Originally Posted by vaticanplum
I didn't say you were wrong for saying ESPN doesn't cover Reds games. Never once. I asked for proof, which you refused to give me. You did initially state this as a fact. There was no "I think" or "in my opinion" in your assertion. I dropped this in my last response because I didn't want to keep dragging it on, but if you insist, I will.
In no way do those two statements read as opinions. they have no evidence to back them up, but they do not sound like opinions.
If ESPN does in fact cover Reds games less than other teams, I maintain that it is not because of a simple bias outside of their own business concerns as far as the big markets go -- which they must consider as they are, after all, a money-making enterprise. It is also because the Reds have not yet proven that they are a consistently good team, and thus do not have a huge fanbase at this time. Again, as the Reds win more, they will get covered more, leading to a bigger fanbase and vice versa. And they have been getting more coverage when they've been winning as far as I can tell.
That's the whole point. If a person doesn't
have evidence to back themselves up, it IS an opinion!
The whole point of this is really moot. Let's get back on topic, shall we?