ans4e64 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 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? The original poster did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 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 fo me. The internet, and sites like TBD, are much more informative. I do think that BB is getting some special treatment here. I wonder how much of this is the NFL "encouraging" ESPN not to talk about it much. Roethlisberger is a big name for positive reasons and I don't doubt the league would do what they could to keep his name from being smeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 hahahahahahahahaha! Yup, can't find any ESPN stories about that one. After the NFL hurriedly destroyed the tapes and proclaimed "nothing more to see here," no, there wasn't much. That is, outside of lame attempts to claim that the "cheating didn't mean much and everyone did it," despite the harsh penalty for it, despite it going on for 8 years, despite it continuing after being warned about it, despite no else being implicated... But hey, here we have a SMOKING GUN regarding what the media will or won't try to sell you depending on their agenda. And this most likely came from the NFL themselves (whether you choose to believe or not it is immaterial). Is it a "conspiracy?" Ooooooh! 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. Yeah I read that. Why can't you tell me why YOU think TO belongs in this group. Is he alleged to have committed a crime, or actually commited one as the other guys in the group YOU included him in? You said we were supposed to notice something? Maybe you will answer your question, to paraphrase you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Yeah I read that. Why can't you tell me why YOU think TO belongs in this group. Is he alleged to have committed a crime, or actually commited one as the other guys in the group YOU included him in? You said we were supposed to notice something? Maybe you will answer your question, to paraphrase you. Jesus Christ. The original poster brought up a bunch of black guys and one white guy. I asked what he noticed about them. Owens was included in there. What is so hard about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 What are you guys talking about? ESPN is covering the Big Ben story. Geez, give them a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 What are you guys talking about? ESPN is covering the Big Ben story. Geez, give them a break. OMG! Big Ben raped Shaq? Oh, wait a minute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 OMG! Big Ben raped Shaq? Oh, wait a minute... That must have been quite a feat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookiemonster Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 OMG! Big Ben raped Shaq? Oh, wait a minute... Now that would be a feat, but they don't call him Big Ben for nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENShawkins Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 The original poster did. When I used TO as an example, I wasn't purposely pairing him with "thugs." McIntyre was innocent too. I was just making the point that there are certain types of people that ESPN will go after (i.e.-TO), and others they will not (in this case, Big Ben). I think any reasonable person can assume that if TO were in Big Ben's position, it would be on every inch of ESPN. That was the point I was making. Didn't mean to give the perception that TO is like Pac Man or Vick. IRT to Big Ben's case being a civil suit and not criminal, its been documented elsewhere and on this thread that ESPN has reported on civil cases numerous times. So that excuse can be thrown out. I won't go as far as to call it racism, but ESPN and BB have a cozy relationship and I'm sure that is playing into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 When I used TO as an example, I wasn't purposely pairing him with "thugs." McIntyre was innocent too. I was just making the point that there are certain types of people that ESPN will go after (i.e.-TO), and others they will not (in this case, Big Ben). I think any reasonable person can assume that if TO were in Big Ben's position, it would be on every inch of ESPN. That was the point I was making. Didn't mean to give the perception that TO is like Pac Man or Vick. IRT to Big Ben's case being a civil suit and not criminal, its been documented elsewhere and on this thread that ESPN has reported on civil cases numerous times. So that excuse can be thrown out. I won't go as far as to call it racism, but ESPN and BB have a cozy relationship and I'm sure that is playing into this. No. It's a criminal complaint (ESPN can't ignore that, as the info is public), vs civil suit and innuendo. Pretty simple, no conspiracy necessary to explain the differences in coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 When I used TO as an example, I wasn't purposely pairing him with "thugs." McIntyre was innocent too. I was just making the point that there are certain types of people that ESPN will go after (i.e.-TO), and others they will not (in this case, Big Ben). I think any reasonable person can assume that if TO were in Big Ben's position, it would be on every inch of ESPN. That was the point I was making. Didn't mean to give the perception that TO is like Pac Man or Vick. IRT to Big Ben's case being a civil suit and not criminal, its been documented elsewhere and on this thread that ESPN has reported on civil cases numerous times. So that excuse can be thrown out. I won't go as far as to call it racism, but ESPN and BB have a cozy relationship and I'm sure that is playing into this. Oh, I wasn't saying you were. I was saying the same thing you were, and pointing to race as a factor in who they "go after." It is WEO that for some reason is trying to get me to say that I think T.O. is equal to the rest of the names on that list, and I have no idea why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Its not ESPN's job to determine what is/isn't newsworthy. Actually, it is their job...they just suck at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Funny, they reported on this civil suit: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=34...&type=story You don't need to dwell on the salacious details, but this is newsworthy. Run the AP story without added comment and be done with it, if you don't want to get into Deadspin territory. Also, FWIW, nfl.com is covering: http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true And the Post-Gazette led the section with it today: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09203/985492-66.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENShawkins Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 No. It's a criminal complaint (ESPN can't ignore that, as the info is public), vs civil suit and innuendo. Pretty simple, no conspiracy necessary to explain the differences in coverage. Dean, that seems like a pretty naive take on the situation. I could understand your point if ESPN had a history of not reporting on civil cases. But they have several times. So if the reason why they aren't covering it is because it's a civil suit, that's the same thing as Brett Favre saying "I'm retired." It doesn't hold water. So there must be another explanation other than the fact that they don't cover civil cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted July 22, 2009 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Dean, that seems like a pretty naive take on the situation. I could understand your point if ESPN had a history of not reporting on civil cases. But they have several times. So if the reason why they aren't covering it is because it's a civil suit, that's the same thing as Brett Favre saying "I'm retired." It doesn't hold water. So there must be another explanation other than the fact that they don't cover civil cases. Wrong. ESPN has commented on some civil suits, but usually (always?) well after the info has been made public by some other source, or where they have some corroborating evidence or witnesses. Still, you can see why they HAD to cover the McIntyre story, no? At best the Big Ben story is a judgement call, and despite what some think, it is EXACTLY their job to decide what is and isn't newsworthy. If all they had was her claim, and no other corroboration, why would they choose to break and report it? They could probably spend all day "reporting" unsubstantiated claims against sports-related figures. 20 minutes in an into journalism course would have saved you from starting this thread, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 After the NFL hurriedly destroyed the tapes and proclaimed "nothing more to see here," no, there wasn't much. That is, outside of lame attempts to claim that the "cheating didn't mean much and everyone did it," despite the harsh penalty for it, despite it going on for 8 years, despite it continuing after being warned about it, despite no else being implicated... But hey, here we have a SMOKING GUN regarding what the media will or won't try to sell you depending on their agenda. And this most likely came from the NFL themselves (whether you choose to believe or not it is immaterial). Is it a "conspiracy?" Ooooooh! 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Funny, they reported on this civil suit: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=34...&type=story You don't need to dwell on the salacious details, but this is newsworthy. Run the AP story without added comment and be done with it, if you don't want to get into Deadspin territory. Also, FWIW, nfl.com is covering: http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true And the Post-Gazette led the section with it today: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09203/985492-66.stm One would figure that NFL investigating the starting QB of a Super Bowl winner would merit a story ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 One would figure that NFL investigating the starting QB of a Super Bowl winner would merit a story ... Agreed. I bet it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts