The Unspoken Bias in Criticizing Sports Media: A Deeper Look at ‘First Take’ and Its Audience
There’s something about First Take that makes it a magnet for criticism. It’s not just the show itself—it’s the way people talk about it. Personally, I think what makes this particularly fascinating is how the critique often spills over into a judgment of its audience. Bomani Jones recently pointed this out, and it’s a detail that I find especially interesting. It’s not just about Stephen A. Smith’s theatrics or Skip Bayless’s hot takes; it’s about who’s watching and why that seems to bother so many people.
The Show as a Scapegoat
Bomani Jones argues that First Take is an easy target for critics of sports media. In my opinion, this is spot on. The show has become a symbol of everything people claim to hate about modern sports discourse: the yelling, the sensationalism, the oversimplification of complex issues. But here’s the thing—First Take didn’t invent this style; it just perfected it. What many people don’t realize is that the show’s success isn’t accidental. It tapped into something real, something that resonated with its audience, particularly Black viewers who have long been a significant part of ESPN’s daytime demographic.
If you take a step back and think about it, the criticism of First Take often feels like a thinly veiled critique of its viewers. It’s as if the show’s popularity is seen as a problem because of who is watching it. This raises a deeper question: Why is it that when a show appeals to a predominantly Black audience, it’s dismissed as lowbrow or unintelligent? From my perspective, this isn’t just about sports media—it’s about a broader cultural bias that devalues the tastes and preferences of certain communities.
The Evolution of First Take and Its Legacy
One thing that immediately stands out is how First Take has evolved since Skip Bayless left. The show is looser, goofier, and more centered around Stephen A. Smith’s personality. But what’s truly remarkable is its influence. The blueprint laid by Smith and Bayless—heated debates, strong personalities, and unapologetic opinions—has become the standard across media. From Fox News to local sports podcasts, everyone’s adopted this style.
This is where it gets complicated. While the format has undeniable flaws—it often prioritizes entertainment over substance—it’s also undeniably effective. As Bomani Jones puts it, ‘Two guys who really enjoy each other’s company and respect each other, arguing about sports, wins.’ What this really suggests is that the success of First Take isn’t just about the show; it’s about the chemistry between its hosts and the way they connect with their audience.
The Audience: The Real Story
Here’s what I find most intriguing: the audience of First Take is often overlooked in these critiques. People act like the show’s popularity is some kind of fluke, as if no one actually enjoys it. But that’s simply not true. There’s a reason why, at its peak, viewers would tune in just to hear Skip Bayless’s take on the latest sports drama. What many critics miss is that First Take filled a void. It provided a space for passionate, unfiltered sports conversation that felt authentic, even if it wasn’t always intellectually rigorous.
What makes this particularly fascinating is how the show’s audience is often dismissed as unsophisticated or uncritical. But in my opinion, this is a misunderstanding of what makes media successful. First Take didn’t become a phenomenon because its viewers were passive consumers; it succeeded because it engaged them in a way that other shows didn’t.
The Broader Implications
If you take a step back and think about it, the criticism of First Take is part of a larger trend in media discourse. We’re quick to judge what other people consume, often projecting our own biases onto their choices. This isn’t just about sports—it’s about how we talk about culture, entertainment, and even politics. When we dismiss First Take as ‘trash TV,’ we’re also dismissing the people who watch it, and that’s a problem.
From my perspective, the real issue isn’t First Take itself; it’s the elitism that underlies so much of media criticism. We need to ask ourselves: Why do we feel the need to police what other people enjoy? And what does it say about us when we do?
Final Thoughts
Personally, I think First Take is far more interesting than its critics give it credit for. It’s a show that reflects the complexities of its audience, the evolution of media, and the biases of those who judge it. What this really suggests is that the conversation about First Take isn’t just about sports—it’s about who gets to decide what’s valuable, what’s intelligent, and what’s worth our time.
So, the next time you hear someone trashing First Take, ask yourself: Are they really criticizing the show, or are they criticizing the people who watch it? Because, in my opinion, that’s the more important question.
