ESPN and it's coverage of Big ben.

[crownsy]

I split this off because i wanted to see people's take on the way ESPN is choosing to ignore this story entirely while other networks report it, not what you think of the content of the story they are squashing.

First, the story i want to discuss, this is an excellent timeline/ review of how ESPN is treating this:

http://deadspin.com/5320308/does-espns-do-not-report-policy-make-any-sense

now, from the thread dedicated to this, you know my feelings on espn's behavior in this matter.

 Is it right? Does big ben deserve to have his name protected to this extent? Do you think it violates ESPN's journalistic responsibility? do they even have one anymore, are are they now allowed to pick and choose as an entertainment entity? Do you think an athlete who does not make himself as avalble to the network on a daily basis during football season as ben does would get the same treatment?

all those, i think, are pretty valid concerns raised by the coverage of this story, discuss .
 

[Rondo2287]

edit: That is not appropriate for this site.

-Chris

[Rondo2287]

I would think that ESPN would be very concerned if one othe players that they endorse and portray as one of the stars of the league is Demasculated infront of the nation.  However maybe they are not trying to jump the gun after the duke Lax thing.

[Donoghus]

I definitely question the way that ESPN has handled this.  It seems that all the other major outlets have touched on it.

They've reported on other civil suits in the past such as O.J. and they were quick to jump the gun on the Matthew Walsh situation.  

You have to wonder why they are being "selective" in their coverage here.  

I also think that ESPN has gone hill dramatically over the past decade or so.  My guess is that it probably correlates to when Disney bought it.

[Rondo2287]

I definitely question the way that ESPN has handled this.  It seems that all the other major outlets have touched on it.

They've reported on other civil suits in the past such as O.J. and they were quick to jump the gun on the Matthew Walsh situation.  

You have to wonder why they are being "selective" in their coverage here.  

I also think that ESPN has gone hill dramatically over the past decade or so.  My guess is that it probably correlates to when Disney bought it.

I don't think Disney has anything to do with it, the president of Disney is an alum of my college and we had a bunch of people protest his speech because of Disneys affiliation with the Adult Entertainment industry

[Donoghus]

I definitely question the way that ESPN has handled this.  It seems that all the other major outlets have touched on it.

They've reported on other civil suits in the past such as O.J. and they were quick to jump the gun on the Matthew Walsh situation.  

You have to wonder why they are being "selective" in their coverage here.  

I also think that ESPN has gone hill dramatically over the past decade or so.  My guess is that it probably correlates to when Disney bought it.

I don't think Disney has anything to do with it, the president of Disney is an alum of my college and we had a bunch of people protest his speech because of Disneys affiliation with the **** industry

Looking at the trend of business over the past 50 years or so, usually the trendsetters have changed for the worse when getting bought out and brought under the umbrella of a corporate conglomerate.  The "suits" tend to dictate things.

[yall hate]

 Is it right? Does big ben deserve to have his name protected to this extent? Do you think it violates ESPN's journalistic responsibility? do they even have one anymore, are are they now allowed to pick and choose as an entertainment entity? Do you think an athlete who does not make himself as avalble to the network on a daily basis during football season as ben does would get the same treatment?

ESPN is a joke for this.  Ben hasnt even sought to 'protect' his name in this as he has already released a statment, so has his team, so has the nfl, so has the AP, so has his local papers, so has everyone - but ESPN.

ESPN has shown no desire to avoid posting stories regarding civil suits in the past (Roberto Alomar being sued for giving an ex gf HIV, Marvin Harrison being accused of shooting a guy - which has an article up TODAY...http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4348077, former NFL kicker tony Zandejas in a civil case regarding a rape issue, which has an article up TODAY...http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4342651)
So unless ESPN can come up with a good reason why Ben is different than the other civil suits they have posted, they are a joke.

This stinks of favoritism towards an athlete that ESPN wants to keep happy, and thats a shame. 

[celticinorlando]

espn has covered this?

[SSFan V]

Civil cases are so different than criminal.

Kobe's case was criminal first.  Until such time that it crosses over, I can understand ESPN's reluctance.

[crownsy]

espn has covered this?

prehaps i should have put non- coverage, looking at it 

[crownsy]

Civil cases are so different than criminal.

Kobe's case was criminal first.  Until such time that it crosses over, I can understand ESPN's reluctance.

How do you reconcile that with there coverage in the past?

as yall said, no criminal charges were EVER filled in either the tony Zandejas civil case or the roberto alamar case, but ESPN was at the forefront of that coverage.

why do you think ESPN is treating ben differently, even after his lawyers released a statement confirming the suit? is it ok with you that they are?

[Change]

Maybe ESPN is racist? Ben Roethlisberger's, Carson Palmer's of the world get a free pass against negative press. Meanwhile the Vince Young's, Donovan McNabb's of the world get all the flack. I'm just saying.

[Amonkey]

I was wondering the same thing.  I thought at first that it wasn't proven, but now I see on every network except on ESPN.  This is surprising considering how ESPN loves to make a huge thing about nothing, so this seems right up there on their ally.  So they can talk for 30 minutes about what Favre had for breakfast but not about this?  

What's worse, what if this was a black man?  Would they be so forgiving?  This smells fishy to me.

[yall hate]

Civil cases are so different than criminal.

Kobe's case was criminal first.  Until such time that it crosses over, I can understand ESPN's reluctance.

How do you reconcile that with there coverage in the past?

as yall said, no criminal charges were EVER filled in either the tony Zandejas civil case or the roberto alamar case, but ESPN was at the forefront of that coverage.

why do you think ESPN is treating ben differently, even after his lawyers released a statement confirming the suit? is it ok with you that they are?

No criminal charges were filed against Marvin Harrison for the shooting incident either, just civil.  and yet there were very detailed reports and analysis on it. 

ESPN is protecting it's assets.  Ben is very pro-ESPN, giving his time to them often (He was on PTI a couple of days ago, 5 good minute segment, etc...)

They not only lose credibility, but it is embarrassing that they are the only network who hasnt addressed this

[yall hate]

oh, and it is also the 5th and 6th most searched subject on google today (mcnulty is the accuser, she is number 5)

http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends?sa=X

So clearly it is sought after material