The Hot Take Artist and the Death of Quality Sports Coverage

The “Hot Take Artist” has taken complete control of the sports industry. Starting with Jim Rome in the late 90s to early 2000s, the sports commentary business has become increasingly focused on attention over substance. Inflammatory remarks about an athlete, team, or opposing media became not only an accepted facet of the media form but a requirement. The fact is that these shows/platforms require viewers/listeners to sell their shows. Rationally, we would assume that the hosts that have the highest percentage of correct takes are the most popular, but that doesn’t appear to be true.

Anger fuels the current sports coverage model.

Of course, it is impossible to ignore the reality of the effects that social media and the slow death of cable TV have had on the descent into increasingly “outrageous” takes. Social media has keyed in on something called the “confrontation effect.” Tulane University describes this effect as one that ”people are more likely to interact with content that challenges their views than those that align with them.” So, there is no benefit to stating an obvious opinion that most will agree with, even if it’s right. It’s much more lucrative to play to the confrontational or, sometimes, the negative.

Thus, we consumers of sports media have to deal with things like Max Kellerman choosing Andre Iguodala to take the final shot with the game on the line over Steph Curry. If Kellerman had said the quite obvious instead of the outrageous, his take would never have garnered the attention that it did. The video clip has gone viral and become a popular meme. The virality of various “Quotables” has shifted the discussion away from interesting in-depth analysis of the current landscape in professional sports toward meme-worthy hollering.

We all know the truth, but that isn’t the point. We watch because we can’t believe what’s being said. The commentator creates an emotional response over a logical one. When the media gaslights its audience, they react just like anyone being gaslit: they double down to prove they aren’t insane.

So, instead of a sober, logical analysis of athletes, games, and sports in general, the media produces the ludicrous, the scandalous, and the divisive. It’s why the Jordan versus LeBron debate comes up on sports talk shows constantly. Michael Jordan and LeBron James each have loyal fans (sometimes scarily so due to the increasingly disturbing parasocial relationships in American society) and keyboard warrior haters (self-explanatory). If you “love” or “hate” either athlete, the segment will hook you in.

The Jordan/LeBron debate weaves in another component to this new media landscape: the ad hominem. Typically, the old-school era is labelled “unathletic,” “just a bunch of plumbers,” or “lacking talent.” These insults attract the old-school fans to tune in for outrage, just as the new-school pejoratives of “soft,” “disinterested,” and “only in it for the money” attacks draw in the new-school fans. So, instead of an interesting debate like “Which 80s/90s NBA players would fit best in the current league?” or “Which current players would fit in during the 80s?” the audience is subjected to segments to make them angry, which in turn makes them keep watching.

Social media takes significant blame for the problems in society, and it certainly has fueled this problem, but, as noted at the beginning of this article, it pre-existed Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Sports talk radio typically has captive audiences (people driving). Radio shows, however, don’t always have to rely on the host to assert something absurd, such as 97.1 The Fan ripping Scott Harris and the Detroit Tigers for not trading Tarik Skubal at the 2024 trade deadline, a few months before their miraculous playoff-clinching finish. Instead, they take calls from listeners to provide the “hot takes.”

These shows gave rise to the proliferation of unrealistic mock trades. The segment featuring the various teams’ beat writers discussing what’s going on in free agency or the trade market doesn’t produce the attention-seeking material that these shows require. Journalists provide the information in a package that frustrates fans. See the responses to any beat writers’ live Tweets of a game for the most irrational takes you’ve ever seen.

Instead, shows promote the idea of their team acquiring a player the fans want, rather than what is likely going to happen. When this promotion for adding a specific slugger, highlight wide receiver, and three-point shooting specialist doesn’t materialize, their programs are set up for at least another week of materials, including angry fan responses.

For example, during the uneventful start to NHL free agency, the live programming chose to discuss the possibility of Connor McDavid leaving the Edmonton Oilers rather than the likely upcoming free agent signings. This approach draws emotional responses from fans across the league. Instead of wondering what third-pair defensemen their team is adding, the fan considers the possibility of adding the league’s best player. When this expectation isn’t met, they grow frustrated with the team’s front office instead of the actual culprit: the media.

So, what’s the alternative? Rational discussions about larger trends in sports, whether that be coverage for your team, favorite players, or favorite league. The hot-take artist has effectively ruined the media landscape. In a desperate attempt to avoid the death of cable, traditional programming has undergone a complete transformation, becoming no better than the early 2000s message boards, promoting the unrealistic, unsubstantive, and inflammatory.

The podcasting format seemed to create a better medium for sports commentary. Why? For one, the podcast format requires more than a click or a 30-second view and isn’t confined to the segmented nature of TV or radio. The ads are placed after the show is produced, which frequently results in a more natural conversation.

Of course, the hot takes still abound in the podcast format, but they don’t necessarily dominate it. The pull to be confrontational is, ironically, difficult to fight. I have tried some podcasting and found myself mocking some of the coverage provided by other similar podcasts. Do they deserve criticism? Yes. Should it be done through mocking? No. But it does seem more entertaining.

The best sports podcasts feature a fan, a journalist, and an athlete, allowing for the full spectrum of views. Completely fan-driven podcasts can fall into emotionally driven hot takes. The journalist-driven podcast doesn’t account enough for the fan perspective (one that doesn’t have the benefit of information given to them in confidence). The athlete-driven podcast frequently falls prey to confirmation bias (“Back when I was playing…) and shies away from legitimate criticism (they often have personal relationships with the players and organization they are discussing). Having each represented could create a product that features analysis rather than the hot-take artistry of the day.

A good example of this is the Tigers Territory podcast with fan/host Kieran Steckley, journalist Cody Stavenhagen of The Athletic, and former MLB outfielder Austin Jackson. The show typically follows this format: Steckley presents a fan’s perspective, allowing Stavenhagen to use his insider information to temper expectations. Then Jackson will share the player’s version of what could be going on. The Tigers fans were unhappy with the trade deadline results. Steckley describes the expectations and the frustrations. Stavenhagen breaks down the reality (the statistics or organization philosophy of the team). Then, Jackson shares what the players feel like at the deadline (being traded, the team adding new players, etc.).

This model doesn’t necessarily produce massive virality or use the “confrontation effect,” but it does provide legitimate analysis, making it better for fans. Outside of a team-specific program like the one mentioned above, it could allow for more in-depth analysis of the trends in sports. Why not spend a segment on the possibility of changing the rules in the NBA? Why not debate the value of prospects versus short-term production in the MLB and NHL? These questions would still draw in audiences when these programs need material.

Chad is an actor, writer, and podcaster. He has written for GiveMeSport, Fast Breaks and Billy Shakes, and Darci Lou. He has performed in regional theatres across the country (Michigan, Arizona, Virginia, Tennessee). He loves sports, short stories, and theatre. Find more at chadmariottactor.com, Fast Breaks and Billy Shakes, The Detroit Way: A Detroit Sports Podcast, and Billy and Jake the Raccoon.