Blog Rant against ESPN & ACC

[brewcity77]

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.

[The Process]

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.

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.

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.

[Bocephys]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[Hards Alumni]

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?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[The Process]

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?

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.

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

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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

[The Process]

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.

[4everwarriors]

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[GGGG]

http://deadspin.com/5926714/bleacher-report-has-stiffer-penalties-for-plagiarism-than-espn-does

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[Skatastrophy]

ESPN isn't news, it's entertainment. 

[The Process]

ESPN isn't news, it's entertainment. 

+1 billion

[Dreadman24]

Wait, D Wade took/takes steroids?? Lol c'monnnn man

[The Process]

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

[Benny B]

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.

[The Process]

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.

[Bocephys]

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.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[brewcity77]

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.

[The Process]

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.