College football kicked off this weekend, and it should come as no surprise that one of the biggest stories surrounded Johnny Manziel. The Texas A&M quarterback rose to national prominence last year with a terrific season, winning the Heisman trophy, and garnering the nickname “Johnny Football.” Returning after a Heisman-season is enough to put one squarely in the media’s lens, but Manziel’s off-the-field summer activities made him a much bigger target.

At the beginning of August, ESPN’s Outside the Lines reported the NCAA was investigating whether Manziel was paid for signing hundreds of autographs, citing two witnesses and multiple other sources. NCAA bylaw 12.5.2.1 states student-athletes cannot use their names or likenesses for commercial gain. More and more sources came forward, including an autograph broker claiming he paid Manziel $7,500. Finally, in late August just days before the season began, the NCAA revealed the results of their investigation: they found no evidence of Manziel receiving payment. However, Manziel would be suspend for the first half of Texas A&M’s opener against Rice this past Saturday for violating the ‘spirit’ of the rule. Many questioned the odd decision and the message it sent, some wondering if he got off too easy.

ESPN played up the controversy as they hyped the opening weekend. This promo video from ESPN writer Wright Thompson shows how the network presented Manziel as a superstar celebrity, emphasizing his off-field personality more than his athletic achievements:

After the game, ESPN got exactly what they wanted: not just a great athletic performance but fuel for the fire of Manziel’s cult of personality. Although Manziel had a great game, this was almost entirely overshadowed by his antics on the field, including autograph and money-based taunting and a personal foul for unsportsmanlike conduct. To be clear, this post is not interested in Manziel’s sportsmanship, eligibility, guilt, or otherwise. What is fascinating about this story is how it was reported and discussed on ESPN immediately afterward, and what that reveals about the nature of celebrity, sports, and media representation.

A quick game recap featured on both ESPN’s website and SportsCenter broadcasts introduced Manziel as the “biggest villain in college football.” When the recap reached the unsportsmanlike conduct call, the reporter said, “I suppose when you win the Heisman trophy, you can do things like that,” although he was quick to add, in a somewhat parodic manner, “but it’s just not becoming of a champion.” In other words the quick-style reporting of the incident did not question Manziel’s actions, and even went so far as to play up the antagonistic behavior.

This reporting is in contrast to several analysts’ takes on the situation, including one from Jesse Palmer calling Manziel’s antics “inexcusable.” After reiterating the ways in which Manziel is viewed as a villain (referencing Heisman jealousy and fraternizing with LeBron James), Palmer shifts focus to Manziel’s performance saying, “Now on the field, I love what Johnny Manziel did today.” Here we see the ways in which ESPN (and several fans) are attempting to both celebrate Manziel’s athletic accomplishments while acknowledging and criticizing his personal presentation.

Davis, Holtz, and May

However, a segment featuring two of the networks stalwart college football analysts, Mark May and Lou Holtz, alongside host Rece Davis pulled back the curtain on how ESPN decides to deal with Manziel as both athlete and celebrity. When discussing Manziel’s taunting, Davis claims, “One of the reasons we love Johnny on the field is because he’s flamboyant, he’s reckless, he takes chances… but there’s a line and he’s got to find that boundary and stay behind it.” When Davis says “we,” he might as well be saying “We here at ESPN,” as he is acknowledging the antics of Manziel are what makes him the celebrity figure he is; loved or hated, it gets a reaction from viewers and gives people a reason to watch ESPN.

After Davis continues to play Manziel’s advocate, claiming Manziel made these gestures last year, May and Holtz immediately argue that Manziel has indeed gone too far with Holtz saying, “I don’t think it’s good for the game… It think it’s good for ESPN, but I don’t think it’s good for the game.” Davis immediately responds by saying, “Well what’s good for ESPN is good for the game,” though he barely gets the last word out as he appears to realize what he is saying. In that brief, unfiltered moment, Rece Davis reveals exactly the position ESPN is in; they are a business who’s role is not to support ‘the game’ as an abstract concept, but to profit alongside the NCAA through stars like Johnny Manziel. (Student-athletes’ inability to make money off their own names/likenesses, of course, makes this problematic).

Rece Davis is absolutely right, from ESPN’s perspective, as Manziel’s antics will only drive more viewers to the screen. By creating the persona of Manziel as the villain or heel, ESPN can engage viewers on a more emotional level, giving people another reason to tune it. This is ESPN creating a narrative to further engage their audience. Just like Breaking Bad or professional wrestling, the desire to see justice prevail and villains punished pulls us in deeper and keeps us watching. They are stuck in the middle between glamorizing and promoting the natural celebrity of Manziel while at the same time criticizing the very actions which make him a celebrity in the first place. ESPN wants it both ways. When it comes to showmanship vs. sportsmanship, ESPN are enablers, wagging their finger with one hand and patting the back with the other. It becomes easy to forget that at the center of all of this is a 20 year-old kid from Tyler, Texas named Johnny.

1) Granted, you probably didn’t miss our top story, as the news of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos purchasing the Washington Post for $250 million was all over the media. It is important to note this is a personal buy, as the Washington Post will be a part of Bezos’s personal portfolio unaffiliated with Amazon.com. The large reaction to the story stems both from the possible creation of a new media tycoon as well as the history of the Washington Post, a family-controlled newspaper with a storied history of investigative journalism, most notably the Watergate scandal. While Bezos has said he will take a hands-off approach in the day-to-day operations, tax incentives and write-offs could force him to take more direct control. With Rex Sox owner John Henry buying the Boston Globe, you might be thinking of buying your own paper; however, The New York Times wants you to know they are not for sale. And from the tales of “Be Careful What You Read,” Chinese government-run news agency Xinhua claimed Bezos purchased the Washington Post by accident while browsing the web, a ‘story’ appearing in The New Yorker’s satirical Borowitz Report.

2) Next, our report from the front lines in the never-ending war between Time Warner and CBS over retransmission fees leading to Time Warner’s decision to blackout CBS in New York, L.A. and Dallas which could extend into September. TWC threw a PR strike, claiming they offered a new a la carte option for customers wishing to get CBS, an offer CBS CEO Leslie Moonves called a “public relations gesture,” a “well-wrought distraction,” and finally, a “sham.”  Another TWC letter raises issues with what it calls CBS’s policy of “coercive bundling” with premium channel Showtime, as well as blacking out access to CBS.com from TWC internet users. The casualties of the blackout for CBS, according to analysts, could range around a loss of $400,000 per day, not bad enough for investors to run away. TWC, on the other hand, is feeling the hurt in the PR war, as their perception score on BrandIndex fell after initiating the blackout. But what about us, the people and our beloved CBS shows, the collateral damage? Well, a class action suit has been filed by TWC customers in Southern California who are seeking recovery of fees paid for missing Big Brother, Dexter, Ray Donovan, and the PGA Championship. But other would-be victims rise above in times of media strife, as piracy of Under the Dome has seen an increase since the blackout. KEEP CALM AND PIRATE SHOWS. (NOTE: The writer of this post and the folks at Antenna do not condone piracy. This is a joke in the vein of the above wartime metaphor.)

3) Turning to CBS predecessor Viacom, showing that cooperation can be done as they have struck a new tentative deal with Sony for an Internet-TV service. The deal would allow content on an in-development Sony service that streams live television, which could launch as soon as the end of the year. The deal would be a boon for Sony, who is launching their new gaming system, the PlayStation 4, this holiday season in direct competition with Microsoft’s XBox One, with its own slew of television-related content. Analysts are seeing this as a possible start to a new era in competition for cable and satellite providers, as consumers are given another option for content, but this time with access to it live.

4) In international news China will resume payments to U.S. film studios from Chinese box office revenues after a dispute over a WTO-violating tax hike. MPAA chairman/CEO Christopher Dodd made the announcement, signaling the end to the dispute as well as the beginning of payments owed by the Chinese government for over a year. So while China is paying U.S. movie studios, there is no word on when the U.S. will start paying China back for that $1 trillion or so from our debt…

5) Speaking of U.S. politics, GOP chair Reince Priebus threatened to deny 2016 debates to both NBC and CNN after it was announced both networks were planning to air programs (a miniseries and documentary, respectively) about Hillary Clinton, he stated in letters sent to both Robert Greenblatt and Jeff Zucker (and reposted to the GOP website). After neither channel budged, the GOP officially voted to ban 2016 primary debates from NBC and CNN, later releasing the text of the resolution. In a related story, it is currently the year 2013.

A shameless reference to my South Carolina Gamecocks

6) After the NCAA dropped its licensing deal with EA Sports over inclusion in its yearly college football video game, three of the biggest conferences in college sports (SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-12) have announced plans to do the same. Each school, conference, and of course the NCAA itself make personal deals for licensing of team logos, names, and other trademarked material, so although each can make their own decision, many are following the NCAA’s and conferences’ lead. The moves not to license come as the NCAA and individual schools face mounting litigation from former and current student-athletes over the use of likenesses without compensation, a cost that seems to outweigh the income from licensing.

7) Another quick story from the world of video games, as American Express and popular online game League of Legends  have announced a partnership that will see the release of prepaid credit cards that not only feature imagery and characters from the game, but allow a user to gain in-game currency (called Riot Points) by activating and loading money onto their card, essentially encouraging use of the cards to better one’s abilities within the game.

8) A new research report has found an increase in the rate of cord-cutting, noting the “numbers aren’t huge, but they are statistically significant.” Cable operators Comcast and Time Warner have been hit hardest by deserters as pay-TV subscribers have been shrinking overall. Recent financial results from Canada show the trend happening ‘up North,’ as well.

9) Following in the footsteps of After Earth and White House Down, Jerry Bruckheimer’s The Lone Ranger will join the list of bombs of 2013’s summer as Disney is expected to lose up to $190 million on the blockbuster, despite coming out ahead of predictions in overall earnings for the quarter. What makes this news particularly interesting is that stars Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer, as well as Bruckheimer have blamed critics for the film’s failure, implicitly making the bold claim that people actually listen to critics, despite Grown Ups 2′s financial success/critical panning.

10) StePhest Colbchella, the annual music celebration on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report hit a snag when scheduled performers Daft Punk cancelled only a day before their scheduled appearance due to a contractual exclusivity agreement with fellow-Viacom channel MTV to (secretly!) appear on the Video Music Awards next week. While some questioned whether this was planned all along, Colbert addressed the controversy with notable aplomb.

11) Finally, a silly story with a headline so perfectly descriptive, I will let it speak for itself: U.S. Battling Dictator’s Son for Michael Jackson’s Glove.

Star NFL linebacker Junior Seau committed suicide in May 2012. It was later concluded that he suffered from chronic brain damage.

Each year, it becomes a little harder to be a football fan. I have loved the game since I was 11, and I always intellectualized it, an attitude that is now rewarded with the renaissance in football analysis online.  But while I could somehow always look past the politics of the game, the new findings on concussions seem to be a whole other level of destruction visited upon the bodies of players.

It may be Super Bowl week, but concussions are in the news.  The Atlantic ran a short piece on scans showing brain damage in living former players.  Scans of Junior Seau’s brain show that he had a degenerative brain disease linked to repeated head trauma at the time of his death even though, according to the NFL, he “never” had a concussion.  The news is only going to get worse, not better, for the NFL.  Helmet technology is not going to save players, especially when there’s resistance to even marginally better helmets.  Players who have come up in the system won’t report concussions when they should (they’re the same with other injuries) and the league head office seems mostly interested in head injuries as a PR problem, a problem that continues to get worse as public figures–including the US president now–say they would not let their sons play the sport competitively.  I can imagine two possible futures for football in this situation.

1.  The first is that the game will continue to change to the point that it is substantially different from what it is even today.  Obama isn’t the first president to weigh in on football violence.  If we go back to the 19th century, people were getting killed because of the rules.  In 1906 Teddy Roosevelt threatened to ban organized football, because college students were getting killed off–the 1905 season saw 19 player deaths and countless major injuries (Roosevelt’s own son played for Harvard and suffered a malicious broken nose).  In response, the NCAA legalized the forward pass and changed several other rules, such as banning mass formations and the creation of a neutral zone at the line of scrimmage.  This was after rules changes in 1894 banning the flying wedge and other exceedingly violent tactics.

From the standpoint of concussions, we are at some point before 1894.  If someone like Seau can go through his career “without” a concussion (note the scarequotes) and probably die as a result of brain injuries, then massive reforms are needed.  I don’t have a clear program, but in essence what we’re looking at is either a transformation of player equipment to make it less possible for them to hit each other as violently as they do, or a transformation of the rules to further favor offensive players, perhaps making it more like arena football or flag football.

2.  The other future for football is visible in the state of boxing today.  Boxing was a major American sport for a large chunk of the 20th century.  Boxers were cultural icons and the sport, like football, developed a following among intellectuals.  But today, it’s fan base is heavily diminished.  It has lost a good deal of its cultural respectability, its cache with fans, reporters and writers, and most importantly, with parents whose children might go into the sport.  Part of this is a business question, having to do with boxing’s relationship with television, and the challenges it now faces from competitors like the Ultimate Fighting Championship.  But boxing also declined because its violence went from being aestheticized by sportswriters and other intellectuals–as “the sweet science”–to being deplored by those same people.  The NFL and NCAA clearly have good media sense, and it is possible that their PR machine can hold back the attacks that will come as more information about the extent and effect of player concussions is revealed.  Perhaps football will become more of a lower class sport, as parents who have intellectual or knowledge-economy ambitions for their kids move away from it.  It’s one thing to think your kid might break a bone or tear a muscle from playing a sport.  The prospect of brain damage resonates quite differently with parents.

Today, boxing suffers from an association with its athletes as members of a disposable class of society.  If football’s rules don’t change, it risks joining boxing as a sport whose athletes will be imagined as disposable people–even more than they are now.

However much I like the sport, and however much money is behind it, I don’t think we’ll see the same game in a generation’s time.

But what does it mean to consume our media in public?  In a time when so much is being made of the ability to watch TV on our big screens in the privacy of our own homes, or on miniature screens in the public setting of the doctor’s office or bus, what is it that makes us want to consume media together?

So we want to hear from you–what entices you to watch Project Runway at group viewing nights in clubs?  Or to attend a group sing-along for Rocky Horror or The Sound of Music?  What are the pleasures of consuming your media in public?  Tell us your stories and analyze your behavior below…