A Shift in Sports Media? An Interview with Jon Marks
Jon Marks recently left his role as part of an afternoon drive time sports talk duo with former Eagles player Ike Reese on 94.1 WIP, a role Mike Missanelli called one that everybody in the field aspires to get.
 |
| Jon Marks doing his YouTube show. |
So, when I asked Marks for an interview on the topic of a shift in the sports media, I had to ask about his decision to leave WIP. He was emphatic about his reasons.
“The reasons I left WIP, in order: 1. Quality of life, 2. Burned out on the job, 3. Financial reasons,” he said, responding via e-mail. “The long commute and hours took its toll on my quality of life. Plain and simple. As my kids are getting older, I was missing out on activities during the week. I missed dinner every Monday to Friday. . . . Unless they paid me considerable more for my misery, I was going to leave.”
I couldn’t resist asking if the constant Eagles talk – a pet peeve of mine – influenced his decision. Re-emphasizing his top reasons, he admitted it could be a grind.
“It’s fair to say that it gets monotonous, day after day, year after year grinding on the same type of stuff, but that’s the job description,” he said. “No different than Skip Bayless and Stephen A. talking about the NFL and NBA all year long. That’s what people tune in for. If you are going to do the job, you have to appeal to what the majority of people want to hear. In Philly, it’s mostly Eagles with Phillies and Sixers, depending on how well they are doing.”
Marks has joined the ranks of sports talkers doing their own podcast. For full disclosure, Marks interviewed me years ago about my novella, The Birth of Super Crip.
I asked for his thoughts on the apparent shift that’s taking place in sports coverage with so many sports talk hosts turning to podcasting.
“The big radio companies are LOSING money and advertising hasn’t recovered [since] Covid,” Marks said. “So, even though WIP is an extremely successful station both in ratings and making money, the bottom line is the bottom line. Companies are saying take it or leave it, unless they decide that an individual is an exception and worth paying the extra money.”
And he seems to think the change is more than a fad.
“In this ever-changing world, some individuals no longer need radio or TV companies. As a content creator, as long as you have a following and can continue to grow your audience, going out on your own is a viable choice.”
He admits that if he gets a job offer with another station after the non-compete clause from his WIP contract expires, he’d be happy to explore the option. But his new vehicle on YouTube seems to intrigue him.
“I started doing the YouTube Show because I figured it could only help me and give me options. If a radio station was to contact me on April 1st (when my non-compete expires) and offer me a job and we agreed on terms, that’d be great. I’m just skeptical of that happening. So why not start at the grass roots level and build a show that people can enjoy and who know what it turns into.”
I’ve liked Marks’ YouTube show so far, which runs most nights Monday through Friday at 9 o’clock. Sports centered, the show is still heavy on the Eagles, yet not to the exclusion of the other local teams, and does incorporate some “guy talk.”
I’m fascinated to see where sports talk goes. But I have questions about the quality of sports coverage – and news coverage – if we end up with people simply doing their own thing. Marks doesn’t share my concerns.
“Traditional sports talk isn’t growing,” he said, focusing on sports. “Less people are listening to the radio, but unlike music stations, there is no substitute for live and local sports talk. I think you will see more radio people [leaving]. I don’t think it really changes the standard of anything.”
He mentioned Anthony Gargano going to PHLY and Marc Farzetta doing his own show as examples of sports talk show hosts leaving radio.
However, when I asked about conspiracy theories gaining traction from podcasters and social media, Marks didn’t hold back. In fact, his answer took an unexpected turn.
“This is a terrible thing for journalism,” he said. “People like Adam Schefter are just a part of the machine. He’s not worried about getting stories correct, he gets used by teams and agents to put out information, regardless if it’s true or not.”
He offered an example from a few years ago. Dianna Russini of ESPN at the time tweeted – essentially reported – that the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons had trade offers of first round draft picks for receiver Julio Jones.
“Now, anyone with half a brain could see right through that,” Marks said. “She was getting that info from the Falcons to try and stir up a market for Jones. A real reporter would have vetted the story. Spoke to Jones agent to verify if he’d heard that. Asked other front office personnel around the league to see if this was true. But she didn’t care to do any of that. It got retweets and she was on all the ESPN shows talking about it.”
I found an article on ESPN confirming what Russini initially reported. Marks added that the eventual trade of Jones, in fact, garnered significantly less for the Falcons.
The story is a good example of why I hope to keep writing about the apparent shift in sports media and the media in general. Is it a big deal that an NFL report was wrong? Likely not, though the way it happened, according to Marks, is symptomatic of potentially bigger problems with the media.
Getting the story correct wasn’t important – the important part was getting the story attention.
That is a big deal in the sports world and the rest of the world.
————————
Many thanks to Jon Marks for his time and effort.
Check out more installments of this series:
A Shift in Sports Media? (Including interviews Max King and Mike Missanelli)
Comments