewers ought to accept it rather than scream about it.
FOX deserves kudos for hitting the ground
running at Daytona. The telecasts have been enjoyable, informative, and
thorough, and are marked by greater camera quantity and also a more interesting
use of cameras – I especially like the low-angle cam used in Turn One; the only
gaffe as far as cameras go is that FOX is not making much use of the excellent
low grandstand angles exiting the tri-oval, angles that were common to CBS
coverage at Daytona.