ENShawkins Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 ESPN continues to confound me when it comes to its reporting. Big Ben is accused of sexual assault, and they refuse to report on it, citing that they don't report on "civil" cases. I find that HARD to believe if it were Mike Vick or Pac Man Jones, or even TO that were being accused. link: http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog...ons_agains.html However, when Corey McIntyre was accused of exposing himself to an old woman, without ANY substantiating evidence to support the claim, it made FRONT page news on espn.com. His name was permanently stained. My question is, if they are going to such lengths to protect Big Ben's name, why did they not use the same treatment for McIntyre? What a joke. Its not ESPN's job to determine what is/isn't newsworthy. Kobe Bryant was the lead story on sportscenter for an entire summer. How is this any different. Shoddy journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENShawkins Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 As an addon to that, I am not including the board's beloved Tim Graham in my criticism. I'm talking big picture ESPN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOBILLS78 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I think you answered your own question. ESPN's refusal to report on civil cases has been long-standing, apparently. McIntyre's was a criminal case. I can see both sides of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 There's this link from the story the OP links to: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/200...tory?id=4219580 ESPN apparently does comment and report on civil cases. And there's no doubt that this particular civil case is news. And on top of that, their excuse that Roethlisberger ahsn't commented on it isn't true, at least, his lawyer his making public statements. I think the simple explanation is correct here - ESPN would rather keep Roethlisberger friendly than cover his troubles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 There's this link from the story the OP links to: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/200...tory?id=4219580 ESPN apparently does comment and report on civil cases. And there's no doubt that this particular civil case is news. And on top of that, their excuse that Roethlisberger ahsn't commented on it isn't true, at least, his lawyer his making public statements. I think the simple explanation is correct here - ESPN would rather keep Roethlisberger friendly than cover his troubles. Gee, not unlike what happened with Spygate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Its not ESPN's job to determine what is/isn't newsworthy. It is absolutely ESPN's job to determine what is newsworthy. That is what news organizations do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I think you answered your own question. ESPN's refusal to report on civil cases has been long-standing, apparently. McIntyre's was a criminal case. I can see both sides of the argument. but of course they never seemed to have followed this policy prior. PFT has been all over ESPN's shady-ness on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENShawkins Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 It is absolutely ESPN's job to determine what is newsworthy. That is what news organizations do. I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. My point was that news is news. Just because they have a special relationship with Big Ben, or they have biased editors...whatever the case may be, its their responsibility to report what is newsworthy. While every credible news organization is reporting this...from the Associated Press to Sports Illustrated, ESPN stands on the sidelines protecting him. Do you believe that they are up in Bristol, sitting at the production table, shrugging off this story as non-newsworthy? No chance. It's a conscious decision not to report on sexual assault charges levied at one of the biggest names in the NFL. Do you believe ESPN is maintaining their responsibility as a mainstream media outlet? Not a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Isiah Thomas wants to know how long this no-reporting-on-civil-lawsuits policy has been in effect: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3046010 Lame, ESPN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Most of us grew up on ESPN. It's a huge part of our lives and our culture. As the old saying goes "you can't live with them and you can't live without them." Unfortunately they've gotten too big for their britches and like many here, I'm very ambivalent about their very existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless Ike Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 this is why jesus invented deadspin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Gee, not unlike what happened with Spygate. hahahahahahahahaha! Yup, can't find any ESPN stories about that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookiemonster Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Most of us grew up on ESPN. It's a huge part of our lives and our culture. As the old saying goes "you can't live with them and you can't live without them." Unfortunately they've gotten too big for their britches and like many here, I'm very ambivalent about their very existence. Gotta agree, ESPN has really been pretty irrelevant to me, for a long time, do I watch, yes, but it is not like, "I can't wait to watch ESPN highlights", at one time it was like that for me. The internet, and sites like TBD, are much more informative. I do think that BB is getting some special treatment here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 ESPN continues to confound me when it comes to its reporting. Big Ben is accused of sexual assault, and they refuse to report on it, citing that they don't report on "civil" cases. I find that HARD to believe if it were Mike Vick or Pac Man Jones, or even TO that were being accused. link: http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog...ons_agains.html However, when Corey McIntyre was accused of exposing himself to an old woman, without ANY substantiating evidence to support the claim, it made FRONT page news on espn.com. His name was permanently stained. My question is, if they are going to such lengths to protect Big Ben's name, why did they not use the same treatment for McIntyre? What a joke. Its not ESPN's job to determine what is/isn't newsworthy. Kobe Bryant was the lead story on sportscenter for an entire summer. How is this any different. Shoddy journalism. Tell me what you notice here, and maybe it can answer your question. Michael Vick, Pac man Jones, Terrell Owens, Kobe Bryant, Corey McIntyre. vs. Ben Roethlisburger I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 ESPN continues to confound me when it comes to its reporting. It does? I thought everyone figured out a long time ago that ESPN is a joke. But aside from that, haven't you answered your own question? why did they not use the same treatment for McIntyre? Big Ben is accused of sexual assault, and they refuse to report on it, citing that they don't report on "civil" cases. Wasn't McIntyre's a criminal investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookiemonster Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Tell me what you notice here, and maybe it can answer your question. Michael Vick, Pac man Jones, Terrell Owens, Kobe Bryant, Corey McIntyre. vs. Ben Roethlisburger I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with face. You know, I usually don't like race related discussions, but I think you got a point here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 You know, I usually don't like race related discussions, but I think you got a point here. Ben is the golden boy QB that just won the Super Bowl. The rest are a bunch of monsters and thugs from the streets that fit the civilian profile of criminal activity. Not a hard picture to paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Tell me what you notice here, and maybe it can answer your question. Michael Vick, Pac man Jones, Terrell Owens, Kobe Bryant, Corey McIntyre. vs. Ben Roethlisburger I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with face. TO has nothing to do with these other guys. Why include him there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 TO has nothing to do with these other guys. Why include him there? The original poster did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 The original poster did. I'm asking you because you linked the reporting of crimes or allegations to race and you included (as opposed to excluded) TO for some reason (thus agreeing with the OP). Why are you linking TO to your theory of racist ESPN's coverage of crimes that may or may not have been committed by pro athletes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts