April 29, 2017

No Image

Saturday Sports: Layoffs At ESPN, Star High School Baseball Pitcher

ESPN recently let go of about 100 employees. The company faces declining subscriptions as people switch to view sports online. Also a high school pitcher is facing big expectations, maybe too big.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

Finally, it’s time for sports.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

SIMON: And I guess a hundred is kind of a theme for the news portions of today’s program and that same number shook the sports world as ESPN let go of about a hundred employees this week, including producers and on-air personalities as more people watch sports online while ESPN still pays enormous amounts of money for broadcast rights. But has the network also gotten over its skis on other matters? NPR’s Tom Goldman joins us. Morning, Tom.

TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Hi, Scott, welcome back.

SIMON: Thank you. Good to be back. Although, I had fun, too. Not to drag politics into sports, but there are some people who believe ESPN has done just that and may have lost viewers because of it.

GOLDMAN: Yeah, there are. They say ESPN leans left, and that’s driven away Conservative sports fans. Conservative commentators and bloggers cite lots of coverage of Caitlyn Jenner and transgender issues, lots of coverage of Colin Kaepernick and his anthem protests. Although, I watched a lot of that and not all was supportive of Kaepernick.

ESPN also has made visible moves to promote diversity, pulling – putting more women and people of color in prominent on-air positions. ESPN’s public editor named Jim Brady acknowledged in a tweet this week that politics is a small cause for ESPN’s problems. But he also wrote in a column, a few weeks ago, the network isn’t going to stick to sports, and it’ll continue covering the fusion of sports and culture and politics.

SIMON: I’ve been in the sports world for a couple of weeks, as you know, on book tours, in and out of sports studios. And I know the feeling there seems to be this is something much bigger for ESPN because it has all these long-term top-dollar broadcast rights while more and more people are just cutting the cord and streaming sports online.

GOLDMAN: Yeah. I think there’s general agreement those are the main causes according to Nielsen data. ESPN has lost more than 10 million subscribers in the past five years. And at the same time, as you mentioned, ESPN is paying billions in rights fees to broadcast NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, college sports.

You know, it’s not certain whether the layoffs can help recoup losses or if they’re more of a signal to shareholders that ESPN is taking the losses seriously and trying to streamline. Either way, Scott, the network has lost some talented journalists. And you hope they find outlets to continue their great work.

SIMON: Have to ask about the cover of Sports Illustrated.

GOLDMAN: Were you on?

SIMON: You know, no. Maybe regionally, maybe in the Midwest, maybe even in Chicago…

GOLDMAN: (Laughter).

SIMON: …With my word processor as they say. But in any event, it’s a 17-year-old pitcher out of Notre Dame High School in Sherman Oaks, Calif. His name is Hunter Greene. And the cover says, is he baseball’s LeBron or the new Babe?

Now, look, I have seen video of Hunter Greene. I am excited about him. But is it wise to hang this line around the neck of a gifted young man?

GOLDMAN: Little bit of pressure? Of course, LeBron James hit the cover of SI years ago with the words, the chosen one, and that worked out pretty well. You know, we are always so ready to christen the youngest as the next greatest of all time, but we need to remember greatness, winning, usually takes time.

It’s a small sample size but I think relevant. In the NBA playoffs, four of the first five teams to win opening playoff series had older starting lineups based on the average age of the starting five. So age matters.

SIMON: Yeah. I mean, LeBron is a good example, by the way, now that he’s in his 30s. Before we go, any quick nice stories that you noticed in the NFL draft?

GOLDMAN: We are so NFL obsessed, Scott. Seems like every player drafted is a noteworthy story in his new city. I will pluck out one, though – quarterback Deshaun Watson drafted by Houston this week. When he was 11, he and his mom and siblings moved from public housing into a Habitat for Humanity house. It was presented to them by NFL player Warrick Dunn, one of the most charitably-minded athletes ever. Watson was drafted 12th by the Houston – same draft position Warrick Dunn went in 1997.

SIMON: NPR’s Tom Goldman, thanks so much.

GOLDMAN: You’re welcome.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

SIMON: You’re listening to WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Examining Trump's Record On Trade

When the president speaks the world listens. Adam Behsudi of Politico talks with NPR’s Scott Simon about how Donald Trump’s outspoken commentary is affecting international trade with the U.S.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

President Trump signs another executive order today as he travels to Harrisburg, Pa., to celebrate his 100th day in office. This EO, as they’re called in D.C., directs his administration to review trade agreements for violations and abuses. A few weeks ago, a different executive order focused more on imbalances. Candidate Donald Trump promised to negotiate better trade deals for the United States or to rip them up. So he pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But he kept the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he had savaged on the campaign trail.

And he’s called a current trade deal with South Korea unacceptable even as North Korea menaces South Korea. Adam Behsudi covers trade for Politico. Speaking over Skype, he points to the real world effects that presidential commentary, like Trump’s on South Korea, has around the world.

ADAM BEHSUDI: Well, I mean, I think we saw the value of the won go down and that spooked, probably, the market there. So yeah, these statements definitely do have an effect in the real world when they are said.

SIMON: Yeah. And is it a bad deal, as you see it? What does President Trump see that so disadvantageous to the U.S.?

BEHSUDI: So the vice president went to South Korea just recently. And apparently, in a meeting with U.S. businesses in Seoul, he highlighted the fact that the trade deficit had doubled in the five years and that there is still too many barriers to U.S. exports of goods and services. So he said the administration will review and possibly reform the deal.

SIMON: On this continent, the president, at one point, of course, had said that he was going to pull the U.S. out of NAFTA. But then he spoke to the prime minister of Canada and the president of Mexico and decided to try to work things out. What do the administrations in Ottawa and Mexico City make of that – a tough negotiating position on behalf of the U.S. or what?

BEHSUDI: Well, I mean, I think the reports kind of noted that Mexico very explicitly said we’re not going to negotiate with a gun to our head and meaning that this threat of withdrawal won’t bring us to the table, won’t make it a constructive conversation. And Canada is – you know, they’re playing it cool. They’re putting out very calming sort of high-level statements.

And I think we’re going to see a lot of Canada and Mexico strategizing together in terms of how to deal with this new relationship they have. And I think that there’s definitely a lot of that happening when that news broke on Wednesday.

SIMON: Well, Mr. Behsudi, as you see it, what are some areas that – I’ll put it this way – could stand some refinement in NAFTA that the United States might find more advantageous and that Canada and Mexico would accept?

BEHSUDI: Sure. I mean, NAFTA is – was negotiated in 19 – you know, the early ’90s and that was predating the Internet, predating digital trade, Internet commerce. So that’s something that probably can be updated and that all three sides – all three businesses in all three countries are looking forward to.

SIMON: And I guess a question that – I almost hesitate to ask, but are trade deficits always bad for an economy? Do they open up opportunities?

BEHSUDI: Yes, it can definitely be argued they are, you know, not – it’s not a binary, black and white. Deficit is bad. A surplus is good.

SIMON: Well help us understand that if you can. Is there a practical example?

BEHSUDI: There’s actually a fight going on right now with Canada over lumber. And the U.S. lumber producers argue that – have had brought a case – they’ve basically taken a case against Canadian lumber imports saying that the lumber up there is subsidized. It’s underpriced, and it’s being dumped into our market to the competitive detriment of U.S. producers. But then if you look at the homebuilders side, you know, lumber is an important material for houses.

And you can argue that the housing industry employs a lot of people in a lot of different ways. And if you’re, you know, stopping that from happening or you’re making it harder for them to have a selection of lumber at a competitive price, you know, you’re going to hurt that industry.

SIMON: But then the housing people might have to buy more expensive lumber and that could increase the cost of houses, which Americans don’t like either.

BEHSUDI: Right, right. Exactly. So it’s a very kind of nuance balance or dance that is happening. And, you know, trade makes a good sort of talking point on the campaign trail. But when you really look at the nuance, you know, there are winners. There are losers. And, you know, there are different degrees of losers and winners. And it’s kind of a very complex view of how the economy works.

SIMON: Adam Behsudi, who is a trade reporter with Politico. Thanks so much for being with us.

BEHSUDI: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

American Medical Association President On GOP Health Care Plan

Republicans have revived efforts to overhaul health care. NPR’s Scott Simon asks American Medical Association President Andrew Gurman what he’d like to see in a health care bill.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

It’s President Trump’s 100th day in office. He’s still working on a day one promise – to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act that was the hallmark of the Obama administration. President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan renewed their push this week. They hope to bridge the divide between hard-line conservatives and moderates in the House Republican caucus. One group that remains unconvinced is the American Medical Association. Dr. Andrew Gurman is the AMA’s president, and he joins us now from Omaha, where he’s traveling. Dr. Gurman, thanks so much for being with us.

ANDREW GURMAN: My pleasure. Thank you for having me.

SIMON: What makes you uncomfortable about the language so far that is being circulated on Capitol Hill that’s being proposed?

GURMAN: Well, we had a number of problems with the original bill, the AHCA, and we think that this proposed amendment just makes it worse.

SIMON: How so?

GURMAN: Well, what it does is it does away with the prohibition against rating on pre-existing conditions, meaning that if you have a pre-existing condition – and about a third of us do – that you could be charged a much higher rate for insurance. So let me give you an example. Somebody is working, they have insurance, and they have a catastrophic illness – cancer, some other calamity. They have to stop working because they need to get their condition taken care of. If they’re out for 60 days, they lose their insurance. And now, they have to pay whatever the insurance company decides is the premium because they are – now have a pre-existing condition. Somebody in that situation may never be able to accumulate enough money to pay the very high premiums and get back on the cycle of having continuous insurance coverage.

SIMON: Now, of course, Speaker Ryan looks forward to what are called now high-risk pools. These would be plans that are essentially devoted to try and accommodate people who have expensive and pre-existing conditions. You’re not convinced that would do it.

GURMAN: Well, I think that the problem with those is in the fine print. First of all, very often they are not adequately funded. And many of the high-risk pools have lifetime caps, lifetime limits.

SIMON: What kind of reforms would you like to make?

GURMAN: Well, we think that the individual insurance markets need to be stabilized. There needs to be certainty. Right now, the insurance companies are putting together their plans for rating the 2018 insurance products, and they have no certainty from Congress regarding the support for insurance premiums for lower income people. Without knowing those, they don’t know how to price their policies, and they’re going to price them very high. So the bit – that’s the biggest thing that needs to be addressed right now.

SIMON: Dr. Gurman, I move to ask you a question, both as a physician with a practice and the head of the AMA, how much time do you have to spend on matters that have nothing to do with medicine?

GURMAN: Well, unfortunately, a lot. We know from doing detailed studies where we actually follow doctors and minute to minute with a stopwatch find out what they’re doing. The doctors are spending less than half of their time actually taking care of patients. So it’s a big problem.

SIMON: And how would you reduce that bureaucracy, though? Because, you know, bureaucracies run on (laughter) run on a paper trail in a sense.

GURMAN: Well, yeah, I think that we have to work on the electronic health records, make some of these reporting requirements and some of the documentation requirements more seamless, things that will fit into the normal workflow of a physician practice. You know, medicine is one of the only industries where technology has not led to efficiencies and improvements. Technology has simply been a tremendous burden for a lot of practices.

SIMON: Yeah. Do I get what amounts to the bottom line of your advice correctly in that in the absence of a better idea, you and the AMA would be comfortable sticking with the Affordable Care Act?

GURMAN: There are lots of things in the Affordable Care Act that need to be improved, but we would be comfortable improving them rather than throwing the whole thing out, particularly since we have no indication of what it would be replaced with.

SIMON: Dr. Andrew Gurman is president of the American Medical Association. Doctor, thanks so much for being with us.

GURMAN: It’s an honor to talk to you. Thank you so much.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)