ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate [June Update] - New England Patriots Forums

***Rob0729*** · 05-24-2008, 10:56 AM

I sent an e-mail to Le Anne Schreiber about Gregg Easterbrook's obvious hypocrisy in his latest column. She responded back to me last night. Here is her short and sweet response:

Quote:

I will be looking at ESPN's coverage of Spygate in my next column, when presumably the latest round of news and opinion on Walsh/Goodell/Specter/Belichek will have run its course.
Le Anne Schreiber

***maverick4*** · 05-24-2008, 10:57 AM

I hope she rips into everyone at ESPN for what they've done since the beginning.

***blackglass3*** · 05-24-2008, 11:00 AM

I'm sorry, but what is an Ombudsman? And if she works for ESPN, why would she be objective?

nummit · 05-24-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackglass3

I'm sorry, but what is an Ombudsman? And if she works for ESPN, why would she be objective?

Thank you....

***Rob0729*** · 05-24-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackglass3

I'm sorry, but what is an Ombudsman? And if she works for ESPN, why would she be objective?

An Ombudsman is an independent representative of the people. Her job is to police ESPN's coverage and point out lies, biased journalism, misinformation, etc. She is not beholding to ESPN and has blasted them on numerous occassions. She has called out Easterbrook as a Belichick hater and questioned his involvement in the original Mike Fish article on Matt Walsh.

Here is what she wrote February 10th about the Matt Walsh information:

Quote:

Spygate II

On the Friday before Super Bowl XLII, many people were astounded, as I was, when the dormant Spygate scandal was revived on ESPN.com with a story about Matt Walsh, a former Patriots' video assistant who "hinted" that he might or might not have evidence that he might or might not divulge about whether or not the Patriots engaged in more spying than was previously known. Why would ESPN.com run a story so potentially damaging to the Patriots on the basis of murky allegations from a source who, as one reader/journalist put it, "should give anyone in our business a good case of the squirms"?

The timing also made several readers suspicious, especially those who noted that the story, written by investigative reporter Mike Fish, listed columnist Gregg Easterbrook, notorious critic of Patriots' coach Bill Belichick, as a contributor. Was ESPN seeding the clouds to rain on the Patriots' widely forecasted Super Bowl parade?

I called ESPN.com's editor-in-chief Rob King with these questions, and he explained, "ESPN did not choose the timing of that story. The New York Times and Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter did."

That same Friday, the New York Times broke the news that Sen. Specter, a longtime Philadelphia Eagles fan, wanted the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's handling of spying charges against the Patriots. The Times story included quotes from Walsh, similar to those he had given to ESPN.com's Fish, who had been talking to Walsh for several weeks.

"We were not ready to run a story using Matt Walsh's comments," King said, "but once the New York Times identified him as a potential witness in Congressional hearings, we thought we should contribute what we knew about him."

That was a judgment call, and I think a reasonable one. The risk, given ESPN's power to direct the national sports conversation, is that it may have helped give a huge amplified megaphone to an unreliable source.

And what was Easterbrook's role?

"He got an anonymous tip about Walsh back in September, which he passed on to us after he began talking to him," King said. "We assigned Mike Fish to report out the story, and eventually that led to Mike's going to Hawaii, where Walsh lives, to do an interview."

Easterbrook may have taken some satisfaction in rain falling on the Patriots' parade, but he was not the rainmaker on Super Bowl weekend. Blame for that goes to Specter and the New York Giants.

We will learn much more about Walsh's credibility in the coming weeks. In the meantime, I share this reader's view: "I hope, for ESPN's sake, that there is some meat behind the sizzle on this story. Otherwise, I would be very disappointed at the sensationalistic nature of this sequence of events."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...nne&id=3240223

***blackglass3*** · 05-24-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

An Ombudsman is an independent representative of the people. Her job is to police ESPN's coverage and point out lies, biased journalism, misinformation, etc. She is not beholding to ESPN and has blasted them on numerous occassions. She has called out Easterbrook as a Belichick hater and questioned his involvement in the original Mike Fish article on Matt Walsh.

Here is what she wrote February 10th about the Matt Walsh information:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...nne&id=3240223

Thanks for explaining. I never heard that term before.

But, why is she waiting until 2 or 3 weeks later to investigate this? Shouldn't the minute Goodell essentially said "Not Guilty" she have been blasting Mike Fish and Hitler Youth Easterbrook?

upstater1 · 05-24-2008, 11:11 AM

Some ombudsman are just as biased as the reporters. The NY Times and Wash Post have not covered themselves in glory recently.

But Schrieber is also an academic as well, and she seems like a good one.

Read her opening letter here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...nne&id=2826351

***Rob0729*** · 05-24-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackglass3

Thanks for explaining. I never heard that term before.

But, why is she waiting until 2 or 3 weeks later to investigate this? Shouldn't the minute Goodell essentially said "Not Guilty" she have been blasting Mike Fish and Hitler Youth Easterbrook?

Schreiber usually writes a monthly column. Even when she publishes more than one column in a month, she always publishes them on the same day or within a day or two of each other. She published her last column May 15th which was only days after Walsh speaking.

***Rob0729*** · 05-24-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstater1

Some ombudsman are just as biased as the reporters. The NY Times and Wash Post have not covered themselves in glory recently.

But Schrieber is also an academic as well, and she seems like a good one.

Read her opening letter here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...nne&id=2826351

I agree that ombudsman can be just as biased as reporters. Biases are part of human nature. When they are, it is a shame. But Schreiber has seemed to be pretty much a straight shooter. She seems to believe in some integrity in journalism.

PatsFan24 · 05-24-2008, 05:00 PM

it is no longer a total lack or respect i have for espn and everyone that works there...i have had that for years....now it is a major psychotic f------ hatred