Apparently, this rant that has gone viral. A UConn fan & blogger spewing on the ESPN & it's ACC lovefest and ESPNs continual Big East bashing.
http://stholeary.blogspot.com/2012/07/does-anyone-care-about-espn-smear.html
Monday, July 9, 2012
Does Anyone Care About The ESPN Smear Campaign Against the Big East?
"We always keep our television partners close to us. ... TV -- ESPN -- is the one who told us what to do." - Boston College athletic director Gene DeFilippo
Those words rang in my head today as I watched College Football Live after work. During the program, Mark May gave his "expert" take on the State of the Big East. Spoiler alert: he didn't think it was good.
Last week on College Football Live, Andre Ware gave a similar, damning account of the Big East after it become official that Boise State had joined the conference. Ware said that the move would hurt Boise State's ability to schedule big-time opponents. Yes, because the Alabama's and Michigan's of the world were lining up to play on the Blue Turf.
Since the Big East turned down ESPN's TV rights offer – a decision that was led in part by the University of Pittsburgh president – things have not gone well for the conference. The ACC took Syracuse and Pittsburgh. The Big 12 took West Virginia. The Big East responding by gobbling up big television markets in Houston, Dallas, Memphis, Orlando and San Diego while snapping up national football names, if not powers, in Navy and Boise State. But to hear the folks at ESPN tell it, the Big East is now a glorified version of the Sun Belt Conference.
Even the ESPN Big East blogger, Andrea Adelson, has gotten into the act with a string of sarcastic, stinging jabs at the current state of the conference. On the day Temple officially joined the Big East, she delivered this delightful shot across the bow of the conference. Adelson seems to hate the Big East, unlike her predecessor on the beat, Brian Bennett. Read the comments on the blog post – it's not pretty. We want journalistic integrity from writers. We don't mind homerism in small doses. We can't stand overt negativity on a constant basis.
I'm a UConn fan, a season ticket holder living in Washington, D.C. I've grown up a Big East fan. I will defend the Big East until I'm blue in the face. I realize I may not always be right. But I'm not always wrong.
The Big East, in its 2013 state, is a better football league than the ACC. The ACC is 2-13 in BCS bowls. None of its teams have been in the national championship race in November since Florida State in 2000. Even if you include Miami, they haven't had a team in the national championship race since 2003, and they were playing in the Big East.
The 2013 version of the Big East will have 4 teams since 2006 that entered November undefeated with national championship aspirations – Rutgers & Louisville in 2006, Cincinnati in 2009 and Boise State several times.
Of course, the "new" version of the BCS, which is increasingly looking the like the BCS we all so dearly hated, was supposed to reward on-field merit instead of perceived market value. When the Big 12 & SEC struck a deal for the Champions Bowl on New Year's Night, everyone nodded because those conferences had proved their worth on the field. When the Big Ten & Pac-12 did likewise with the Rose Bowl, there were no snorts of derision – the conferences have had multiple BCS title game appearances in the last decade.
But when the Orange Bowl made a similar deal with the ACC, there was a lot of head-scratching and Twitter jokes. Who wouldn't want to see an 18th ranked Georgia Tech play in a "major" bowl game. The Orange Bowl fades further into irrelevance. If you watched ESPN the night of the announcement, it was nothing but wine & roses for the deal, the strength of the ACC and their impending return to glory. College Football Live had the gall to ask which ACC would next contend a national title. In this decade, the next ACC team to contend for a national title would be the first.
I don't begrudge ESPN, because the ACC is their investment while the Big East is likely no longer. The Big East made a calculated decision to test the open market and the rumors are flying that the Comcast/NBC conglomerate will make a solid, enticing offer to get much-needed live, college sports for its NBC Sports Network. Rumors have started about a Big East game of the week to lead into NBC's Notre Dame coverage.
This, as one can easily surmise, is not good for ESPN. They don't want competition. They famously hopped into bed with Fox to repel Comcast's bid for the Pac-12 television rights. They control all of major college football right now. Is it any surprise ESPN is so gleefully pushing the "five major conferences" theme?
The problem is not with ESPN as a television outfit – the problem is with ESPN as a journalistic outlet. They are in a position to drive the debate with regard to the Big East and they have clearly chosen to disparage and slander the conference at every possible moment. Boise State was the lovable underdog who drove ratings – see Virginia Tech, 2010 – but once they entered the Big East, they have been unceremoniously shoved right back to the kids' table.
If ESPN wanted to, they could pump up the Big East to where the ACC is right now. Boise State is a national team that gets more ink spilled (or blogs posted) than any other team in the nation save for Notre Dame, Alabama and USC. Their annual ascent on the college football mountaintop has become one of the most interesting, intriguing and divisive debates, non-BCS division, in the sport. ESPN themselves milked in for all its worth – see Nevada, 2010. They are now, in the words of Andre Ware, unable to schedule appropriately.
In 2009, Cincinnati went undefeated. Their final game, against Pittsburgh in the snow, amounted to a Big East championship. The ratings were tremendous, doubling that night's ACC championship game. ESPN's second highest-rated Thursday night game in history was between Louisville & Rutgers – two teams the network has now relegated to also-ran status.
Simply put, it's not fair. ESPN has taken complete control over college football. Most troubling, though, is that no one outside of the Big East offices and the fans of current/future Big East teams seem to care. Syracuse and Pittsburgh leaving was supposedly the death knell to football – even though the pair has combined for a grand total of 1 Big East title in the past 13 years, the exact same total UConn has*.
*Author's Note: To those that have pointed this out, yes, I was referring to representing the Big East in the BCS.
As Homer Simpson once said, "You can use facts to prove anything."
There is no doubt the Big East is not the SEC, the Big 12 or the Big Ten. There is also little doubt that the Big East is at the very least – on the field – an equal of the ACC. But ACC football has a spot reserved for them at the Big Boy table, courtesy of ESPN, while the Big East fights for any ounce of respect it can garner.
On College Football Live today, Mark May said that even an undefeated Big East team would be hard-pressed to make the new Final Four of college football. It was an insane statement – TCU, Boise State and Utah all finished in the Top 4 in the past five years playing in the Mountain West. Yet, if you looked very closely, you could see the marionette strings behind May.
The Big East will be a better football conference in 2013 than it was in 2011. The average college football fan won't believe that because ESPN won't let them believe that. There is a reason why monopolies are outlawed in this country.
This is not new to the Big East – the football version of the conference was declared dead before – but they were still being propped up by the ESPN juggernaut. This time, the Big East has to go it alone. As a fan of the conference, we can only hope NBC will be as kind as it has been to hockey.
You remember hockey, don't you? If you do – congratulations, you watch more than SportsCenter.
Follow me on Twitter
Posted by Sean O'Leary at 8:19 PM
I DVR college football live and the only thing wrong in that is they said the Big East is now Conf. USA, not the Sun Belt.
That's why I like watching the Tim Brando Show on CBS Sports Network. It's has way different viewpoint points, that the Worldwide Leader gives you.
Bump.... because the thread on the UMBC game being played 4-1/2 months from now shouldn't be getting twice as many page views as this one. Every fan of a BE school should be reading this. If you don't have the time, I'll sum it up in one sentence:
"Mickey Mouse seems like an affable character, but he won't hesitate to slit your throat if you piss him off."
Quote from: Benny B on July 13, 2012, 01:28:20 PM
Bump.... because the thread on the UMBC game being played 4-1/2 months from now shouldn't be getting twice as many page views as this one. Every fan of a BE school should be reading this. If you don't have the time, I'll sum it up in one sentence:
"Mickey Mouse seems like an affable character, but he won't hesitate to slit your throat if you piss him off."
+1
I've always hated ESPN, and this is the icing on the cake...
This is going to get uglier before it gets better. NBC/COMCAST wants to move in on sports with all their assets as it is live content. The BE has big urban markets with cable lines. ESPN will try to torpedo the BE when it is its most vulnerable so this will continue.
Any one see that the PAC12 B1G football deal collapsed? What a cluster CFB and the networks have made for themselves.
Quote from: Benny B on July 13, 2012, 01:28:20 PM
"Mickey Mouse seems like an affable character, but he won't hesitate to slit your throat if you piss him off."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF4_4g1B2Ug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF4_4g1B2Ug)
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on July 13, 2012, 02:07:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF4_4g1B2Ug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF4_4g1B2Ug)
I'm not kidding you, that's
exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on July 13, 2012, 02:06:17 PM
This is going to get uglier before it gets better. NBC/COMCAST wants to move in on sports with all their assets as it is live content. The BE has big urban markets with cable lines. ESPN will try to torpedo the BE when it is its most vulnerable so this will continue.
Any one see that the PAC12 B1G football deal collapsed? What a cluster CFB and the networks have made for themselves.
Well... if CFB goes nuclear all over, then at least we can hang our hat on being the best basketball conference around.
Hang on a sec....
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on July 13, 2012, 02:06:17 PM
This is going to get uglier before it gets better. NBC/COMCAST wants to move in on sports with all their assets as it is live content. The BE has big urban markets with cable lines. ESPN will try to torpedo the BE when it is its most vulnerable so this will continue.
Any one see that the PAC12 B1G football deal collapsed? What a cluster CFB and the networks have made for themselves.
This went under because the P12 plays nine conference games. The B10 should move in that direction now.
Quote from: Benny B on July 13, 2012, 01:28:20 PM
Bump.... because the thread on the UMBC game being played 4-1/2 months from now shouldn't be getting twice as many page views as this one. Every fan of a BE school should be reading this. If you don't have the time, I'll sum it up in one sentence:
"Mickey Mouse seems like an affable character, but he won't hesitate to slit your throat if you piss him off."
I see your point in wanting people to talk about this topic, but it shouldn't be compared with UMBC game. The news for UMBC game is the date for us fans to be going to the Bradley Center.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 13, 2012, 02:19:23 PM
This went under because the P12 plays nine conference games. The B10 should move in that direction now.
Pretty sure they should have figured that one out when they announced the big strategic partnership (both backed by Fox Sports) back in December. You don't think the new BCS deal didn't cause them to blow this up?
I think the major issue is that some schools have rivals that they don't want to give up. Look at USC...they have nine conference games...Notre Dame...and then a B10 game. That gives them one "guaranty game."
The new BCS deal would actually encourage better non-conference games.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 13, 2012, 03:46:05 PM
I think the major issue is that some schools have rivals that they don't want to give up. Look at USC...they have nine conference games...Notre Dame...and then a B10 game. That gives them one "guaranty game."
The new BCS deal would actually encourage better non-conference games.
If that is indeed the case, since the PAC 12 schools like USC and Stanford would rather play a UND, perhaps this is an opportunity for the BE to step in and partner with the B1G? Can put the B1G on in every time zone in CFB, including Texas and Florida (recruiting).
Quote from: Benny B on July 13, 2012, 01:28:20 PM"Mickey Mouse seems like an affable character, but he won't hesitate to slit your throat if you piss him off."
So incredibly true. Really got me some serious dislike for the entire Disney corporation.
FOOTBALL! FOOTBALL! FOOTBALL! MONEY MONEY MONEY. No mention of basketball.
So is this 4 game "Tournament" a BCS or NCAA tournament? If BCS, is the NCAA irrelevant?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 16, 2012, 03:34:13 PM
So is this 4 game "Tournament" a BCS or NCAA tournament? If BCS, is the NCAA irrelevant?
The NCAA is never irrelevant.
Quote from: Bocephys on July 16, 2012, 03:40:38 PM
The NCAA is never irrelevant.
It is in football. The NCAA only continues to have influence in major college football because the BCS allows them to. Most of the money the NCAA makes now comes from March.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on July 16, 2012, 03:34:13 PM
So is this 4 game "Tournament" a BCS or NCAA tournament? If BCS, is the NCAA irrelevant?
It won't be called the BCS, but it will be an alliance of the conferences with the major partners being the BCS conferences.
My biggest complaint against E**N (can a filter be put in here so that whenever that four-letter network's name is posted, it gets bleeped out?) is their lack of journalistic integrity, despite their best effort to portray themselves as such. The last straw for me was the whole Braun debacle. Whether or not you think he did it, that entire story should have never, ever seen the light of day until after Braun would have hypothetically lost his appeal. I still think that Braun should agree to do one final interview with the OTL people that "broke" this "story," with one condition: He is allowed one free punch, at any point in the interview, to any person there... and they can't do anything about it.
On a related note, people like Skip Bayless make me downright sick. I was very happy to see Mark Cuban go and school him in-studio. Not like Skip feels an ounce of embarrassment for being such a worthless tool, but then again... it's not like he actually starred for his high school basketball team (http://www.thelostogle.com/2012/04/09/skip-bayless-lied-about-his-prestigious-high-school-basketball-career/).
The analysis provided in-studio by the Four-Letter Curse is frankly getting worse and worse. I wonder if the BE should also sign an agreement with NBC Sports for basketball games. A network that'd likely be willing to throw lots of dollars behind propping up its new coverage sounds like a good opportunity for more exposure.
But yeah - getting the BE to a spot where they're getting that exposure is going to be a messy road.
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on July 17, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
My biggest complaint against E**N (can a filter be put in here so that whenever that four-letter network's name is posted, it gets bleeped out?) is their lack of journalistic integrity, despite their best effort to portray themselves as such. The last straw for me was the whole Braun debacle. Whether or not you think he did it, that entire story should have never, ever seen the light of day until after Braun would have hypothetically lost his appeal. I still think that Braun should agree to do one final interview with the OTL people that "broke" this "story," with one condition: He is allowed one free punch, at any point in the interview, to any person there... and they can't do anything about it.
On a related note, people like Skip Bayless make me downright sick. I was very happy to see Mark Cuban go and school him in-studio. Not like Skip feels an ounce of embarrassment for being such a worthless tool, but then again... it's not like he actually starred for his high school basketball team (http://www.thelostogle.com/2012/04/09/skip-bayless-lied-about-his-prestigious-high-school-basketball-career/).
The analysis provided in-studio by the Four-Letter Curse is frankly getting worse and worse. I wonder if the BE should also sign an agreement with NBC Sports for basketball games. A network that'd likely be willing to throw lots of dollars behind propping up its new coverage sounds like a good opportunity for more exposure.
But yeah - getting the BE to a spot where they're getting that exposure is going to be a messy road.
ESPN has many problems with journalistic integrity, but choosing to report on the reigning NL MVP failing a drug test is not one of them. Take off your homer glasses and realize that it was a big story and Braun was caught cheating. Should they have kept quiet on Lance Armstrong as well? What about when Adrian Peterson was arrested? According to your reasoning they still shouldn't be talking about the Sandusky case because he hasn't had a chance to appeal.
Quote from: Bocephys on July 17, 2012, 10:20:04 AM
ESPN has many problems with journalistic integrity, but choosing to report on the reigning NL MVP failing a drug test is not one of them. Take off your homer glasses and realize that it was a big story and Braun was caught cheating. Should they have kept quiet on Lance Armstrong as well? What about when Adrian Peterson was arrested? According to your reasoning they still shouldn't be talking about the Sandusky case because he hasn't had a chance to appeal.
No. According to the union contract no information should have been leaked until the appeal took place.
That being said, ESPN isn't the testing facility, so they shouldn't feel bad that they have sources that are willing to be shady.
Though, personally, I think it was totally unethical.
ESPN doesn't bother me any more because I only watch it when games are on.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 17, 2012, 10:27:57 AM
ESPN doesn't bother me any more because I only watch it when games are on.
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/54613/just_don_t_look/
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on July 17, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
The analysis provided in-studio by the Four-Letter Curse is frankly getting worse and worse. I wonder if the BE should also sign an agreement with NBC Sports for basketball games. A network that'd likely be willing to throw lots of dollars behind propping up its new coverage sounds like a good opportunity for more exposure.
But yeah - getting the BE to a spot where they're getting that exposure is going to be a messy road.
I would think any TV agreement would involve both football & basketball. Can Big East football & basketball games be on both networks or are these agreeements exclusive?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 17, 2012, 10:23:38 AM
No. According to the union contract no information should have been leaked until the appeal took place.
That being said, ESPN isn't the testing facility, so they shouldn't feel bad that they have sources that are willing to be shady.
Though, personally, I think it was totally unethical.
There may be ethics questions, but I really don't think it's on ESPN's part. While I'm not at all a fan of the four-letter network, any sports outlet that received that news would have ran it, especially in this era where news organizations are so obsessed with being the first to have breaking news.
Bocephys is 100% right on the money when he says that this isn't a case of compromised journalistic integrity. When they are using their influence to drive and manufacture the story, or to shape conferences so it best impacts their bottom line, that is compromised journalistic integrity. When they are selective in what they report so it doesn't make their employees or parent company look bad, that is compromised journalistic integrity.
ESPN reported a perfectly valid story in the case of Braun. Had it been Pujols or Starlin Castro, no one in Milwaukee would have batted an eye. It was newsworthy, they got the story, they went with it. You can complain all you like about their sources actions, but just because you don't like what the sources did doesn't mean there wasn't a story.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 17, 2012, 10:23:38 AM
No. According to the union contract no information should have been leaked until the appeal took place.
That being said, ESPN isn't the testing facility, so they shouldn't feel bad that they have sources that are willing to be shady.
Though, personally, I think it was totally unethical.
Exactly - this is a question about ethics.
Quote from: Bocephys on July 17, 2012, 10:20:04 AM
ESPN has many problems with journalistic integrity, but choosing to report on the reigning NL MVP failing a drug test is not one of them. Take off your homer glasses and realize that it was a big story and Braun was caught cheating. Should they have kept quiet on Lance Armstrong as well? What about when Adrian Peterson was arrested? According to your reasoning they still shouldn't be talking about the Sandusky case because he hasn't had a chance to appeal.
AP's arrest was a
public matter, not something that was supposed to be protected via a confidentiality agreement. Things that are in a court of law (i.e. Sandusky) are different than things that are protected by a confidentiality agreement. I do agree with a lot of the Lance point that you did make, though, again depending on the protections that should have been offered via confidentiality.
If Braun would have lost his appeal and *then* this story would have come out, that would have been perfectly a-ok by me as that would have meant that the process would have been followed.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 17, 2012, 10:55:17 AM
There may be ethics questions, but I really don't think it's on ESPN's part. While I'm not at all a fan of the four-letter network, any sports outlet that received that news would have ran it, especially in this era where news organizations are so obsessed with being the first to have breaking news.
Bocephys is 100% right on the money when he says that this isn't a case of compromised journalistic integrity. When they are using their influence to drive and manufacture the story, or to shape conferences so it best impacts their bottom line, that is compromised journalistic integrity. When they are selective in what they report so it doesn't make their employees or parent company look bad, that is compromised journalistic integrity.
Didn't several other players have oddly high test results that day too...? And yet they "chose" to only focus on Braun rather than the testing process itself. It's also fun when Buster Olney pillories Braun beforehand and now winds up looking like almost as big of a d-bag as Skip Bayless.
Back to the topic here: It's not that this is a huge specific incident in the grand scheme, but it is part of what makes E**N so douchey as a whole.
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on July 17, 2012, 11:13:09 AM
Exactly - this is a question about ethics.
AP's arrest was a public matter, not something that was supposed to be protected via a confidentiality agreement. Things that are in a court of law (i.e. Sandusky) are different than things that are protected by a confidentiality agreement. I do agree with a lot of the Lance point that you did make, though, again depending on the protections that should have been offered via confidentiality.
If Braun would have lost his appeal and *then* this story would have come out, that would have been perfectly a-ok by me as that would have meant that the process would have been followed.
Didn't several other players have oddly high test results that day too...? And yet they "chose" to only focus on Braun rather than the testing process itself. It's also fun when Buster Olney pillories Braun beforehand and now winds up looking like almost as big of a d-bag as Skip Bayless.
Back to the topic here: It's not that this is a huge specific incident in the grand scheme, but it is part of what makes E**N so douchey as a whole.
ESPN has no such confidentiality agreement with MLB nor the Players' Association. Not sure how there is a breach of ethics there. They were tipped to a story by a reliable source and ran with it. Obviously they only focused on Braun because he was the reigning NL MVP and the biggest name. Their job is to attract viewers and they don't do that by announcing that Eliezer Alfonzo will be suspended for 100 games because no one cares. Next time Braun hits a home run and they "choose" to focus on that instead of some career minor leaguer hitting his 3rd career homer, be sure to be disgusted about that as well.
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on July 17, 2012, 11:13:09 AMIf Braun would have lost his appeal and *then* this story would have come out, that would have been perfectly a-ok by me as that would have meant that the process would have been followed.
Which means that your issue is with those that leaked the story to ESPN, not ESPN themselves. I realize it's on a dramatically different scale, but that's like blaming the Washington Post for Deep Throat leaking information to Woodward and Bernstein. They did their due diligence, trusted their sources (which were valid, even if MLB lost on appeal), and went with a reliable story.
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on July 17, 2012, 11:13:09 AMBack to the topic here: It's not that this is a huge specific incident in the grand scheme, but it is part of what makes E**N so douchey as a whole.
Bocephys covered the other part perfectly as to why Braun was the focus, but while I agree ESPN is a disreputable organization, this incident is not at all indicative of that. I highly doubt NBC, FoxSports, CBS, SI, or any of the other major sports outlets would have handled things any differently. Had they got the Braun story first, they all would have broken it.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 17, 2012, 12:37:24 PM
but that's like blaming the Washington Post for Deep Throat leaking information to Woodward and Bernstein. They did their due diligence, trusted their sources (which were valid, even if MLB lost on appeal), and went with a reliable story.
Bingo.
News organizations shouldn't be ripped for printing the truth, even if it hurts.
Braun tested positive. That's factual. There really isn't an ethical issue here.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on July 17, 2012, 12:44:25 PM
Bingo.
News organizations shouldn't be ripped for printing the truth, even if it hurts.
Braun tested positive. That's factual. There really isn't an ethical issue here.
If he tested positive why isn't why wasn't he suspended?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on July 17, 2012, 01:09:54 PM
If he tested positive why isn't why wasn't he suspended?
I'm not saying he did it.
There where extenuating circumstances and possible tampering, so he might not have done it.
But, Ryan Braun's test did come up positive, and that's what ESPN reported. I understand why people are upset it leaked, but I don't think you can be upset that a news organization reporting the facts.
Spot on, Ammo. OJ Simpson never served a day of jail time for Nicole's murder, but that hardly means it wasn't newsworthy until after the trial was over, does it?
News is news when it breaks, not when it's done. That's why we have developing stories. Sure, when Braun's story was all said and done, he was exonerated (in the eyes of most), but that doesn't mean that it was never worth reporting in the first place.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on July 17, 2012, 12:44:25 PM
Braun tested positive. That's factual. There really isn't an ethical issue here.
Yes - there was a positive test. I completely agree that's fact.
While, yes, E**N isn't at fault for publishing information they got, I do have a few questions:
1. Did E**N go on a fishing expedition, if you will, to get this information or was it something that was given to them by someone?
2. If E**N did go on a fishing expedition, what was their motive? Does this "fishing expedition" negatively impact their credibility as a responsible journalistic source?
2a. If someone gave them this information from MLB's side, what was their motive?
3. Tying this back to Marquette and famous alumni... let's say that D-Wade hypothetically failed a test, won on appeal, and that test should have never seen the light of day because of confidentiality but the failed test was broadcast all over E**N. Should that failed test be held against his hypothetical HoF voting in a decade or so? As Wade would have hypothetically won on appeal (and therefore never had an official failed test), would he be in a position to demand some sort of reparations, i.e. an official statement about that there are no failed tests officially on file for him?
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 17, 2012, 01:18:37 PM
Spot on, Ammo. OJ Simpson never served a day of jail time for Nicole's murder, but that hardly means it wasn't newsworthy until after the trial was over, does it?
News is news when it breaks, not when it's done. That's why we have developing stories. Sure, when Braun's story was all said and done, he was exonerated (in the eyes of most), but that doesn't mean that it was never worth reporting in the first place.
Again, not an apples-to-apples comparison by any stretch. A public murder and subsequent legal trial is VERY different than how a supposedly-confidential testing and appeal process was broken.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 17, 2012, 12:37:24 PM
Which means that your issue is with those that leaked the story to ESPN, not ESPN themselves. I realize it's on a dramatically different scale, but that's like blaming the Washington Post for Deep Throat leaking information to Woodward and Bernstein. They did their due diligence, trusted their sources (which were valid, even if MLB lost on appeal), and went with a reliable story.
Again, that depends on the truth behind questions 1, 2, and 2a above. If E**N actually did go on a fishing expedition - which we may never know if they did - then yes, ethically they are in a different situation than if they had the information given to them (2a) and ran with it. I would not be surprised if the truth is that E**N got a little bit of information and then went on a fishing expedition not knowing what they'd find, if anything.
Someday, I suspect we'll find out what Braun took and why the test results were as bonkers as they were. But there's a whole other thread as to where that discussion belongs.
I now return you to your regularly-scheduled E**N Bashing, already in progress :P
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on July 17, 2012, 01:21:05 PM
Yes - there was a positive test. I completely agree that's fact.
While, yes, E**N isn't at fault for publishing information they got, I do have a few questions:
1. Did E**N go on a fishing expedition, if you will, to get this information or was it something that was given to them by someone?
2. If E**N did go on a fishing expedition, what was their motive? Does this "fishing expedition" negatively impact their credibility as a responsible journalistic source?
2a. If someone gave them this information from MLB's side, what was their motive?
3. Tying this back to Marquette and famous alumni... let's say that D-Wade hypothetically failed a test, won on appeal, and that test should have never seen the light of day because of confidentiality but the failed test was broadcast all over E**N. Should that failed test be held against his hypothetical HoF voting in a decade or so? As Wade would have hypothetically won on appeal (and therefore never had an official failed test), would he be in a position to demand some sort of reparations, i.e. an official statement about that there are no failed tests officially on file for him?
ESPN found out Braun had a positive test, and reported as such.
Somehow it leaked, and it was a big story because he was MVP, so of course ESPN ran with it.
I'm not sure what the big issue is.
You don't like it because you think ESPN might not print the same thing about Wade, right?
I'm not sure what that has to do with Braun.
Oh, also, Braun's test came up positive. ESPN doesn't need to make a statement, or apology, or anything. It is a FACT that Braun's test came up positive. That's it.
Doesn't matter how the appeal went. Doesn't matter how many home runs he hits.
Braun won his appeal. ESPN reported as such.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/7608360/milwaukee-brewers-ryan-braun-wins-appeal-50-game-suspension (http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/7608360/milwaukee-brewers-ryan-braun-wins-appeal-50-game-suspension)
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on July 17, 2012, 01:39:46 PM
ESPN found out Braun had a positive test, and reported as such.
Somehow it leaked, and it was a big story because he was MVP, so of course ESPN ran with it.
I'm not sure what the big issue is.
You don't like it because you think ESPN might not print the same thing about Wade, right?
No, I'm wondering what would happen if the SAME THING (leaking, reporting and all) happened to Wade and what the long-term ramifications would be to him. Sorry for not making that clearer.
My theory is Braun's camp "leaked" the info to ESPN once they knew there was a breach in the handling of his specimen and could beat the positive test on a technicality.
Quote from: CaptainAwesome on July 17, 2012, 02:00:28 PM
No, I'm wondering what would happen if the SAME THING (leaking, reporting and all) happened to Wade and what the long-term ramifications would be to him. Sorry for not making that clearer.
Well, that speaks to a news organization's bias, and I think that is a valid concern, especially in today's media conglomerates.
However, I don't think ESPN could cover up a positive drug test for Wade. If it leaked to ESPN first, and didn't get reported publicly (because they didn't want to hurt their product), I have to figure that it would leak to somebody else eventually (couple days later).
Certainly there are cover-ups in this world, but I don't know if ESPN could cover up the reigning MVP (Braun, or hypothetically Wade) testing positive. If ESPN found out, it's only a matter of time before somebody else finds out, in my opinion.
http://deadspin.com/5926714/bleacher-report-has-stiffer-penalties-for-plagiarism-than-espn-does
If ESPN didn't report Braun's positive test, some other news source would have. One way or another, word was going to get out.
ESPN isn't news, it's entertainment.
Wait, D Wade took/takes steroids?? Lol c'monnnn man
Quote from: Dreadman24 on July 17, 2012, 03:27:10 PM
Wait, D Wade took/takes steroids?? Lol c'monnnn man
lol - it was a hypothetical example. All I said was "tested positive" - I didn't say for what ;D
Quote from: 4everwarriors on July 17, 2012, 02:17:43 PM
My theory is Braun's camp "leaked" the info to ESPN once they knew there was a breach in the handling of his specimen and could beat the positive test on a technicality.
If this is indeed the case - and I'm not necessarily disputing the plausibility here - the fact that ESPN reported it is a clear indictment of their shady journalistic practices. If someone who did something wrong approaches you and says, "hey, guess what I did" hoping that you'll report it sans attribution, why do you think that person would do such a thing? There is no reason that Braun would "self-report" to ESPN unless he had something to gain by doing so... ESPN would have known (or should have reasonably suspected) that they were merely a pawn in Braun's appeal strategy, yet they had no problem being played. At the point where you are reporting the news merely as furtherance of another party's agenda, you cease being a journalist and become a spokesperson. Journalism is supposed to be about "an unbiased reporting of facts in the interest of the general public"... what ESPN would have done - again, hypothetically considering this scenario to be true - was a biased reporting of speculation in the interest of Ryan Braun. But it would have made no difference to ESPN as they're well used to being other people's b!*@# by now.
Maybe that's why Braun hasn't brought a libel suit against ESPN or OTL... he would have libeled himself.
Quote from: Benny B on July 17, 2012, 04:08:24 PM
If this is indeed the case - and I'm not necessarily disputing the plausibility here - the fact that ESPN reported it is a clear indictment of their shady journalistic practices. If someone who did something wrong approaches you and says, "hey, guess what I did" hoping that you'll report it sans attribution, why do you think that person would do such a thing? There is no reason that Braun would "self-report" to ESPN unless he had something to gain by doing so... ESPN would have known (or should have reasonably suspected) that they were merely a pawn in Braun's appeal strategy, yet they had no problem being played. At the point where you are reporting the news merely as furtherance of another party's agenda, you cease being a journalist and become a spokesperson. Journalism is supposed to be about "an unbiased reporting of facts in the interest of the general public"... what ESPN would have done - again, hypothetically considering this scenario to be true - was a biased reporting of speculation in the interest of Ryan Braun. But it would have made no difference to ESPN as they're well used to being other people's b!*@# by now.
Maybe that's why Braun hasn't brought a libel suit against ESPN or OTL... he would have libeled himself.
If something like this is what happened and they merrily went along with it... and we're back to the point of E**N lacking journalistic integrity.
Quote from: Benny B on July 17, 2012, 04:08:24 PM
If this is indeed the case - and I'm not necessarily disputing the plausibility here - the fact that ESPN reported it is a clear indictment of their shady journalistic practices. If someone who did something wrong approaches you and says, "hey, guess what I did" hoping that you'll report it sans attribution, why do you think that person would do such a thing? There is no reason that Braun would "self-report" to ESPN unless he had something to gain by doing so... ESPN would have known (or should have reasonably suspected) that they were merely a pawn in Braun's appeal strategy, yet they had no problem being played. At the point where you are reporting the news merely as furtherance of another party's agenda, you cease being a journalist and become a spokesperson. Journalism is supposed to be about "an unbiased reporting of facts in the interest of the general public"... what ESPN would have done - again, hypothetically considering this scenario to be true - was a biased reporting of speculation in the interest of Ryan Braun. But it would have made no difference to ESPN as they're well used to being other people's b!*@# by now.
Maybe that's why Braun hasn't brought a libel suit against ESPN or OTL... he would have libeled himself.
Or it wasn't libel since he tested positive and never disputed the positive result. He only disputed how his tainted pee was handled.
Quote from: Benny B on July 17, 2012, 04:08:24 PM
If this is indeed the case - and I'm not necessarily disputing the plausibility here - the fact that ESPN reported it is a clear indictment of their shady journalistic practices. If someone who did something wrong approaches you and says, "hey, guess what I did" hoping that you'll report it sans attribution, why do you think that person would do such a thing? There is no reason that Braun would "self-report" to ESPN unless he had something to gain by doing so... ESPN would have known (or should have reasonably suspected) that they were merely a pawn in Braun's appeal strategy, yet they had no problem being played. At the point where you are reporting the news merely as furtherance of another party's agenda, you cease being a journalist and become a spokesperson. Journalism is supposed to be about "an unbiased reporting of facts in the interest of the general public"... what ESPN would have done - again, hypothetically considering this scenario to be true - was a biased reporting of speculation in the interest of Ryan Braun. But it would have made no difference to ESPN as they're well used to being other people's b!*@# by now.
Maybe that's why Braun hasn't brought a libel suit against ESPN or OTL... he would have libeled himself.
You just described is my PR degree.
Nice work.
First, regarding the fishing expedition...umm, what? So if a news source fishes for information, they are out of line? Do you understand what the purpose of a news organization is supposed to be? A big part of it is finding information and uncovering the truth. Braun's sample tested positive. They reported it. That's really the end of the story. If they went looking for it, then good on them! Way to be proactive in uncovering a legitimate story.
And no, comparing Watergate or OJ to Braun isn't apples to apples, but I'm not talking about the magnitude, rather the relevance of reporting the information. It doesn't matter to a news source if Braun's test was supposed to be confidential. That has absolutely zero provenance to them. As soon as they get a reliable source telling them his test came up positive and they feel it is sufficiently verified, it shouldn't just be something they choose to run, it is something they have the duty to run.
Don't get me wrong, I hate ESPN and everything it stands for. I would love to see them go down in a flaming wreck. I think they overabuse their power as a media outlet and spend far too much time shaping the story rather than acting as the neutral party they portend themselves to be. But in this one case, they were in the right, whether they went looking for the story or had it served up to them on a silver platter.
Quote from: brewcity77 on July 17, 2012, 05:51:02 PM
Don't get me wrong, I hate ESPN and everything it stands for. I would love to see them go down in a flaming wreck. I think they overabuse their power as a media outlet and spend far too much time shaping the story rather than acting as the neutral party they portend themselves to be. But in this one case, they were in the right, whether they went looking for the story or had it served up to them on a silver platter.
I assume you read what
clowns hacks like Buster Olney wrote, then, as they portended to be a "neutral" news organization? IF Braun's appeal had failed, he would have come out right. Instead, Olney comes out as looking vindictive and petty. It's almost like E**N needs to do what NBC News and MSNBC are doing: Splitting apart so that NBC News (go to msnbc.com and it now redirects you to NBCNews.com with a big old article about why they split apart) is the "neutral" news organization and MSNBC can present a non-neutral perspective. The lines between slanted, biased commentary and "neutral" sports news reporting have become so blurred at the Four Letter Curse Network. Grantland represents a start in this direction, but they need to go a LOT further.
Quote from: Bocephys on July 17, 2012, 04:15:51 PM
Or it wasn't libel since he tested positive and never disputed the positive result. He only disputed how his tainted pee was handled.
Correct... Braun argued that the chain of custody was broken, and supposedly, that is the basis for his appeal being upheld. However, because the chain of custody was broken, there would be no way for ESPN to demonstrate to the court that the alleged positive sample belonged to Braun.
I would be willing to bet that if you asked WADA regarding Braun's test, the most they could say would be along the lines of "Sample XXXXX tested positive for synthetic testosterone, but we cannot confirm to whom Sample XXXXX belongs." In fact, you're not likely to find anyone who would be able to testify under oath that Ryan Braun tested positive for anything. Suspecting someone did something is not the same as proving that's the case.
"It's true" is only a defense against libel if you can demonstrate that
it is true. If you can't, you better have a damn good lawyer (fortunately, for Mickey Mouse, he does).
Quote from: Benny B on July 17, 2012, 08:20:13 PM
Correct... Braun argued that the chain of custody was broken, and supposedly, that is the basis for his appeal being upheld. However, because the chain of custody was broken, there would be no way for ESPN to demonstrate to the court that the alleged positive sample belonged to Braun.
I would be willing to bet that if you asked WADA regarding Braun's test, the most they could say would be along the lines of "Sample XXXXX tested positive for synthetic testosterone, but we cannot confirm to whom Sample XXXXX belongs." In fact, you're not likely to find anyone who would be able to testify under oath that Ryan Braun tested positive for anything. Suspecting someone did something is not the same as proving that's the case.
"It's true" is only a defense against libel if you can demonstrate that it is true. If you can't, you better have a damn good lawyer (fortunately, for Mickey Mouse, he does).
Benny,
WADA came out in support of the collector, and stated they believed the methods used did not break the chain of custody. This was before the arbitrator ruling, and I may be wrong but I thought they released a pretty harsh statement after the ruling.
Braun got off on MLB's loop hole, not current standards recommended by the WADA.
Since other players have used Brauns loop hole, I would assume the MLB will update their testing policy to WADA standards.
Quote from: PTM on July 17, 2012, 10:51:19 PM
Benny,
WADA came out in support of the collector, and stated they believed the methods used did not break the chain of custody. This was before the arbitrator ruling, and I may be wrong but I thought they released a pretty harsh statement after the ruling.
Braun got off on MLB's loop hole, not current standards recommended by the WADA.
Since other players have used Brauns loop hole, I would assume the MLB will update their testing policy to WADA standards.
I don't recall the exact statement, but I do recall that WADA's position was that it
appeared that nobody tampered with the sample. That's a very convenient qualifier on their part. In fact, I don't recall seeing a single scientist going on record stating that Ryan Braun tested positive for synthetic testosterone... it was always "alleged" this or "believed" that by those speaking on the record.
I'm not saying that someone did tamper with the sample, but do you think anyone at WADA would be willing to stare down the face of perjury and say that 100%, without a doubt, that it was Ryan Braun's sample that tested positive? We all have our beliefs, but do you think any of us are willing to rest our livelihoods on making a statement one way or the other? That's the fallacy of most drug testing procedures.... unless you do the testing on site or run the DNA on the sample, then there's no way to ensure a sample belongs to anyone. To this day, I find it curious that WADA refused a DNA test on the sample at Braun's request, but that's just one component of a story that has more holes than Indiana's defensive line.
Quote from: PTM on July 17, 2012, 10:51:19 PM
Since other players have used Brauns loop hole, I would assume the MLB will update their testing policy to WADA standards.
The loophole was closed in April (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120411&content_id=28417120&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb). Not sure if it's WADA standards now, but what Braun was able to argue isn't do-able anymore.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 17, 2012, 10:27:57 AM
ESPN doesn't bother me any more because I only watch it when games are on.
It bothers me in that I used to be able to watch Sportscenter and get a decent summary of the day in sports. Now if I were to watch I would get a half hour summary of the results of maybe 10 games - no matter how many were played that day and always focused on the same "major" teams - repeated all night long.
But you're right - I don't watch it so it doesn't really bother me.
Quote from: TJ on July 18, 2012, 01:38:23 AM
It bothers me in that I used to be able to watch Sportscenter and get a decent summary of the day in sports. Now if I were to watch I would get a half hour summary of the results of maybe 10 games - no matter how many were played that day and always focused on the same "major" teams - repeated all night long.
But you're right - I don't watch it so it doesn't really bother me.
So much of Sportscenter is pointless debates about who's better or what should player/team/coach have done in this situation or what will happen next, etc. Fans want scores and highlights, they don't want a 10-minute breakdown of Bobby V's postgame comments.
BTW, shut up about Braun. He tested positive, word was leaked and many, many news sources reported it.
I remember watching SportsCenter for an hour the day after Novak nailed the game winning 3 from the corner to beat ND in 2006... the only thing ESPN aired was the game score on the bottom line... as I recall, they spent 50 minutes jabbering about the AFC/NFC conference championships - which is understandable if not for the fact that 20 of those 50 minutes were ludicrously spent comparing Matt Hasselback to his brother.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 18, 2012, 09:10:20 AM
So much of Sportscenter is pointless debates about who's better or what should player/team/coach have done in this situation or what will happen next, etc. Fans want scores and highlights, they don't want a 10-minute breakdown of Bobby V's postgame comments.
I think they know more about what their viewer wants than you or I do. They do that to stir debate and keep people around in between scores and highlights.