VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 A smoking gun!!!!!??? ESPN is the only media outlet NOT covering this story. The NFL posted yesterday. Guess the NFL did not get the memo from the NFL to NOT cover this story! Sorry, I "choose not to believe" it. "Smoking gun" (!!)? More like a house of cards. As Fingon said elsewhere: conspiracies are for crazy people. The hits keep on coming! Yes, and the NFL talked about Spygate...initially. Your point? Believing that there are no conspiracies is for simple people. Hence...
silvermike Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 The bottom line here is that it's news, it's regarding an athlete, and ESPN cited a policy that they've clearly ignored before. Something's wrong. There really needs to be a rival to ESPN on a national scale, better than half-assed networks like Versus.
Lori Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I wonder how much Tim Graham could comment on this without getting himself in hot water? I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN (or any other of the other "news" outlets) set these kinds of restrictions to keep people / organizations / teams / leagues friendly, but still, this stinks. To be honest ... I'd advise him not to. Not his beat, and this decision is obviously coming from far above his pay grade. As you might expect, we're talking about this over at my sportswriting hangout. Some people put it on the front of their section, others buried a brief in a notebook ... but so far, everyone who's commented did pick up at least part of the AP story. And ESPN is not faring well in the discussion.
silvermike Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 It's also notable I think that ESPN runs a website, and therefore isn't limited by time on TV. It's a lot easier to say "We didn't think this was as important as training camps, so we gave over SportsCenter to coverage of players arriving for camp" There's no excuse other than blatant favoritism to Roethlisberger. That being said, it wouldn't be disappointing if ESPN really decided not to cover civil cases, and even went a step further and didn't cover anything besides convictions. At least minimize the impact of all this crap on the news cycle.
Golden Wheels Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Sure looks like the suits at ABC told ESPN to soft pedal the Ben Roethlisburger story yesterday because he's appearing in Shaq's new TV show. As soon as everyone noticed that they weren't reporting it, then something was posted at ESPN.com.
Captain Caveman Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Sure looks like the suits at ABC told ESPN to soft pedal the Ben Roethlisburger story yesterday because he's appearing in Shaq's new TV show. As soon as everyone noticed that they weren't reporting it, then something was posted at ESPN.com. I still don't see anything at ESPN.com on the front page, or on the NFL page. JP Losman signing with the UFL is on thr front page. They are definitely going out of their way to not cover this story (or at least limit coverage of it) which reeks of shoddy journalism. If they're doing it because her claims seem dubious, then make sure you cover that angle in it. I understand that this is going to be controversial either way. But don't just leave it unreported because it might make it difficult to cover that athlete / team in the future, or might raise some other controversy.
The Dean Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I still don't see anything at ESPN.com on the front page, or on the NFL page. JP Losman signing with the UFL is on thr front page. They are definitely going out of their way to not cover this story (or at least limit coverage of it) which reeks of shoddy journalism. If they're doing it because her claims seem dubious, then make sure you cover that angle in it. I understand that this is going to be controversial either way. But don't just leave it unreported because it might make it difficult to cover that athlete / team in the future, or might raise some other controversy. Maybe saving it for TV coverage on a fresh SportsCenter (all that are on now are from last night), or Behind the Lines?
Lori Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afcnorth/0-3-20...eals-near-.html The AFC North morning links, minus the story leading the sections in Pittsburgh. The comments below are what you'd expect. By not even releasing a statement explaining WHY they choose not to cover this, ESPN isn't doing their AFCN blogger, James Walker, any favors.
Captain Caveman Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 To be honest ... I'd advise him not to. Not his beat, and this decision is obviously coming from far above his pay grade. As you might expect, we're talking about this over at my sportswriting hangout. Some people put it on the front of their section, others buried a brief in a notebook ... but so far, everyone who's commented did pick up at least part of the AP story. And ESPN is not faring well in the discussion. Lori, I also wouldn't expect him to, for the same reasons you mentioned. He could maybe confirm or deny whether ESPN has ever dictated any topics as being off limits in a story, or given guidelines as to which topics should be treated with sensitivity. As a fan and a reader, it would be very interesting to hear about what kind of filter might be in place over there. I wouldn't blame him, or lose any respect for him if he chose not answer though. I've been asked by my boss to do things that I didn't necessarily agree with, and have a lot of empathy for any writer who might be asked to compromise a story for the sake of business. The Daily Show has Brian Williams as a guest last week, and before his segment they made a big deal out of the way news organizations had bent over backwards to land an interview with Mark Sanford. I think it's important that people realize just how dependent the "news" can be on advertising dollars, and how easily it can be compromised in search of those advertising dollars. I'm not saying that that is necessarily happening here, as it seems more likely that ESPN doesn't want to provide negative coverage of a source they consider friendly. I think a lot of people noticed similar prejudices in covering the Brett Favre saga a few months back, and it would be a shame if this becomes a larger trend.
Captain Caveman Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Maybe saving it for TV coverage on a fresh SportsCenter (all that are on now are from last night), or Behind the Lines? Have they ever done this with anything? Not a chance.
Captain Caveman Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Sure looks like the suits at ABC told ESPN to soft pedal the Ben Roethlisburger story yesterday because he's appearing in Shaq's new TV show. As soon as everyone noticed that they weren't reporting it, then something was posted at ESPN.com. I don't necessarily buy this either, as this kind of publicity would only boost ratings for that show. Ask Michael Vick. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
The Dean Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Have they ever done this with anything? Dunno. No reason for me to believe they haven't. If they don't cover it on today's shows, then I will suspect something.
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Yes, and the NFL talked about Spygate...initially. Your point? Believing that there are no conspiracies is for simple people. Hence... YOUR point was that the NFL "likely" told the ESPN tospike any story on Big Ben. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your point, as the NFL itself reported the story yesterday on its own website. No doubt you are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the US Govt. faking the lunar landing. How many corners can a guy paint himself into? You are in the octagon, bro! .
TheMadCap Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 YOUR point was that the NFL "likely" told the ESPN tospike any story on Big Ben. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your point, as the NFL itself reported the story yesterday on its own website. No doubt you are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the US Govt. faking the lunar landing. How many corners can a guy paint himself into? You are in the octagon, bro! . most likely, ESPN chooses which stories they want to play up, and which they want to disregard. Probably has nothing to do with the NFL suits at all...
VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 YOUR point was that the NFL "likely" told the ESPN tospike any story on Big Ben. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your point, as the NFL itself reported the story yesterday on its own website. No doubt you are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the US Govt. faking the lunar landing. How many corners can a guy paint himself into? You are in the octagon, bro! . Yes, it's wholly inconceivable that the NFL said to ESPN "we'll make one mention of it and that should cover it." Totally crazy! No doubt you think Watergate was just a bunch of guys sneaking into the DNC HQ to play poker. Maybe the "calm and rational" Tim Graham will report on it in short order. I'm sure he's talked to people in the NFL who said "it was no big deal" and "everyone does it," regardless of whether the edict came down from the NFL or not.
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Yes, it's wholly inconceivable that the NFL said to ESPN "we'll make one mention of it and that should cover it." Totally crazy! No doubt you think Watergate was just a bunch of guys sneaking into the DNC HQ to play poker. Maybe the "calm and rational" Tim Graham will report on it in short order. I'm sure he's talked to people in the NFL who said "it was no big deal" and "everyone does it," regardless of whether the edict came down from the NFL or not. Uh, yes. That statement is totally crazy. My favorite part is the "we'll make one mention of it and that should cover it." Nobody really thinks like this, do they? I think you're just putting us on with this stuff you're pretending to believe. It's just not possible.... And, for the record, I never said, regarding illegal videoptaping of opponents defensive signals, that "everyone did it". Also, I am hardly alone in doubting the benefit of the taping. Coaches and the Commish himself have said similar things. Also, you were never able to describe the benefit that BB derives from putting Brady on the injury or "questionable" list every week for years. If it wasn't for logic and recorded history, you would be loaded with great idea! Watergate was a criminal act planned and perpetrated by a group of individuals--hence it was a criminal conspiracy. Your "conspiracy" is a kooky fantasy cooked up by some goofballs who can't square reality with their juvenile bias and jealousies.
Lori Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 From Philly Inquirer columnist John Gonzalez: Roethlisberger's pass If you think the company's decision-making process is capricious and strange, you're not alone. The people responsible for putting content on ESPN and ESPN radio weren't exactly thrilled yesterday. "People were going insane," an ESPN source told me. "Fox News was doing the story. The AP had it. And they wouldn't even let us mention it. You can't ignore the story. It needs to be on SportsCenter. It makes us look bad. It's not a topic for discussion, but you have to acknowledge that it's being reported, that the story exists." The story does exist. We all know it. Roethlisberger and his lawyers and the Steelers know it, too. But ESPN - the biggest, most influential sports media outlet on the planet - is pretending otherwise. Despite ESPN's explanation, I keep coming back to the same brain-frying question: why?
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 So now the story has shifted from Big Ben's legal problem to ESPNs problematic and bizarre decision to not cover the story. I don't recall any competing news organizations jumping on any other organization's lack of coverage of the "Spygate Coverup". Nor do I recall any reports of seething reporters being muzzled by execs. Seems like everyone but ESPN has torn up the NFL's script on this one. What's happening??? There will be repercussions!---such as.........well, let's hear from our neighborhood crackpot: You're up, doc. I mean "VOR".
Lori Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 So now the story has shifted from Big Ben's legal problem to ESPNs problematic and bizarre decision to not cover the story. I don't recall any competing news organizations jumping on any other organization's lack of coverage of the "Spygate Coverup". Nor do I recall any reports of seething reporters being muzzled by execs. Seems like everyone but ESPN has torn up the NFL's script on this one. What's happening??? There will be repercussions!---such as.........well, let's hear from our neighborhood crackpot: You're up, doc. I mean "VOR". Quite the opposite: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/sto...&id=3438752
VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Uh, yes. That statement is totally crazy. My favorite part is the "we'll make one mention of it and that should cover it." Nobody really thinks like this, do they? I think you're just putting us on with this stuff you're pretending to believe. It's just not possible.... Again, oh the irony. Nothing compares to your view of the CBA or what TO needs to keep him happy in any given season stuff. This is far more plausible than those. Yet you soldier on and try to portray yourself as "calm and rational." And, for the record, I never said, regarding illegal videoptaping of opponents defensive signals, that "everyone did it". Also, I am hardly alone in doubting the benefit of the taping. Coaches and the Commish himself have said similar things. Also, you were never able to describe the benefit that BB derives from putting Brady on the injury or "questionable" list every week for years. If it wasn't for logic and recorded history, you would be loaded with great idea! Belichick putting Brady on the injury report is all you've got? Seriously? Seriously? Well let me ask you Superfan, does putting Brady on the injury report violate any rule? Versus not reporting an injury (you realize that Brady has been having shoulder problems since after his first season, right? Of course you do). Do you remember when Belichick put half the Patriots team on the injury report, as a big "F you" to the NFL? Or are you suggesting that Belichick illegally videotaping was an elaborate ruse, which ultimately cost his team a 1st rounder and himself and his team hundreds of thousands in fines? Wow! Watergate was a criminal act planned and perpetrated by a group of individuals--hence it was a criminal conspiracy. You need to look-up the definition of "conspiracy." And then once you've done that, realize that it doesn't have to be on a massive scale. Your "conspiracy" is a kooky fantasy cooked up by some goofballs who can't square reality with their juvenile bias and jealousies. Bravo. Barry Bonds and his fans couldn't have said it any better. "You're jealous and a child." "Everyone did it and Jose Canseco admitted that!" "It doesn't help because steroids can't make you hit a ball." "The league knew about it and looked the other way because it helped them." You need to seriously grow up. Or get a brain.
Recommended Posts