There's still more griping about the alleged paucity of women's sports on TV over at Salon, which has now given us two takes on this subject with no more perspective than the thinly researched survey it cites:

"Do men have a greater inherent interest in sports or is it the result of cultural influence? If there were more female athletes featured in TV sports coverage, would more women watch sports? It may be impossible to untangle these various factors, but, as the USC study smartly points out, there is no denying that TV sports coverage not only reflects viewer interest, it also helps to generate it."

Readers answer this nonsense rather sharply, with one reply pointing out one of the sad legacies of sports feminism:

"It's all boring and PC and nicey nice and no surprises or controversial players or plays.

"Women athletes just ain't got flavor. They've been PC'd and role-modeled out of any suggestion of it.

"Nowadays you see some male athletes shilling for marijuana reform, even.

"Would a female athlete ever step out of the PC role-model line to do something like that?

"Eff no. They're as boring and authority-sucking in real life as they are on the court or on the field."

The reader would have done well to stop after the second sentence. But as I wrote here last week, to focus on a small handful of sports highlights shows to the exclusion of the vast array of women's sports programming on the ESPN networks, Fox Sports Net and other outlets is to ignore its astonishing growth and availability just in the last decade alone. 

Last night is a good example. I caught the end of the Los Angeles-Tulsa WNBA game on ESPN2, then switched over to ESPN to watch some of the USA-Sweden women's soccer friendly. As I was doing this, I didn't think it the least bit remarkable, because I've been channel-surfing like this to watch women's sports for several years. It's become a routine in my life and my work as a women's sports journalist, and any fan eager to watch his or her favorite team or an academic interested in actual empirical research can do likewise with little trouble. 

Yet here's a claim that ESPN's 2007 contract renewal with the WNBA is "looking like hush money to keep the league in the dark."

Not a single ESPN official was quoted in this story, and there's no indication one was contacted. Say what you will about the Worldwide Leader's LeBron-A-Thon, but its expanded portfolio of women's sporting events is hard to beat. ACC women's basketball will be the next beneficiary following the recent announcement of that league's $1.86 billion multi-sport deal. It's not quite as lucrative as the SEC package, but women's sports is not being cheated. 

(The extremely lucrative Big Ten Network -- which paid out a reported $8 million this year to each of the league's 11 schools -- devotes 50 percent of its game programming to women's sports.)

This morning, ESPNU aired the USA-Ghana match in the Under-20 Women's World Cup. We're at the point where women's age group competitions are being shown on national television, and the Cassandras who fixate their ire elsewhere are missing some pretty good games. 

But that would shatter their assertions that women's sports are invisible. To turn on the telly is to discover otherwise. 

• On the global edition of The New York Times website today, Richard Bernstein pens his "Letter from America" piece on the subject of the Quinnipiac Title IX trial, trying to explain for non-American readers the curiosities of both cheerleading as a sport and the U.S. gender equity law that confounds natives such as himself thusly:

"It’s easy to understand the feelings of those who brought the suit over the loss of their sport. But the case has provoked the argument among some Title IX critics that there’s something a bit off, 38 years after the passage of the law and the tremendous progress that’s been made in women’s athletics, for a college to get sued by the A.C.L.U. and accused of discrimination for essentially trying to balance its budget."

I'm curious to know why don't know why this item wasn't in the Times sports section. Could it be that it is not the usual -- ahem -- cheerleading, or should I say uncritical coverage occasionally found there on this topic?