ESPN and it's coverage of Big ben.

[mkogav]

I agree with ESPN on this. It's not a news-worthy story at this point. The Farve and Vick coverage is FAR more important. In fact, I believe ESPN should triple the coverage of Farve and Vick.

Wait, can you triple 15 hours per day of coverage?

Short of Rothlisburger being discovered as the lost Limburg baby or a Big Ben's criminal conviction, ESPN should stick to what they do best, pumping their own agenda.

I wonder what their ombudsman has to say about this?

Or whether they will muzzle Simmons. I bet they do.

Mk

[yall hate]

I agree with ESPN on this. It's not a news-worthy story at this point. The Farve and Vick coverage is FAR more important. In fact, I believe ESPN should triple the coverage of Farve and Vick.

Wait, can you triple 15 hours per day of coverage?

Short of Rothlisburger being discovered as the lost Limburg baby or a Big Ben's criminal conviction, ESPN should stick to what they do best, pumping their own agenda.

I wonder what their ombudsman has to say about this?

Or whether they will muzzle Simmons. I bet they do.

Mk

Until I got to you saying, can you triple 15 hours a day, I was ready to scream.

If I have to hear another thing about favre, will he or wont he, I may go crazy.

[mkogav]

I agree with ESPN on this. It's not a news-worthy story at this point. The Farve and Vick coverage is FAR more important. In fact, I believe ESPN should triple the coverage of Farve and Vick.

Wait, can you triple 15 hours per day of coverage?

Short of Rothlisburger being discovered as the lost Limburg baby or a Big Ben's criminal conviction, ESPN should stick to what they do best, pumping their own agenda.

I wonder what their ombudsman has to say about this?

Or whether they will muzzle Simmons. I bet they do.

Mk

Until I got to you saying, can you triple 15 hours a day, I was ready to scream.

If I have to hear another thing about favre, will he or wont he, I may go crazy.

 

[MrTripleDouble10]

My guess is that they are muzzling it because of the Shaq reality show that will be on ABC.  I believe Big Ben is his first athlete to compete against, so they probably don't want to portray him as a bad guy, thus taking a chance at hurting ratings.

Although if you ask me, I would assume more people would watch because of this!

[noro]

During the 2007 bye week before the Pats-Giants Superbowl, I'm fairly certain that Randy Moss was all over ESPN with that domestic abuse thing that never had any charges filed. Hypocrites...

[Amonkey]

They finally posted something, a completely biased AP article that says Big Ben will not be charged with a criminal offense (applying that he's innocent).  There are a lot of outrage from fans writing on the board there as well.  ESPN had gradually lost more and more credibility, but this is a new one for me.  They have really dropped the ball and the respect of thousands of fans and for who?  Ben Rothleschesseburger?  Are you kidding me?

[Donoghus]

ESPN finally released a statement trying to explain their coverage.

Per Profootballtalk.com

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."

We wondered earlier what changed Wednesday night and Hofheimer has an answer.

"It is not one specific thing. The criminal news today is part of the ongoing evolution of the story we've been monitoring. We will lead our reports tonight about this with that news, that there will be no criminal investigation into the allegations."

In a PFT first, our fearless leader Mr. Florio requested to be quoted with his response.  From a Green Day concert.

"They are twisting the facts," Florio writes.  "The story is not that there will be no investigation.  It's that there won't be one absent a criminal complaint."

[Moranis]

 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. 

all of those have criminal implications.

let me know when you find an ESPN article on the Eddy Curry civil suit from last year.

[crownsy]

 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. 

all of those have criminal implications.

let me know when you find an ESPN article on the Eddy Curry civil suit from last year.

ummm the alamar case has zero criminal implications. IT's not a crime to sleep to someone with an STD.

Z's has no more criminal implications than this case, in fact its  similar..

I dont know where you got that from, the harrision one also has no criminal element, no charges were filled against him, he was cleared of any wrong doing by police.

[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. 

all of those have criminal implications.

let me know when you find an ESPN article on the Eddy Curry civil suit from last year.

ummm the alamar case has zero criminal implications. IT's not a crime to sleep to someone with an STD.

Z's has no more criminal implications than this case, in fact its  similar..

I dont know where you got that from, the harrision one also has no criminal element, no charges were filled against him, he was cleared of any wrong doing by police.

Actually, sleeping with someone while you have an STD can be battery based on certain circumstances...but that isnt the case here.

And as you said, the Harrison case had no criminal implications against him (although they could have still been brought at the time ESPN discussed the civil suit)

Additionally, just because no criminal charges have been filed yet, doesnt mean they cannot be (I think it is clear they are not going to do that, but they still could...but it is easier to win a civil case then a criminal one)

And since I did a quick look for the curry one, I also discovered a civil suit they discussed involving Shannon Brown, the civil suit against Pacman Jones, etc....


oh and last point - if those suits have 'criminal implications' so does a rape charge.  because as I mentioned above, the Statute of limitations has not yet run, meaning they could file tomorrow if they wanted

[jacksmedulaoblongata]

It's the same thing they did with the Florida Gator arrests, if a school like FSU, Miami, Texas, Oklahoma had 24 kids arrested in 4 year period they would be all over them.  However the torch ESPN carries for Tebow and Meyer won't allow them to spend more than 5 minutes total discussing the story, even during the offseason when there isn't anything to talk about.  ESPN has their favorites Brady, Manning, Berger and Romo will have to commit murder for ESPN to give due attention to an off the field mistake one of these guys makes. Duke basketball, Dallas Cowboys, NY Yankees, UNC bball, the Lakers, Lebron James, you guys know the ESPN list.

[Moranis]

 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. 

all of those have criminal implications.

let me know when you find an ESPN article on the Eddy Curry civil suit from last year.

ummm the alamar case has zero criminal implications. IT's not a crime to sleep to someone with an STD.

Z's has no more criminal implications than this case, in fact its  similar..

I dont know where you got that from, the harrision one also has no criminal element, no charges were filled against him, he was cleared of any wrong doing by police.

zendejas sued the police for falsely bringing a rape case against him.  He was acquitted in that rape case.  Clear criminal case ahead of the civil.

[Moranis]

 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. 

all of those have criminal implications.

let me know when you find an ESPN article on the Eddy Curry civil suit from last year.

ummm the alamar case has zero criminal implications. IT's not a crime to sleep to someone with an STD.

Z's has no more criminal implications than this case, in fact its  similar..

I dont know where you got that from, the harrision one also has no criminal element, no charges were filled against him, he was cleared of any wrong doing by police.

Actually, sleeping with someone while you have an STD can be battery based on certain circumstances...but that isnt the case here.

And as you said, the Harrison case had no criminal implications against him (although they could have still been brought at the time ESPN discussed the civil suit)

Additionally, just because no criminal charges have been filed yet, doesnt mean they cannot be (I think it is clear they are not going to do that, but they still could...but it is easier to win a civil case then a criminal one)

And since I did a quick look for the curry one, I also discovered a civil suit they discussed involving Shannon Brown, the civil suit against Pacman Jones, etc....


oh and last point - if those suits have 'criminal implications' so does a rape charge.  because as I mentioned above, the Statute of limitations has not yet run, meaning they could file tomorrow if they wanted

There was a criminal investigation ongoing when Harrison was sued.  There is no criminal investigation.  In fact the police have said they aren't going to bring charges.  Thus not a criminal case and no criminal implications.  If the police start investigating, arrest Big ben, etc. you will see wide spread coverage.  He said/she said civil cases shouldn't be reported other than a quick note in passing. 

[screwedupmaniac]

i know it! you'd think ESPN would be all over Big Ben's potential suitors in free agency...i'm surprised they don't have him going to the cavs.

oh wait, what? we aren't talking about basketball big ben? ohhh... 

[yall hate]

There was a criminal investigation ongoing when Harrison was sued.  There is no criminal investigation.  In fact the police have said they aren't going to bring charges.  Thus not a criminal case and no criminal implications.  If the police start investigating, arrest Big ben, etc. you will see wide spread coverage.  He said/she said civil cases shouldn't be reported other than a quick note in passing. 

the criminal investigation was not targetting harrison.  he was reported solely for the civil suit.

and you are incorrect, the police have not said they arent going to bring charges.  they have said they arent going to investigate unless she presses charges.  there is a difference.  if she presses charges, they will investigate like any other criminal case.