When LeBron James finally joined Twitter during his week long free agency, many predicted the announcement of his new team would come in a 140 characters, representing another blow to the role of “traditional” media in reporting the world’s events.  Instead, fans were treated to “The Decision,” an hour-long ESPN special ostensibly to raise money for the Boys and Girls Club.  The backlash to both LeBron and ESPN was swift and intense as viewers saw a media organization ceding privileged access to accommodate the figures it’s supposed to cover and the corporations that back them – all perhaps just to stay relevant in the world of Twitter.

But the immediate revulsion of the public to ESPN’s highest-ever rated softball game suggests that Americans may have seen the future of journalism and decided they don’t like it.

As most people understand the facts, eventual interviewer Jim Gray gave the idea during an NBA Finals game to LeBron’s manager who just happened to be sitting near Ari Emanuel, head of the William Morris Endeavor Agency, brother of Rahm, and inspiration for Entourage’s Ari Gold.  ESPN gave away the airtime for free and Team LeBron-Emanuel sold ads to a cadre of James’ top corporate backers.  You don’t need to read AdAge’s play-by-play to have sensed the corporate and ethical entanglements that surrounded the broadcast.

ESPN has always walked a fine line between journalism and entertainment.  On one hand it is closely related to Disney corporate sibling ABC News, has an Ombudsman, and frequently breaks stories that extend beyond the interests of sports enthusiasts.  On the other, as one network radio personality replied, “Sports is a circus” and we shouldn’t be offended when it’s covered as such.  Perhaps underscoring this reality, the Ombudsman section of the ESPN web site features a 5,000 word column centered coverage of vuvuzelas and no mention of the “The Decision.”

And yet, it wasn’t hard to watch last Thursday’s program and foresee a world where media organizations pay subjects through charitable donations, allow for hand-picked interviewers, and lead with questions like “Are you still a nail biter?” in order to retain the ability to stay relevant in a world where newsmakers can take their message to Twitter and Facebook   Indeed, both ESPN executives and Mr. Emanuel hinted that “The Decision” represented a move toward the future integration of advertising and content in a media event.

But hopefully that move has been put on hold by the sensibilities of the American people.  Even when the program was first announced, I could sense here in Chicago that people no longer wanted LeBron James on the team – it wasn’t Jordan-esque to demand the attention without the “heat.”.  The public doesn’t understand or relate to an organization or individual in such a controlled environment.  It’s why we sniff out greenwashing, demand candidates head to Meet the Press, and have doggedly pursued transparency from the companies we patronize.

Few corporate communicators are in a position to stage such an elaborate event as “The Decision”, but all should nonetheless take note of the public’s apparent limit for contrived media events.  As we seek to generate our own buzz, it’s worth remembering how real interviews and reporting can grant us the authenticity required for success.  My hope is that as we come back from the abyss that was “The Decision,” traditional media will reestablish its role, and the organizations they cover may finally realize its worth.  After all, this country has never really cared for Kings or their makers.