The Dean Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I missed Sports Center, NFL Live and Outside the Lines (if there was one). Any mention of Ben? This is on the ESPN website: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4349253 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/...roethlisberger/ I loathe the thought of citing PFT, but they're in the right here: Earlier Wednesday night, we noted that ESPN has finally decided to start covering the Ben Roethlisberger civil case. Now the network wants to explain their decision. ESPN spokesman Bill Hofheimer sent PFT a statement Wednesday night detailing the network's position. "Based on the sensitive nature of the story and other factors we mentioned, we initially exercised caution and did not report it," the statement reads. "Since then, we've been observing how the story has progressed, monitoring other news outlets, and doing our own reporting. We decided to report the story tonight." The hot button issue has inspired more than 850 comments in less than three hours on ESPN's AP article about Roethlisberger, most of which aren't worldwide leader friendly. The network says they aren't just caving to public pressure, but made the decision because they feel "it is the right thing to do." Oh, brother. For what it's worth, both local papers, on the northern border of Steelers Country, led today's section with it. The entire 30-whatever inches of the AP story, with a file foto of Roethlisomething, above the fold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjo moe Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 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. I seem to remember ESPN reporting on Randy Moss' civil case. This policy did NOT exist in the past. The bottom line is they are protecting their project child in Ben. They suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 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." Look, doc, you're all over the place. Now you're saying that your contention that the NFL is silencing the press (poorly, obviously) is "far more plausible" than the simple observation that TO makes trouble when he is not the center of the offense? There is no way you actually believe this. 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! It's a simple question---why did he do it? Did listing Brady as injured every week for years give him an advantage? And BB taping the Jets in broad daylight after all teams had been warned against doing so was a HUGE F-You to the League. 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. Not sure what the point of that nugget was, but I agree. But the "conspiracy you imagine would require massive scale (all league offcials, all owners, refs, players, the players union and the media). 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." Though I never said "everyone did it" in regards to videotaping (you keep repeating what I never said in order to back up your bogus arguments), but in the case of MLB, I'll go along with the position that pretty much everyone did it. But as usual, you are grasping at straws with that analogy. You need to seriously grow up. Or get a brain. Doc, you need to go back to the D and C forum. It's safer for you there. Lori, Mark Schlereth's (who hardly qualifies as a journalist, don't you think?) unrestrained ranting for 90 minutes doesn't seem like "muzzling" to me. Everyone felt free (Clayton, etc.) to join in on that conversation--speculating as to whether the tapes were being used in-game. Not much of League control on the set that day. Schreiber said: One final recommendation: When a studio crew like that of "Baseball Tonight" or "NFL Live" is given the responsibility of managing major breaking news, whether the coverage is called a "SportsCenter Special" or not, ESPN should make sure the anchor always has a reporter sitting at the desk, as well as insider analysts. As Wingo said of the Spygate special, "I can't just say to somebody, 'OK, pretend you are on the other side.'" No, he can't, and in this case, the need was not to counter anti-Patriot opinion with pro-Patriot opinion, which would not be balance but crossfire. Balance required the presence of a reporter ready to uphold the importance of sticking to the known facts. An anchor cannot fill the hold-your-horses role by himself when he is charged with eliciting opinion for hours on end. Do you disagree with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I do not, which is why I said, "Quite the opposite." (In other words, I was agreeing with you.) It is laughable to suggest that ESPN instituted a crackdown on Spygate coverage, when a Google search of "espn spygate" reveals page after page of links -- including several with Tom Brady and other Patriots personnel whining about the network trying to "fabricate a controversy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I seem to remember ESPN reporting on Randy Moss' civil case. This policy did NOT exist in the past. The bottom line is they are protecting their project child in Ben. They suck. What incident was that? If you are talking about the Rachelle Washington stuff, there was a temporary injunction for protection issued against him. That is something that is hard to ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 http://kevin-blackistone.fanhouse.com/2009...-coverage/#cont Right on, Kevin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 What incident was that? If you are talking about the Rachelle Washington stuff, there was a temporary injunction for protection issued against him. That is something that is hard to ignore. So is this case, which was front page news on every other site Tuesday and yesterday, before ESPN finally decided to cover that no criminal charges were being filed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 So is this case, which was front page news on every other site Tuesday and yesterday, before ESPN finally decided to cover that no criminal charges were being filed. I'm not suggesting ESPN handled this well, they didn't. Just correcting poor analogies, or misguided logic as I see it. I figured they would start covering it yesterday, and the story got too big to use the cover of "just civil, no corroboration, not news". The reporting of the other outlets, including the NFL made it news. Other things, like police reports, injunctions...anything public and official, makes it news, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I do not, which is why I said, "Quite the opposite." (In other words, I was agreeing with you.) It is laughable to suggest that ESPN instituted a crackdown on Spygate coverage, when a Google search of "espn spygate" reveals page after page of links -- including several with Tom Brady and other Patriots personnel whining about the network trying to "fabricate a controversy." Sorry, Lori--I misread that. Thanks also for pointing out the absurdity of the "media conspiracy". Mr. VOR probably understands this but has gone so far down the conspiracy path that he cannot turn back, no matter how crazy his pronouncements become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Look, doc, you're all over the place. Now you're saying that your contention that the NFL is silencing the press (poorly, obviously) is "far more plausible" than the simple observation that TO makes trouble when he is not the center of the offense? There is no way you actually believe this. Do I believe the NFL silenced "the press" Hollywood Donahoe, I mean "Mr. WEO?" No because everyone else reported on the Roethlisberger case. Do I believe the NFL told ESPN, essentially the only real (sad as that may be) sports network, to be silent? I can't rule that out, seeing as how they curiously broke with their previous tradition by not reporting on this case, involving one of the biggest stars in the NFL (which in itself makes it newsworthy). Outright lying that "they don't report on civil cases" when they did with Pacman Jones, doesn't help dispel my suspicion. Even if they claim that there was no evidence Roethlisberger raped her, they had NO problem plastering McItyre's name and face all over their website, with just as flimsy evidence. But even if the NFL didn't tell ESPN to hush up (and I'll readily admit that's a possibility, since it's not the central point of my argument) , it's clearly a case of ESPN silencing news because of some ulterior motive, which in this case would be getting interviews with Roethlisberger and the money they'd stand to lose from that. Imagine that! The NFL could never stoop to such levels! Just like I'm sure they didn't under-report their earnings, used to calculate players' salaries, so as to build up that "war chest." It's a simple question---why did he do it? Did listing Brady as injured every week for years give him an advantage? And BB taping the Jets in broad daylight after all teams had been warned against doing so was a HUGE F-You to the League. He did it to AVOID getting penalized for under-reporting injuries (he was warned prior to that game where he put half the team on the injury report and afterwards put Brady on every weekend). Yet you want us to believe that he was warned about illegally videotaping in 2006, and continued to do it, even though it "meant nothing?" Or even sillier, that the videotaping was a ruse, that ultimately cost his team? There is no way you actually believe this. Not sure what the point of that nugget was, but I agree. But the "conspiracy you imagine would require massive scale (all league offcials, all owners, refs, players, the players union and the media). It wouldn't involve anyone but the coaches. The videographer was obviously taping unbeknownst to virtually everyone, hence the reason he needed to be caught, and then tried to resist giving-up the tape after he was caught. Though I never said "everyone did it" in regards to videotaping (you keep repeating what I never said in order to back up your bogus arguments), but in the case of MLB, I'll go along with the position that pretty much everyone did it. But as usual, you are grasping at straws with that analogy. LOL! I just gave you back EVERY quote you used to defend the Patriots, that has been used to defend Bonds. They sound silly, don't they? The difference between the two however is that it's easier to discredit one individual, especially a guy who hasn't come close to winning a championship and who is a dickhead, versus an entire championship-winning organization. I suspect that if Bonds had been nicer, like Mark McGuire, or even A-Rod, his case wouldn't have gone very far. Doc, you need to go back to the D and C forum. It's safer for you there. You need to go back to Patriot Place or whatever the official Patriots forum is called, Hollywood Donahoe. Your ridiculous excuses would make sense to them there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Do I believe the NFL silenced "the press" Hollywood Donahoe, I mean "Mr. WEO?" No because everyone else reported on the Roethlisberger case. Do I believe the NFL told ESPN, essentially the only real (sad as that may be) sports network, to be silent? I can't rule that out, seeing as how they curiously broke with their previous tradition by not reporting on this case, involving one of the biggest stars in the NFL (which in itself makes it newsworthy). Outright lying that "they don't report on civil cases" when they did with Pacman Jones, doesn't help dispel my suspicion. Even if they claim that there was no evidence Roethlisberger raped her, they had NO problem plastering McItyre's name and face all over their website, with just as flimsy evidence. But even if the NFL didn't tell ESPN to hush up (and I'll readily admit that's a possibility, since it's not the central point of my argument) , it's clearly a case of ESPN silencing news because of some ulterior motive, which in this case would be getting interviews with Roethlisberger and the money they'd stand to lose from that. Imagine that! The NFL could never stoop to such levels! Just like I'm sure they didn't under-report their earnings, used to calculate players' salaries, so as to build up that "war chest." He did it to AVOID getting penalized for under-reporting injuries (he was warned prior to that game where he put half the team on the injury report and afterwards put Brady on every weekend). Yet you want us to believe that he was warned about illegally videotaping in 2006, and continued to do it, even though it "meant nothing?" Or even sillier, that the videotaping was a ruse, that ultimately cost his team? There is no way you actually believe this. It wouldn't involve anyone but the coaches. The videographer was obviously taping unbeknownst to virtually everyone, hence the reason he needed to be caught, and then tried to resist giving-up the tape after he was caught. LOL! I just gave you back EVERY quote you used to defend the Patriots, that has been used to defend Bonds. They sound silly, don't they? The difference between the two however is that it's easier to discredit one individual, especially a guy who hasn't come close to winning a championship and who is a dickhead, versus an entire championship-winning organization. I suspect that if Bonds had been nicer, like Mark McGuire, or even A-Rod, his case wouldn't have gone very far. You need to go back to Patriot Place or whatever the official Patriots forum is called, Hollywood Donahoe. Your ridiculous excuses would make sense to them there. See what I mean? Has anyone ever watched a man go mad, minute by minute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 See what I mean? Has anyone ever watched a man go mad, minute by minute? Quite possibly the most telling and best post you could ever offer, Hollywood Donahoe. Go back to creating a thread so you don't have to read the multitude of "TO taint-licking threads," will ya? You at least have a modicum of a clue there. BTW, I'll let you know how my "jealousy" of the Steelers (you know, the real "America's Team") is coming along. Yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Quite possibly the most telling and best post you could ever offer, Hollywood Donahoe. Go back to creating a thread so you don't have to read the multitude of "TO taint-licking threads," will ya? You at least have a modicum of a clue there. BTW, I'll let you know how my "jealousy" of the Steelers (you know, the real "America's Team") is coming along. Yeah. You and WEO really need to get a room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 You and WEO really need to get a room. Padded, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Padded, of course. I was thinking cage match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I was thinking cage match. Pay-per-view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Pay-per-view? Only if it is a fight to the death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Only if it is a fight to the death. Hmmmm...Nah! It's actually quite comedic having him around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Hmmmm...Nah! It's actually quite comedic having him around. Who is saying you would win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts