#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[danglertx]

I'm saying the ESPN is pretty loose with the facts, being from whatever source.  They are an entertainment network and not a news network.  I don't think they necessarily have any interest in adhering to the facts or they'd do a better job reporting them.  They want a story whether they report one or create one.

[D.o.s.]

I think that's true in some senses, certainly (the ESPN echo chamber is a well-known phenomenon on slow news days), but I'm not sure the reporting in this OTL story falls under that umbrella.

[knuckleballer]

In yesterday's OTL article, the author writes "Goodell tried to assuage his bosses: He ordered the destruction of the tapes and notes, he insisted, so they couldn't be exploited again. Many in the room didn't believe it. And some would conclude it was as if Goodell, Kraft and Belichick had acted like partners, complicit in trying to sweep the scandal's details under the rug while the rest of the league was left wondering how much glory the Patriots' cheating had cost their teams. "Goodell didn't want anybody to know that his gold franchise had won Super Bowls by cheating," a senior executive whose team lost to the Patriots in a Super Bowl now says. "If that gets out, that hurts your business."

Yet, back in December that same author said on a Bill Simmons' podcast:



Funny how that nugget didn't make it in the report.

[Vermont Green]

The timing and staleness of this Spygate rehash makes it hard to come to any conclusion other than the NFL has it in for the Pats and that the NFL has their mind set on getting them on something, no matter how old.  I keep thinking about the story that some NFL exec was running around the sidelines for the Indy game saying more or less, "we gotcha".  You don't get that happy about "gotcha-ing" someone unless you have been trying for a while.

Well deflategate went from we gotcha to we look like idiots; so quick, role out an old story and distract everyone from the beat down we just took on the deflategate thing that turned out to be a nothing really happened here thing.

But really, I know, Brady must have known about the scheme to not let air out of the balls.  He did get a new phone and McNally did take a leak before the game so even though there was not actually any air let out of the balls (at least the ones that were studied by a team of experts retained by the NFL), Brady must have known about it.  And this old story about how the NFL destroyed some tapes proves it.

I wonder how long ESPN is going to play along with this.  Think about it.  ESPN has put out a story that is in an indirect way trying to say that because Goodell ordered tapes destroyed 7 years ago that it proves that Brady know about "the scheme" to deflate balls (except that it would have to be a scheme to not-deflate the balls, but details, details).  Come on ESPN, have some balls and stop publishing this NFL sponsored crap.

[Donoghus]

I think that's true in some senses, certainly (the ESPN echo chamber is a well-known phenomenon on slow news days), but I'm not sure the reporting in this OTL story falls under that umbrella.

I'm sure there is some good reporting that went into that report.  There's also some info in there that has already been refuted less than 24 hours later.

IMO, the story here is the equivalent of trying to build a skyscraper on quick sand.  It's mostly a rehash that is taking some liberties and includes a lot of speculation.  Someone is trying to push an angle here with a story that is 8 years around surrounded by a decade's worth of rumors.

[D.o.s.]

Yeah, that's definitely true -- although I think that it may be less of the NFL's efforts than ESPN's content producers deciding that this would make a great stopgap until tomorrow night.

[Csfan1984]

Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.

I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named.  Very different.

Come on that isn't splitting hairs.  An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know.  There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.

They refused to put their names next to their accusations.  That's weak.  You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.

Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future.  You don't burn your bridges.  It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named.  Happens all the time.  An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though.  Two vastly different things.

You are right in that they are technically different, but for all practical purposes they are the same—because in both cases, the reader is unable to verify the source. Which means the author could be making it up.

Yeah this is bogus, though -- unless you don't think ESPN has any vested interest in adhering to the facts, which their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.

Rather: if you put a gun to the head of one of the writers, they could give you a source. This almost certainly isn't a Jayson Blair situation -- and anyone with a degree in journalism should know that the difference extends well into 'practical purposes'.

You mean like 11 of the 12 balls are more than 2psi low?  If someone doesn't believe in what they say strong enough to go on the record you should be really careful about reporting it.  ESPN hasn't seemed to meet that burden regardless of your opinions on their vested interest in adhering to the facts and how their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.  Eight years after the fact they were still saying the Patriots taped the Ram's walkthrough even though that had been debunked and apologized for already.

That has, actually, nothing to do the differences between an anonymous source and an unnamed source, but sure, if you think that the Outside the Line piece is fabricated because they're quoting people by title rather than given name, that's your prerogative.

It is about being more creditable, naming sources does that. Since ESPN has done some pretty bad and skewed reporting on the recent Patriot news its only right to question the context and sources of their reports. There are a lot of things being left out simply to create more of a "story". It's fishing for viewers at the expense of the Patriots IMO.

[fairweatherfan]

Is anyone here seriously going to argue that if they only had names to attach to the information provided, they'd accept it at face value, rather than immediately searching for any angle possible to discredit those sources?  Pretending the anonymity is the sticking point seems very disingenuous.

[Vermont Green]

Yeah, that's definitely true -- although I think that it may be less of the NFL's efforts than ESPN's content producers deciding that this would make a great stopgap until tomorrow night.

Interesting take that it is more ESPN and less NFL but what is your rationale for this?  I don't know of course anymore than you but by take is just the opposite.  I think the NFL is leaking this out on a script orchestrated by Goodell and other higher-up.  At a minimum, ESPN is a relatively innocent pansy in this and just running with the stories but at worst, the NFL is saying "here is the story and we order you to run with it" (or we will stop giving you access).

To me, it is time for ESPN to understand that are being fed "crap" by the NFL and they should stand up to it.  A 10,000 word piece you not have parts of it refuted so conclusively in just 24 hours.  In the past, a leak from an unnamed NFL exec was probably very reliable and required only minimal confirmation.  Lately, that is not the case.  ESPN is running with things like they have all along but now getting burned.  They are not chasing these things down and verifying them.

[Csfan1984]

Is anyone here seriously going to argue that if they only had names to attach to the information provided, they'd accept it at face value, rather than immediately searching for any angle possible to discredit those sources?  Pretending the anonymity is the sticking point seems very disingenuous.

No one is saying that. They are just thinking, is this some of the same sources that have mislead us before or teams that have gripes for losing again? People don't beleive the story is the full one any more right from the start. ESPN has done this to itself.

[D.o.s.]

Yeah, that's definitely true -- although I think that it may be less of the NFL's efforts than ESPN's content producers deciding that this would make a great stopgap until tomorrow night.

Interesting take that it is more ESPN and less NFL but what is your rationale for this?  I don't know of course anymore than you but by take is just the opposite.  I think the NFL is leaking this out on a script orchestrated by Goodell and other higher-up.  At a minimum, ESPN is a relatively innocent pansy in this and just running with the stories but at worst, the NFL is saying "here is the story and we order you to run with it" (or we will stop giving you access).

To me, it is time for ESPN to understand that are being fed "crap" by the NFL and they should stand up to it.  A 10,000 word piece you not have parts of it refuted so conclusively in just 24 hours.  In the past, a leak from an unnamed NFL exec was probably very reliable and required only minimal confirmation.  Lately, that is not the case.  ESPN is running with things like they have all along but now getting burned.  They are not chasing these things down and verifying them.

My suspicion hinges mostly on the timing -- I was trying to figure out what would be best published (or "updated" since, as has been pointed out a lot of the info is old) that is relevant to Thursday night but won't upset the 'actual' coverage of TNF.

Also I think that the turnaround time, were the NFL actually calling the shots, would be significantly longer than if it was coming out of Bristol -- not shorter.

[Moranis]

In yesterday's OTL article, the author writes "Goodell tried to assuage his bosses: He ordered the destruction of the tapes and notes, he insisted, so they couldn't be exploited again. Many in the room didn't believe it. And some would conclude it was as if Goodell, Kraft and Belichick had acted like partners, complicit in trying to sweep the scandal's details under the rug while the rest of the league was left wondering how much glory the Patriots' cheating had cost their teams. "Goodell didn't want anybody to know that his gold franchise had won Super Bowls by cheating," a senior executive whose team lost to the Patriots in a Super Bowl now says. "If that gets out, that hurts your business."

Yet, back in December that same author said on a Bill Simmons' podcast:



Funny how that nugget didn't make it in the report.

Those aren't necessarily incongruous statements.

[Moranis]

Yeah, that's definitely true -- although I think that it may be less of the NFL's efforts than ESPN's content producers deciding that this would make a great stopgap until tomorrow night.

Interesting take that it is more ESPN and less NFL but what is your rationale for this?  I don't know of course anymore than you but by take is just the opposite.  I think the NFL is leaking this out on a script orchestrated by Goodell and other higher-up.  At a minimum, ESPN is a relatively innocent pansy in this and just running with the stories but at worst, the NFL is saying "here is the story and we order you to run with it" (or we will stop giving you access).

To me, it is time for ESPN to understand that are being fed "crap" by the NFL and they should stand up to it.  A 10,000 word piece you not have parts of it refuted so conclusively in just 24 hours.  In the past, a leak from an unnamed NFL exec was probably very reliable and required only minimal confirmation.  Lately, that is not the case.  ESPN is running with things like they have all along but now getting burned.  They are not chasing these things down and verifying them.

My suspicion hinges mostly on the timing -- I was trying to figure out what would be best published (or "updated" since, as has been pointed out a lot of the info is old) that is relevant to Thursday night but won't upset the 'actual' coverage of TNF.

Also I think that the turnaround time, were the NFL actually calling the shots, would be significantly longer than if it was coming out of Bristol -- not shorter.

well that plus it makes the NFL look like total incompetents, especially Goodell.

[knuckleballer]

In yesterday's OTL article, the author writes "Goodell tried to assuage his bosses: He ordered the destruction of the tapes and notes, he insisted, so they couldn't be exploited again. Many in the room didn't believe it. And some would conclude it was as if Goodell, Kraft and Belichick had acted like partners, complicit in trying to sweep the scandal's details under the rug while the rest of the league was left wondering how much glory the Patriots' cheating had cost their teams. "Goodell didn't want anybody to know that his gold franchise had won Super Bowls by cheating," a senior executive whose team lost to the Patriots in a Super Bowl now says. "If that gets out, that hurts your business."

Yet, back in December that same author said on a Bill Simmons' podcast:



Funny how that nugget didn't make it in the report.

Those aren't necessarily incongruous statements.

Not "necessarily", but there certainly is some contradiction.  The owners agreed with destroying the tapes and later complained about it.  It certainly is relevant to the article, but did not fit with the narrative.  Or maybe, there wasn't enough room in the 10,000 word article for it.  The long since debunked story about spying on the Rams was more important.  Or the comments about Ernie Adams being weird, socially awkward, having a bad wardrobe, and having a "photographic" memory was more important too.

[Moranis]

In yesterday's OTL article, the author writes "Goodell tried to assuage his bosses: He ordered the destruction of the tapes and notes, he insisted, so they couldn't be exploited again. Many in the room didn't believe it. And some would conclude it was as if Goodell, Kraft and Belichick had acted like partners, complicit in trying to sweep the scandal's details under the rug while the rest of the league was left wondering how much glory the Patriots' cheating had cost their teams. "Goodell didn't want anybody to know that his gold franchise had won Super Bowls by cheating," a senior executive whose team lost to the Patriots in a Super Bowl now says. "If that gets out, that hurts your business."

Yet, back in December that same author said on a Bill Simmons' podcast:



Funny how that nugget didn't make it in the report.

Those aren't necessarily incongruous statements.

Not "necessarily", but there certainly is some contradiction.  The owners agreed with destroying the tapes and later complained about it.  It certainly is relevant to the article, but did not fit with the narrative.  Or maybe, there wasn't enough room in the 10,000 word article for it.  The long since debunked story about spying on the Rams was more important.  Or the comments about Ernie Adams being weird, socially awkward, having a bad wardrobe, and having a "photographic" memory was more important too.

Or, the owners met after the tapes were already destroyed and were pressured into agreeing that it was a good idea after the fact.  If we have learned anything from these ordeals is that Goodell is capable of doing just about anything if he thinks it is in the league's best interest.