SDS Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Then please explain to me how ESPN being at the forefront of Spygate coverage benefited its broadcast relationship with the NFL. I think most people are under the impression the story was even bigger and should have received more attention than the way it played out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Tim, Have any good Ferrall stories from Vegas you COULD share? The only ones worth sharing ... I cannot share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 So, for really long threads - has the original post always showed 1st and then the last batch of replies after that????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 I think most people are under the impression the story was even bigger and should have received more attention than the way it played out. Searching the ESPN.com site (via Google) for the word "spygate" returns 788 hits. Dang. Somebody had to be writing about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Searching the ESPN.com site (via Google) for the word "spygate" returns 788 hits. Dang. Somebody had to be writing about it... Search for "T.O."... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 Search for "T.O."... Got a way of doing that without returning every story that uses the word "to"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Got a way of doing that without returning every story that uses the word "to"? sure... likely excuse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I think most people are under the impression the story was even bigger and should have received more attention than the way it played out. That would be my take--including exploring some of the other accusations against them (like the stuff in the Times story I previously linked to or Ross Tucker's stories about things like letting IR players practice (which Pats players apparently believed all other teams did until Ross disabused them of that notion with his experience with other teams, including the Bills). News outlets with ties to the League may be willing to take a story so far for the sake of more eyeballs, but no farther for fear of damaging the relationship and their business interest in the League. May be a cause and effect timelag thing going on as well. For ex., Spygate blows up so the media outlet reports it, the League doesn't like the direction the story is going, talks to the media outlet about that, reminding them of the value the outlet has in the League and how things like access can be cut off to devalue that relationship. Some back and forth goes on behind the scenes and pretty soon the outlet begins backing off the story over time. Doesn't sound so preposterous to me. Why would ESPN, for ex., want you to devalue a billion dollar corporate asset? I understand how journalism is supposed to work in such cases--ethical walls between editorial and business, but I'm just a tad cynical that it always works the way it's supposed to. Again, Tim, nothing personal here intended--I generally like your stuff and don't mean to imply somehow that this is something you're personally involved in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I think most people are under the impression the story was even bigger and should have received more attention than the way it played out. You and I have different recollections of how ESPN covered Spygate, then. I wasn't at ESPN then. I still was at the Palm Beach Post, but I remember it being every bit as talked about as Michael Vick or Brett Favre has been this offseason. ESPN's and the New York Times' original stories are what prompted the Boston Herald to run its infamous account. Spygate was the No. 2 angle for ESPN at the Super Bowl right behind the Patriots' quest to go undefeated. Some would argue Spygate eclipsed the perfection angle. Any day Roger Goodell made an announcement on Spygate, ESPN tore up its schedule to produce a studio show dedicated only to Spygate. Click on this link and then take a look at the right-hand margin. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=3394586 That's a small portion of what ESPN.com did. ESPN networks and ESPN Radio were almost nonstop with it. What more would you want? ESPN to dedicate an entire channel to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 That would be my take--including exploring some of the other accusations against them (like the stuff in the Times story I previously linked to or Ross Tucker's stories about things like letting IR players practice (which Pats players apparently believed all other teams did until Ross disabused them of that notion with his experience with other teams, including the Bills). News outlets with ties to the League may be willing to take a story so far for the sake of more eyeballs, but no farther for fear of damaging the relationship and their business interest in the League. May be a cause and effect timelag thing going on as well. For ex., Spygate blows up so the media outlet reports it, the League doesn't like the direction the story is going, talks to the media outlet about that, reminding them of the value the outlet has in the League and how things like access can be cut off to devalue that relationship. Some back and forth goes on behind the scenes and pretty soon the outlet begins backing off the story over time. Doesn't sound so preposterous to me. Why would ESPN, for ex., want you to devalue a billion dollar corporate asset? I understand how journalism is supposed to work in such cases--ethical walls between editorial and business, but I'm just a tad cynical that it always works the way it's supposed to. Again, Tim, nothing personal here intended--I generally like your stuff and don't mean to imply somehow that this is something you're personally involved in. Oh, please. On the day Roger Goodell met with Matt Walsh, ESPN had FIVE HOURS of live coverage. (They also spent so much of that time bashing Belichick and the Pats that their ombudswoman felt compelled to write about it later.) "News outlets with ties to the League may be willing to take a story so far for the sake of more eyeballs, but no farther for fear of damaging the relationship and their business interest in the League." Either that, or they're practicing responsible journalism by reporting only what they can substantiate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Oh, please. On the day Roger Goodell met with Matt Walsh, ESPN had FIVE HOURS of live coverage. (They also spent so much of that time bashing Belichick and the Pats that their ombudswoman felt compelled to write about it later.) "News outlets with ties to the League may be willing to take a story so far for the sake of more eyeballs, but no farther for fear of damaging the relationship and their business interest in the League." Either that, or they're practicing responsible journalism by reporting only what they can substantiate. Could be either one, though, no? I'm willing to admit that, are you? You, Tim and I will have to agree to disagree on some aspects of this. I do think, however, that Tim's post above showing all of the resources ESPN devoted to Spygate last year reinforces my original point about it being an interesting idea for a story to look at all of that a year or so later and the impact it had on fans' attitudes towards New England to this day, again, rightly or wrongly. I'm not a journalist (nor do I play one on TV), so I'll leave that stuff up to you guys, but may mention the idea to some other friends in the field for a further reality check out of my own personal curiousity..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Oh, please. On the day Roger Goodell met with Matt Walsh, ESPN had FIVE HOURS of live coverage. (They also spent so much of that time bashing Belichick and the Pats that their ombudswoman felt compelled to write about it later.) "News outlets with ties to the League may be willing to take a story so far for the sake of more eyeballs, but no farther for fear of damaging the relationship and their business interest in the League." Either that, or they're practicing responsible journalism by reporting only what they can substantiate. I guess the question will always be whether the various news outlets pushed as hard as they could on the investigation side, as opposed to just reporting and discussing what was happening... I don't have the best memory, but it seemed to me this was a ginormous story with devastating potential that kind of fizzled compared to what many thought it would eventually lead to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrygnome Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I don't have the best memory, but it seemed to me this was a ginormous story with devastating potential that kind of fizzled compared to what many thought it would eventually lead to. Destroying all the evidence will do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 I guess the question will always be whether the various news outlets pushed as hard as they could on the investigation side, as opposed to just reporting and discussing what was happening... I can agree with that, but remember that just because some stories weren't written doesn't mean that they weren't investigated. Sometimes, you look at what you've got and decide there really isn't enough information to run with. I don't have the best memory, but it seemed to me this was a ginormous story with devastating potential that kind of fizzled compared to what many thought it would eventually lead to. Destroying all the evidence will do that. To his credit, Goodell admitted he handled that badly, and the second set of tapes was made available to the media. So, although I agree with your point, I'd amend that to destroying some of the evidence. Sorry for the hijack, Tim ... after all, this isn't the "Ask Lori" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 That would be my take--including exploring some of the other accusations against them (like the stuff in the Times story I previously linked to or Ross Tucker's stories about things like letting IR players practice (which Pats players apparently believed all other teams did until Ross disabused them of that notion with his experience with other teams, including the Bills). News outlets with ties to the League may be willing to take a story so far for the sake of more eyeballs, but no farther for fear of damaging the relationship and their business interest in the League. May be a cause and effect timelag thing going on as well. For ex., Spygate blows up so the media outlet reports it, the League doesn't like the direction the story is going, talks to the media outlet about that, reminding them of the value the outlet has in the League and how things like access can be cut off to devalue that relationship. Some back and forth goes on behind the scenes and pretty soon the outlet begins backing off the story over time. Doesn't sound so preposterous to me. Why would ESPN, for ex., want you to devalue a billion dollar corporate asset? I understand how journalism is supposed to work in such cases--ethical walls between editorial and business, but I'm just a tad cynical that it always works the way it's supposed to. Again, Tim, nothing personal here intended--I generally like your stuff and don't mean to imply somehow that this is something you're personally involved in. Just me, but controversy sells. I think the anti-Patriots* stuff is not all that bad for the league, especially at this remove. The Pats* themselves might not like it, but I bet the NFL (in the long run) doesn't mind all that much. Now if there were any danger of the Super Bowl victories being permanently tainted in some way, that would hurt. But Goodell's having destroyed the evidence eliminated that possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 So, for really long threads - has the original post always showed 1st and then the last batch of replies after that????? Ok, I'm not sure what funky mode I'm in with the home computer, but I know it listed Lori's strating post and then had the latest page of replies underneath... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Ok, I'm not sure what funky mode I'm in with the home computer, but I know it listed Lori's strating post and then had the latest page of replies underneath... interesting... linear+ under the options menu does this. Never knew that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Oh, please. On the day Roger Goodell met with Matt Walsh, ESPN had FIVE HOURS of live coverage. (They also spent so much of that time bashing Belichick and the Pats that their ombudswoman felt compelled to write about it later.) "News outlets with ties to the League may be willing to take a story so far for the sake of more eyeballs, but no farther for fear of damaging the relationship and their business interest in the League." Either that, or they're practicing responsible journalism by reporting only what they can substantiate. Good old fashioned investigative journalism, IMO, no longer exists. I'm sure there is more to this story than was reported. Tucker even reported about various rules being broken by the Pets* and yet he's the only person to talk about it. Granted he said it occurred several years ago while he was with the team but if anyone believes it's not still going on then they should be offered to buy a bridge in NYC. The problem as I see it is that if a media outlet, let's say the AP for example, finds out everything and reports it they'll find their press passes to the Pets* lockerroom are suddenly no good anymore. If they report that their credentials have been revoked by the Pets* due to their story it may lead to them to just getting the same access they had before or the whole NFL could get pissed off at them. It's a gamble to big to take, IMO. Even if they get the credentials back good luck trying to interview any players anymore. I am not about to compare the importance of this to Whitehouse scandals. I'm just using them as an example of a greater problem across the board. The days of Woodward and Bernstein are long gone. Today, from what I've read, media outlets take the press releases given to them by the Whitehouse and then rewrite them a little and move on with the next story. Somebody out there needs to have the cajones to look a little deeper into things. IMO, that's not gonna happen very much anymore. I guess the question will always be whether the various news outlets pushed as hard as they could on the investigation side, as opposed to just reporting and discussing what was happening... I don't have the best memory, but it seemed to me this was a ginormous story with devastating potential that kind of fizzled compared to what many thought it would eventually lead to. I agree. I think there was a lot more to this than was looked into. It seems it was a "The Commissioner says there's nothing there so there must be nothing there" so it's time to move on kinda thing. It seems the questions about the communications interference were never completely looked into either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 Mark Fainaru-Wada, the co-author of Game of Shadows -- and now an ESPN employee, by the way -- would disagree with you about the death of investigative journalism. And there is no way in hell a team denies credentials to an established journalist from a major outlet without PFWA going thermonuclear. Now, the credentialing practices of certain unnamed teams regarding journalists outside the major markets is a story for a different day. But shut out the AP? Hardly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 After their national embarrassment with the "walkthrough tape" hoax (that WAS an investigation by the paper--it found.....a bogus source that was totally wrong), was the Boston Herald's "press pass" pulled by the Pats? By the Leauge? If your League conspiracy theory (you know, how they threaten loss of access to get papers to spike stories) is true--you would have to tell me, "yes, the Herald no longer has access to the Pats." What's that? They DO still have access? How can that be?? Anyone who truly believes the League would threaten the only national sports network with "limiting access" in order to gag them is simply nuts. The League needs ESPN at least as much as ESPN needs the NFL. If, for some unimaginable reason, ESPN suddenly decided to boycott coverage of the NFL, Goodell would be on a chopper to Bristol immediately with a box of chocolates in his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts