OT: Is E$PN Acting Irresponsibly re: Roethlisberger?
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 22, 2009 12:25 PM PDT
52 comments
This is nowhere near Trail Blazer news, basketball news, or even real sports news... my apologies for that. The events building up around this story have left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth and I find it worthy of discussion. And let's face it, it's the dead quiet of the off-season and there's little else to discuss anyway.
If you've only been getting your sports news from watching SportsCenter or by reading ESPN.com than you haven't heard yet...
...a woman has filed a lawsuit against Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl winning quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, whom she claims sexually assaulted her.
I don't care to get into the specifics of that messy allegation in this post nor do I care to find either party innocent or guilty... that's a discussion for elsewhere.
What's alarming to me is that ESPN has decided not to cover this story. Last I recall ESPN reported sports stories ranging from legal filings involving athletes to actual on-field coverage. SportsCenter (ESPN's flagship television program) and ESPN.com have both grown to be the premier outlets for sports news. Roethlisberger is a high profile sportsman in the most popular sport in America who is now involved in brand new legal matters, meaning he would qualify as a good subject for a sports media outlet to report on right now, and every major media outlet is... except for ESPN.
ESPN has said they take matters such as this on a case by case approach, a formula which they proclaim includes many factors. There's speculation (I'd link but I heard this on the radio) that the close relationship the network has with the team and player may be the cause (I guess the fear being the network would lose their open door to the team if they reported on this, even if it's already being reported on by everyone else).
Some background: ESPN was owned for over a decade by ABC, who was bought in the 1990's by The Walt Disney Company.
Me? Why am I posting about this? I question the motive behind the silence. It would seem dreadfully unethical if it's at all related to the new ABC reality show Shaq Vs. set to launch in August. The series is based on Shaq "challenging" premier athletes of other sports at their own sport. Challenges are to include slugger Albert Pujols, Gold Medal magnet Michael Phelps, Tennis champion Serena Williams, boxing legend Oscar De La Hoya... and, yep, Ben Roethlisberger. It probably wouldn't keep the squeeky clean image the network strives to maintain if the athlete chosen to represent the NFL (full of many great characters, mind you) was involved in the allegations. Gotta sell the new product, right?
Does this bother anyone else or am I merely way off base? Should media mainstays get to chose what's reported as news and what's not? How stupid does this make ESPN look? Does this at all resemble the media/news lockdowns we've recently seen in Iran and China?
It feels dirty to me.
3 recs |
52 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I think it would be different
if it was a criminal suit, but the woman filed a civil suit. In other words, she doesn’t think Ben should be arrested for his actions, but she would like to be paid for whatever went down. This makes me very suspicious….that is all.
by SalemORguy on Jul 22, 2009 12:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
the fact that it is civil and not criminal makes a large difference. It also requires some form of credibility before it should be reported. It’s unclear if this story has any—but given that she felt he shouldn’t face criminal charges, and should ONLY be bothered for money, it sounds like if it was anyone other than big ben she wouldn’t care. Sounds like a gold digger to me. Until he is charged in criminal court (and the case is not dismissed without a hearing) or convicted/pleading guilty in civil court, there is nothing newsworthy about this story. If it is just a case of marketing the show, that is poor journalism. Given the scenario, I think it’s more than the show.
by lurtsman on Jul 22, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't bother me
But it is obviously related to ESPN wanting to make money. And it wasn’t a “crime”, so it’s kind of a grey area.
by TheThinWhiteDuke on Jul 22, 2009 12:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't bother me
As I was told, she said something like 9 people total did stuff, and this was also over a year ago. And as Salem said, she wants money, not Ben to go to prison.
Basically, until something REAL comes out, I don’t expect ESPN to cover it anymore than I would want them to cover a story about me saying that Sharapova sexually assaulted me last month.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
by Zaig on Jul 22, 2009 12:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
so forget the allegations.
Disregard them completely.
Every news outlet is reporting this sports story except for the sports only news organization ESPN. Doesn’t that seem fishy?
I think it’s total BS.
But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 22, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say it's all the other news organizations that are acting irresponsibly.
Which is not unusual.
Keep in mind that everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazers Edge.
by pualo on Jul 22, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Unless something actually happens, it’s terrible journalism to just create stories out of nothing. ESPN isn’t a gossip column.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
by Zaig on Jul 22, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not gossip and it's not a creation...
a gal filed an actual lawsuit.
If I’m following your lead here, every other outlet that reported of this lawsuit is gossiping?
But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 22, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind, there's no burden of proof for a civil suit
I personally could file a suit against Ben tomorrow if I wanted to. Doesn’t mean it should automatically be news.
That being said, as others have noted below, ESPN seems to have reported about civil suits in the past. Assuming that’s true, then this is a double standard. If they never report on civil suits unless there’s a criminal complaint attached, then I’d be nonplussed about their reporting of the story, since it would be consistent.
by Timmay! on Jul 22, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should probably add a word to that title.
Keep in mind, there’s no burden of proof for a civil suit
I should have written “Keep in mind, there’s no burden of proof for FILING a civil suit”
by Timmay! on Jul 22, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly, as I said before, this is the same as if I said Sharapova sexually assaulted me
As soon as there is news, there is news.
All of the other suits I can think of involved things that were actually happening and/or had something to say.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
by Zaig on Jul 22, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay bad example... it would be impossible for her to sexually assault me...
Anything she did would be welcomed by me.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
by Zaig on Jul 23, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would it be different if...
This had happened to Donovan McNabb or Tarvaris Jackson? Let’s face it the Pittsburgh Steelers and Ben Roethlisberger are America’s Football sweeties and ESPN is in bed with them. Do you think for one second that the world wide leader in sports would want to somehow burn that bridge or piss anybody off in that organization or make them look bad.
by GTsmookie on Jul 22, 2009 12:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
that's what i'm inclined to believe.
But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 22, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And yet, they did stories about the most popular basketball player in the world...
Because you know, there was an actual story to do!
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
by Zaig on Jul 22, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously, ESPN is racist, got it
ESPN only cares about not wanting to piss off white guys, but a black guy who might be the most popular athlete in the world is fair game.
Sorry, that doesn’t add up. You could be in the KKK and still recognize as a business that making Kobe mad is a worse idea than making Big Ben mad.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
by Zaig on Jul 22, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't care if these are true or not
The fact is a case was filed against a pro Football player in a court of law, ESPN should report that. They shouldn’t spend all day on it, but it should be on ESPN.COM at least.
To a lesser degree, ESPN also didn’t report anything about Erin Andrew’s peep video either, their lawyers issued a statement, but I didn’t find anything on ESPN.com about it, although I didn’t watch sportscenter so they may have had something on there about it.
To me, they are news stories and should be reported, but nothing more.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jul 22, 2009 1:12 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
True
They are aware of a stoy and are choosing to not cover it. Seems to me ESPN likes to be considered an outlet for journalism when it suits them, and just a place for entertainment when that is more to their liking. A bit of picking and choosing…..which really detracts from when they want to be taken seriously.
"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green
by antediluvian on Jul 22, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly.
But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 22, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's how i feel.
Don’t do one of your typical 12 minute, 8 analyst breakdowns, ESPN… just spend 20 seconds and say Big Ben has a court issue to deal with. If something more comes about, go ahead and take your 12 minutes.
But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 22, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't think it'd bother me, but it has a little
Simply because I detest any and all double standards. ESPN is the same network that goes into detail over Kobe Bryant firing his housekeeper and a group of bodybuilders running out of the building when a pee tester walks into the room, and a very little known NFL player being busted for peeing in the parking lot of his apartment, but airing any information about a lawsuit filed against an NFL player accusing him of rape without concrete evidence or a conviction would just be jumping the gun? I don’t buy it, and I doubt anyone who really watches ESPN would either.
I don’t have a problem if their policy dictated their not reporting on this story, and honestly i’m not sure how heavilly it should be reported without more evidence. The problem is that ESPN reports on alot more far fetched and even at times much less “proof” (any story this summer on ESPN about Brett Favre for example), and now suddenly choose to be above it. I don’t dig any news outlet picking and choosing the stories that we should be interested in, they should simply report the news as it happens. If they don’t feel it warrants a large amount of time that’s fine, just include it in one of their “oh by the ways” and wash your hands of it.
by Bryan72076 on Jul 22, 2009 1:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
All of the examples you chose actually happened though
This story has absolutely no believability to it. Only something like the Enquirer would consider this a legitimate story.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
by Zaig on Jul 22, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The lawsuit being filed
Actually did happen as far as I know and that by itself is story enough to at least mention. Whether he really is guilty of rape or if the woman is totally making the whole story up, the lawsuit is very real and if ESPN judges its viewers to be concerned over who is the housekeeper for Kobe Bryant and what his wife said about so and so it stands to reason that they’d also be interested in a very popular NFL QB being accused of rape and taken to civil court over the matter.
How about all of the Favre “stories” during this offseason? It’s unlikely that all of them were “true”, it would seem that where Favre is concerned ESPN is totally comfortable reporting hearsay. I used Favre’s situation to point to ESPNs willingness to report stories before their credibility can be verified, and the others to show that they report many others of much less import than a starting NFL QB being taken to court for allegedly raping a woman.
by Bryan72076 on Jul 22, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Favre stuff needed to not be there as well
It should be noted that Brett is white and well like and is still getting crap thrown his way though.
If something actually happens with this, it will be reported on, guranteed. But for now, this is just another person with no evidence crying about something over a year later. If she got media attention (and interviews), other people might view this as a good way to get famous.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
by Zaig on Jul 22, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That seems a little harsh to me.
I believe in “innocent before proven guilty” as much as the next guy, but that shouldn’t translate to the “victim” in the case being guilty untill/unless the defendant is proven guilty. People are victimized everyday, most of the time they also have zero evidence to prove their case and with sentiments like this it’s no wonder why women still to this day have a very difficult time deciding to file charges whether criminal or civil. It’s not unusual for victims of sexual assult to wait many years even before going forward, and the fact that she’s taking it to civil court only more speaks of the strength of the evidence than anything else. Have you considered she is only bringing this to civil court because she’s already been told there is not enough evidence for criminal charges to stick?
I’m fine with Ben being given the benefit of the doubt, but so too should we give his accuser. You’re assuming her only motivation is money and discounting the possibility that she could truly be a victim of a crime and that no one seems to believe her would only make coming forward harder for her. I think it’s great that we live in a society where everyone gets their day on court without too many stones being thrown beforehand, but it’s sad that those stones are simply diverted into the victim’s path rather than be set aside until the verdict.
by Bryan72076 on Jul 22, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, going off what my roommate told me
But if she actually waited over a year to file charges against all of these men, then I just can’t believe her, period. And even if I believed her, she has absolutely no way to prove anything. At least a year ago she had a shot.
And don’t give me the “it’s hard” crap. Hard or not, it’s still the victims decision about whether or not to come forward. She chose not to if something actually happened and she should have stuck by that choice.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
by Zaig on Jul 23, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This sort of attitude makes being a rape victim a double edge crime
It is traumatizing to be a sexual abuse victim. The process of verifying your case (medical examination) is another type of victimization. It’s akin to poking a stick into an open wound right after being wounded. On top of all this, the alleged perpetrator is a widely known and popular sports person, who is a person of favor by her employer. This makes for the automatic assumption that she is looking to get paid.
Rape is one of the least prosecuted crimes in the world as well as US. It involves a lot of he said/she said with little physical evidence. And gathering the phyiscal evidence is a very traumatizing process of aggreing to a second violation of ones body. More rape cases go to civil court with high profile persons becasue the burndenof proof is entirely different for civil versus criminal court. Criminal court puts the alleged victim in a more awkward role for the prosecution, it is not becuase the can get monetary compensation. Rather the alleged victim may take a much smalller role in the prosecution o fthe case. This is a very unfortunate part of our court system as it reduces the number of criminal cases immensely because of the onus placed on the victim. One which might be corrected if it didn’t greatly benifit white males dissproportionately.
At this point, I don’t want to discount either her lawsuit or Ben’s innocence, yet in the public eye the alleged victim is the one who takes the harder hit publicly with the assumption that she is a gold digger. That is truly unfair, and is a big reason why rape cases often never go forward.
As for ESPN’s role, yes their action is purely about the dollar and maintaining a squeaky clean entertainment business. Disney is not a good company and participates in many unscrupulous behaviors; including the brainwashing of children into being mindless consumers.
by NWfan on Jul 23, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
totally.
But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 22, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think there's any explicit motive behind it
but espn’s complete silence on it is a little puzzling, consider they’re pretty thorough in reporting everything.
Also, Zaig, your argument that they don’t report on things like this is ridiculous. They had no problem with this story about a woman intending to file a civil suit against Shannon Brown, or reporting on Isiah Thomas getting sued for sexual harassment, or Two women suing Junior Seau for allegedly throwing drinks at them at a bar.
I don’t think anyone’s saying they have to devote an outside the lines to it, but unless the previous stories were somehow editorial mistakes that slipped through the cracks, it’s a double standard to not have anything at all about Big Ben. Why is it news that Shannon Brown is going to get sued for something that him and his team apparently checked out and cleared him of wrongdoing, but not that a woman actually filed suit against Roethlisberger? There’s no criminal complaint in either case, so why is one newsworthy but the other isn’t?
by Royster on Jul 22, 2009 2:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't recall the Brown story
Did they report that he was sued for something and that his team cleared him of it? If so, this makes sense because there was an actual result.
When Ben is cleared of any wrongdoing because this chick is an idiot, I’d wager ESPN will report on it.
For the record, I am not a Ben fan. In fact, I think he’s a moron, but until there is some actual news… I could care less about not hearing about this.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
by Zaig on Jul 22, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you bother to read the links?
None of them contain anything about resolution. A woman intends to sue Brown, his team and the police had checked it out beforehand and cleared him, she still intends to sue him, ESPN then reports it. ESPN deems that news-worthy, but not Ben Roethlisberger actually getting sued. Why should whether his team cleared him of it have anything to do with what’s actually happening? If anything, it makes it worse that they reported on Brown and not Big Ben. There were actual police reports clearing Shannon Brown of wrongdoing, and yet ESPN still thought it was within their journalistic standards to report on him getting sued in civil court.
Is it newsworthy to publish all the alleged details like the tribune-review did? Probably not, but when ESPN has deemed in the past that athletes (that are clearly innocent in some cases) getting sued in civil court is newsworthy, they need to apply that same standard to everyone.
Asserting that this is due to racism or some stupid Shaq reality show is pretty asinine to me, but it’s entirely possible that they’re just applying a double standard to stars vs. non-stars. Shannon Brown, Isiah Thomas and a 39 year old Junior Seau weren’t exactly beloved stars in their leagues at the time. Ben is. That’s the only possible source of bias in my book.
by Royster on Jul 22, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually no I didn't, somehow missed that those were links
And you just said what I said anyway. The TEAM got involved and made statements. When Ben’s lawyer comes back and says, “yada yada he doesn’t even know who this lady is” then there will be something to report on.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
by Zaig on Jul 22, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From the article that the OP posted
“Ben has never sexually assaulted anyone,” said David Cornwell Sr., the quarterback’s Atlanta-based lawyer. “The timing of the lawsuit and the absence of a criminal complaint and a criminal investigation are the most compelling evidence of the absence of any criminal conduct. If an investigation is commenced, Ben will cooperate fully, and Ben will be fully exonerated.”
Steelers spokesman Dave Lockett said the team is aware of the allegations.
“We have heard Ben’s side of the story, and we support him at this time,” Lockett said.
The NFL will monitor the case, a league spokesman said.
“It’s a civil matter, not a criminal matter,” said Greg Aiello, NFL vice president of public relations. “It would be premature to comment on how the league’s personal conduct policy will apply, if at all.”
Compare those to the quote from Brown’s agent.
“There was absolutely nothing to it,” Bartelstein said. “I find it very interesting all of a sudden Shannon Brown has some success and someone decides to sue him civilly. People can draw their own conclusions. I stand by Shannon Brown. Everything Shannon has said to me as to what happened, the prosecutor verifies.”
There’s no appreciable difference there. Both quotes from the player’s representatives saying they did nothing wrong and their clients will be vindicated. The difference is that Brown’s matter was fully investigated and cleared, and ESPN ran the story even before the suit was actually filed while an actual suit was filed against Ben and no official investigation has apparently been done.
I repeat, why does Brown get reported on, but not Roethlisberger?
by Royster on Jul 22, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ooh hadn't seen those
Probably is worth reporting on then.
The only other why I can think of is that Brown’s case was an allegation of a recent event? “You touched me a year ago” seems a lot less news worthy than “You touched me last week.” Granted, ESPN should probably give it 5 seconds if they gave this other crap time.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
by Zaig on Jul 23, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN has an ombudsman (or until recently it was an ombudswoman)
Apart from legal counsels, I would expect that person to get involved in issues like that, where interests of the fans/viewers/public might be at odds with commercial interests of the network or its holding company.
by Norsktroll on Jul 22, 2009 2:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Negative publicity is still publicity
I don’t see how it would negatively effect ratings of Shaq’s show.
by Arby on Jul 22, 2009 2:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
really?
Shaq Vs. Episode One- Shaq vs. Ben “the Alleged Rapist” Roethlisberger doesn’t seem like anything Walt Disney wants any part of to me.
But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 22, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lets not gorget the Duke Lacroose team
ESPN didn’t come off looking too good declaring someone guilty publicly before a trial had even begun. Maybe ESPN should be more careful on the stance it allows it hosts to take more often.
Its probably not a coincidence since business is business and if it helped ESPN ratings more then it might hurt them they would send the wolves. I don’t care unless Big Ben is found guilty. Who cares if someone is just trying to get money out of him and get in the spotlight for a moment.
by BlazerKuttn on Jul 22, 2009 2:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They don’t have to declare him guilty of anything, but why shouldn’t they report the “news” that he is accused of rape and is being taken to civil court for it when more times than not when in like circumstances they never seemed to hesitated to report on stories on popular athletes facing any type of lawsuit. As I said, it’s not required that they do a 2 hour special on the story, just give it a brief mention on a sportscenter or something. They wouldn’t even have to elaborate at all, but it is news when a pretty big star in our country’s most popular sport has a civil case filed against him accusing him of rape. Just that small tidbit alone is worth mentioning on a network dedicated soley to “sports news”.
by Bryan72076 on Jul 22, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see your point and agree
I dislike ESPN more and more every time a rumor is manifested by an agent and ESPN sends a few beat reporters investigate. They are beat reporters of Drama instead of Sports. When the Drama isn’t flowing they seem to blow things out of proportion just to have a story. I just wouldn’t mind if ESPN as a news organization kept to reporting of the outcome of sports, not he drama.
It’s like MTV morphing to a reality based TV network that came from a Music Network. Im tired of watching “Entertainment Tosportscenter” every night. It seems Football is the worst in terms of the people involved and the interest among the masses.
I agree if they do it to one person they should do it to all but remember. This is a private organization based on providing you information on Sports. Not world news, not news that’’s vital to informing people on whats happening in the real word, bloody sports. It’s a fake news channel that can pick and choose to show whatever they want if that’s what they want to. When the bald guy that worked for like TMZ or something went to rehab and dealt with his legal issues they didn’t bash him and blow his case way out of proportion. Other stations and shows did but his show was supportive for his recovery and I doubt they were they station to break the news. . Why would ESPN report on a story that could neg. affect their parent company until they have to, when it’s proven. If the Knick’s owned ESPN do you think Isiah’s case would have been as big of a story on the network? Big Ben became a part-time employee of ABC when he shot that show and they have the right to protect him and his image until they don’t want to anymore.
It will be funny to see if after the show airs they start reporting on it like it’s breaking news, or give updates like they’ve been on the case the whole time.
by BlazerKuttn on Jul 22, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is not accused of rape
Rape is a crime, and there have been no allegations of a crime.
As flaky as the Duke situation and accuser was, it was more substantive as far as news is concerned because there was at least a criminal report filed with the police.
What people here are saying is that a guy’s moral reputation should be trashed on the national airwaves just because someone decided to sue him, but isn’t prepared to file a complaint with the police. Of course, if you file a complaint with the police you can get into problems with things like perjury and such, which will never be an issue if you just use the national media to pressure the guy into paying you some money to settle and go away and be quiet.
I don’t buy it.
I do think they are being inconsistent, but just because they’ve handled it poorly in other cases doesn’t mean they should this time. The media is out of control in the way they report allegations against public figures. Worse over here than over there, but out of control both places.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Jul 23, 2009 5:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be clear...
I’m not advocating that Ben’s moral reputation should be trashed.
But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 23, 2009 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you say that unsubstantiated allegations
should be widely disseminated in the national media, you are saying his reputation should be trashed.
Many people are going to believe these allegations. More will believe that he had sex with her consensually. Yet as far as I know, there is no evidence of even that.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Jul 24, 2009 12:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If John Canzano can create news in a vacuum
then ESPN is within it’s rights to report or not on the filing of a civil lawsuit. That’s my take on the Kobe Roethelsberger story.
by oregonslee on Jul 22, 2009 6:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They’re within their rights to cover any story anyhow they choose, but they can’t expect anyone to take them seriously as a “news source” when their standards of practice are all over the place like that. Whether it’s “just sports” or not, ESPN is still a news network and as such their reputation is dependant on reliable and consistent reporting of all things related to “sports news”.
I’d have no problem at all if it were ESPN’s policy not to report on civil cases involving athletes until a verdict was in or whatever, but they do report most of these instances even when the athlete involved is relatively unheard of. Heck, they’ll usually give updates on civil cases involving retired players who haven’t even been active in their sport for years. There’s no consistency in the way they’re reporting on sports news, and as seen with the Favre circus they’re not the most reliable news source either as they’ve proven that scoops and rumors are enough to make the cut in the ESPN newsroom.
It’s true that they’re “just” reporting on sports related news, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take themselves seriously or that we as viewers shouldn’t hold them to relatively high standards. It’s not as if ESPN is free over the airwaves, they have a responsibility to their viewers to at least be consistent in the stories they do or don’t report.
by Bryan72076 on Jul 22, 2009 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN is reporting this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4349253
This chick is a crazy, money-grabbing low-life, and the follow-up story will completely exonerate Big Ben. It’s a big story here in Renoville.
It’s possible she was raped, and that would be a serious crime, but very, very unlikely. She is well known to locals, and local officials here as having serious mental problems.
Rape is definitely horrific. False accusations in the name of dollars might be just as bad.
Reno, Nevada is west of Los Angeles.
by RenoBlazerFan on Jul 22, 2009 9:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
False accusations
are just as bad, because they mean that innocent people have their lives destroyed, and they end up making it harder to convict the perpetrators in the real cases.
Because of false accusations, people are suspicious of the victims. It just increases the pain of the real victims.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Jul 23, 2009 6:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Knicks nearly pulled one
- Photo Gallery: Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg take in a Knicks game
- SL: Arenas says Wizards have 'hidden agendas'; VC shoos boos
- Video: Kobe playin' H-O-R-S-E, hits over-the-backboard shot
- Video: Nate Robinson shoots on wrong basket, D'Antoni snaps
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
