- May 9, 2009
- 1,386
- 10
the BIB BEN thing is nothing more than covering for abc and the reality show ... it has nothing to do with him being white ... if it was shaq or lebron withthe cas eit would be the same status quo ...
ESPN needs to be held accountable for things
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by CP1708,
- Start date
- Feb 6, 2007
- 76,449
- 36,454
^
True, there are single sport options, but we're talkin about an all sport encompassing coporation that provides highlights, stories, interviews for allsports, not just the one sport ran channel.
People are lazy, it's easier to watch one channel and get news on all your favorite teams then to flip from channel to channel lookin for info. But ifESPN is covering stuff up, or blowing certain stories out of proportion, then it gets tired. We need someone to step forward without an agenda.
True, there are single sport options, but we're talkin about an all sport encompassing coporation that provides highlights, stories, interviews for allsports, not just the one sport ran channel.
People are lazy, it's easier to watch one channel and get news on all your favorite teams then to flip from channel to channel lookin for info. But ifESPN is covering stuff up, or blowing certain stories out of proportion, then it gets tired. We need someone to step forward without an agenda.
- Oct 30, 2004
- 4,751
- 10
ESPN is full of $#$%
If it was Mcnabb or Vince Young, I can guarantee they would be reporting it.
YES IM PULLING THE RACE CARD.
If it was Mcnabb or Vince Young, I can guarantee they would be reporting it.
YES IM PULLING THE RACE CARD.
- Nov 9, 2007
- 6,376
- 433
Wheres the problem here?
Ben got accused of a crime, and people still know about it. It was reported, just not by ESPN.
You know damn well that if ESPN had covered this issue, the SAME people would be outraged at them covering a story with accusations and no convictions.
BTW, ESPN isnt helping to kill the newspaper industry. That's absurd.
Ben got accused of a crime, and people still know about it. It was reported, just not by ESPN.
You know damn well that if ESPN had covered this issue, the SAME people would be outraged at them covering a story with accusations and no convictions.
BTW, ESPN isnt helping to kill the newspaper industry. That's absurd.
- Jul 2, 2009
- 596
- 10
I just realized why you support the (random array of) teams that you do, because you deplore your home state of oregon.
And that distaste toward your home state was what motivated you to choose teams from various parts of the country that you wish you could live in.
And that distaste toward your home state was what motivated you to choose teams from various parts of the country that you wish you could live in.
- Jun 24, 2002
- 9,655
- 123
I think with Shannon Brown though there was a criminal investigation. Not sure though. Ben's, there is none.
- Feb 6, 2007
- 76,449
- 36,454
Think I was born here dude? Born and raised in Cali for 16 years before I moved here. Pretty sure I was a fan of my teams since I was like 6 or 7 dude.
You were right about the deplore Oregon though.
- Mar 29, 2008
- 726
- 10
What's the story on Big Ben?
- Dec 17, 2003
- 9,530
- 91
do be doo
Banned
- Mar 13, 2009
- 6,589
- 547
Originally Posted by CP1708
Think I was born here dude? Born and raised in Cali for 16 years before I moved here. Pretty sure I was a fan of my teams since I was like 6 or 7 dude.
You were right about the deplore Oregon though.
but ESPN
DeadsetAce
Supporter
- May 31, 2004
- 112,012
- 58,834
for real.
- Jul 2, 2009
- 596
- 10
Originally Posted by CP1708
Born and raised in Cali for 16 years before I moved here.
DeadsetAce
Supporter
- May 31, 2004
- 112,012
- 58,834
CP you live in oregon?
i just scored tickets for the cal @ ducks game on 9/26. lemme know what good places to eat there in portland and eugene.
i just scored tickets for the cal @ ducks game on 9/26. lemme know what good places to eat there in portland and eugene.
- Oct 18, 2002
- 41
- 10
Wow @ watching "1st take..." right now and Jay damn near didn't let Scoop get a word in for the segment; I thought he was a scheduled guest..
and whats with this SportsNation show? I coulda sworn this was the timeslot for PTI and ATH like last week!?
and whats with this SportsNation show? I coulda sworn this was the timeslot for PTI and ATH like last week!?
DeadsetAce
Supporter
- May 31, 2004
- 112,012
- 58,834
Originally Posted by CP1708
Sell your tickets, don't come here, it sucks.
I think we have a mcdonalds, but I have to check on that.
- Feb 6, 2007
- 76,449
- 36,454
Sell your tickets, don't come here, it sucks.
I think we have a mcdonalds, but I have to check on that.
- Feb 6, 2007
- 76,449
- 36,454
Originally Posted by 92
Originally Posted by CP1708
Born and raised in Cali for 16 years before I moved here.That explains EVERYTHING
I'm not gettin it, can you draw me a picture or something here? I don't know what you're saying/asking/accusing/selling, whatever.
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,287
- 19,667
Ace - I live in Eugene, and will be at all the Ducks home games this season. Hit me up with a PM.
- Feb 6, 2007
- 76,449
- 36,454
Originally Posted by DeadsetAce
Originally Posted by CP1708
Sell your tickets, don't come here, it sucks.
I think we have a mcdonalds, but I have to check on that.
For real though, Chester is the one that would know Eugene, I haven't been there in years.
Portland, eh, not really know the good spots there either. We have like Applebee's.
Old country Kitchen in Beaverton is alright. Hooter is right there too, next to Starz. (strip clubs galore 'round here)
The Ram in Salem is good, but other then that, I don't know all that many great places to eat. I usually just go to little tiny joints in the surroundingareas, nothing real special. Jon or Chester probably know much better then I do.
- Jul 15, 2003
- 3,108
- 41
- Nov 18, 2007
- 28,291
- 9,566
Originally Posted by CP1708
Originally Posted by DeadsetAce
Originally Posted by CP1708
Sell your tickets, don't come here, it sucks.
I think we have a mcdonalds, but I have to check on that.
For real though, Chester is the one that would know Eugene, I haven't been there in years.
Portland, eh, not really know the good spots there either. We have like Applebee's.Ruth's Chris, or Crisp, or whatever the name is.
Old country Kitchen in Beaverton is alright. Hooter is right there too, next to Starz. (strip clubs galore 'round here)
The Ram in Salem is good, but other then that, I don't know all that many great places to eat. I usually just go to little tiny joints in the surrounding areas, nothing real special. Jon or Chester probably know much better then I do.
Clearly you dont know about it.....you need to. Incredible steak house.
- Jul 24, 2007
- 5,485
- 14
It's simple. Stop watching ESPN.
I don't watch ESPN anymore. It's all filth anyways. It's cheesy and corny beyond belief.
Soon enough ESPN will go the way of MTV. They'll still have their core of buffoon fans but most will just ignore the network.
I don't watch ESPN anymore. It's all filth anyways. It's cheesy and corny beyond belief.
Soon enough ESPN will go the way of MTV. They'll still have their core of buffoon fans but most will just ignore the network.
- Nov 11, 2007
- 18,274
- 26,915
Still not a peep from ESPN on Ben Roethlisberger's legal troubles-and once again no Blog Buzz on SportsCenter-so as long as Big Ben keeps his mouth shut they're standing behind their decision to not stand behind this story.
Why is that again? Just to be clear, here's a more official statement that ESPN gave to Pro Football Talk:
"At this point, we are not reporting the allegations against Ben Roethlisberger because no criminal complaint has been filed. As far as we know, this is a civil lawsuit that Roethlisberger has yet to address publicly."
The implication is that if there's no criminal action and the athlete himself (or herself) has not publicly commented on it, then ESPN considers it a private matter and not "news." Several readers have already called them on this point, mentioning the Shannon Brown case, the Tony Zendejas case (filed Monday), or the O.J. case, among others. However, in all those instances, ESPN could claim that there was a criminal complaint at least tangentially related to the story. But in all those instances, the story itself was about the civil case. They have also covered many, many purely civil cases like the NFL's current anti-trust fracas, the mess regarding the Dallas Cowboys practice bubble, and-the most glaring of all-the Roberto Alomar "AIDS rumors." It seems pretty clear that they're being selective with their enforcement.
It's also extremely disingenuous to say that Roethlisberger has yet to address the case publicly when an official statement from his lawyer-who is presumably authorized to speak on his behalf-was the very first thing we read about the case. ESPN routinely considers lawyers, agents, and even family members to be valid spokespeople and this is no different.
Athletes, like other celebrities or wealthy individuals, face frivolous lawsuits all the time. So at first glance, a prohibition on covering every complaint that comes down the road would seem reasonable. It doesn't take much, however, for a lawsuit like this to rise above a personal squabble into the realm of real news. Ben Roethlisberger is a national celebrity and a civil lawsuit is a matter of public record. No news organization anywhere would ignore a legitimate story based on the standard ESPN has set for themselves.
Dan Le Batard defended ESPN by saying that it's not being reported by "credible" outlets, which is clearly nonsense. Both of Pittsburgh's major newspapers have covered it. The Associated Press, the wire service that ESPN makes frequent use of, is covering it. Even ABC News, ESPN's parent company, has mentioned it. Roger Goodell, the Commissioner of the damn NFL, has addressed it. If it wasn't a news story before, it is now. There is no journalistic or ethical excuse for ESPN to remain quiet.
So why aren't they covering it? Some have suggested that ESPN is deliberately protecting Roethlisberger to preserve their access-access that could benefit both parties financially. Even if they aren't doing it intentionally, their statement sends a clear signal that as long he personally keeps his mouth shut, this case will never reach the airwaves of the biggest sports network in the world.
Perhaps they know what unleashing the ESPN newshounds would mean-Rachel Nichols doing standups in Lake Tahoe, Ed Werder prowling the streets of Pittsburgh, Chris Mortensen on the phones, Roger Cossack's floating head, Outside The Lines, Sports Reporters, thousands of radio jockeys flooding airwaves-and they aren't prepared to do that yet. It's too bad that not covering a circus just because it's a circus is not an option.
Sooner or later, of course, they won't have any choice. Training camps open soon. What if a reporter asks Ben about it and he says, "No comment." Is that addressing the situation? What if there's a settlement? What if there's no settlement? Would they refuse to cover a civil trial?
ESPN's stance is ultimately untenable and they know it. Caution may have been in order when the story first broke, but we are way past the point when this became newsworthy. They are the only major media outlet not covering it and every minute that goes by where they don't address the issue makes them look increasingly foolish and petty. When they do start reporting on this case, perhaps they can begin by explaining their own silence.
DeadsetAce
Supporter
- May 31, 2004
- 112,012
- 58,834
appreciate it, chester and CP
it is kind of interesting they havent mentioned it. i will say that. but im far from boycotting ESPN
it is kind of interesting they havent mentioned it. i will say that. but im far from boycotting ESPN
- Jul 2, 2009
- 596
- 10
Originally Posted by DeadsetAce
appreciate it, chester and CP
it is kind of interesting they havent mentioned it. i will say that. but im far from boycotting ESPN
Red Sox - Patriots
If i was you I wouldn't boycott espn either
ya lucky ____.
