ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
In conjunction with our stream of stories regarding the decision of ESPN not to mention the report regarding Brett Favre’s alleged Xs and Os session with Lions coaches, we’ve obtained the following statement from ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz.
“Like all reports that come in, we gave careful consideration to this one,” Krulewitz said. “We couldn’t confirm it. It’s obviously a judgment call. Given the nature of the story, we needed to bring a lot of sensitivity to our reporting and do what we felt was the most responsible thing.”
Krulewitz, who says that ESPN will continue to monitor the situation, explained that the decision not to acknowledge the report “had nothing to do with” FOX, which originally reported the story.
“We consistently give credit to other news organizations,” Krulewitz said.
Frankly, we know more than a few journalists who would dispute that point.
Back to the crux of the story, we’re having trouble understanding the difference between the Favre story and the Boston Herald item regarding allegations that the Patriots had videotaped the Rams’ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. ESPN couldn’t confirm the Walsh story. ESPN presumably brought “a lot of sensitivity” to the reporting. And ESPN presumably did what ESPN felt was the most responsible thing.
So why did they acknowledge the Walsh story and not the Favre story?
In Favre’s case, the allegations relate to arguably petty conduct that was neither illegal nor a violation of the rules. As to Spygate II, the claims against the Patriots struck to the heart of the overall credibility of an entire NFL franchise, and undermined all of its accomplishments during this decade. The mere existence of the story created a significant distraction for key members of the organization only one day before Super Bowl XLII.
Applying the standard that ESPN has employed regarding Favre, ESPN should have at least refrained from commenting on the Walsh story until the day after the Super Bowl.
But ESPN didn’t. And our next e-mail to Krulewitz will ask him, politely yet directly, to help us understand the difference between these two situations.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
We going to take it one game at a time
Last edited by pats1; 10-21-2008 at 07:30 PM..
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Posted by Mike Florio on October 21, 2008, 7:54 p.m.
In conjunction with our stream of stories regarding the decision of ESPN not to mention the report regarding Brett Favre’s alleged Xs and Os session with Lions coaches, we’ve obtained the following statement from ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz.
“Like all reports that come in, we gave careful consideration to this one,” Krulewitz said. “We couldn’t confirm it. It’s obviously a judgment call. Given the nature of the story, we needed to bring a lot of sensitivity to our reporting and do what we felt was the most responsible thing.”
Krulewitz, who says that ESPN will continue to monitor the situation, explained that the decision not to acknowledge the report “had nothing to do with” FOX, which originally reported the story.
“We consistently give credit to other news organizations,” Krulewitz said.
Frankly, we know more than a few journalists who would dispute that point.
Back to the crux of the story, we’re having trouble understanding the difference between the Favre story and the Boston Herald item regarding allegations that the Patriots had videotaped the Rams’ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. ESPN couldn’t confirm the Walsh story. ESPN presumably brought “a lot of sensitivity” to the reporting. And ESPN presumably did what ESPN felt was the most responsible thing.
So why did they acknowledge the Walsh story and not the Favre story?
In Favre’s case, the allegations relate to arguably petty conduct that was neither illegal nor a violation of the rules. As to Spygate II, the claims against the Patriots struck to the heart of the overall credibility of an entire NFL franchise, and undermined all of its accomplishments during this decade. The mere existence of the story created a significant distraction for key members of the organization only one day before Super Bowl XLII.
Applying the standard that ESPN has employed regarding Favre, ESPN should have at least refrained from commenting on the Walsh story until the day after the Super Bowl.
But ESPN didn’t. And our next e-mail to Krulewitz will ask him, politely yet directly, to help us understand the difference between these two situations.
soon as i saw the title...i laughed....LOL....ohh ESPN
im gonna love teh day they go out of business
__________________
Last time I lived in New England the Pats became a Dynasty
Posted by Mike Florio on October 21, 2008, 7:54 p.m.
In conjunction with our stream of stories regarding the decision of ESPN not to mention the report regarding Brett Favre’s alleged Xs and Os session with Lions coaches, we’ve obtained the following statement from ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz.
“Like all reports that come in, we gave careful consideration to this one,” Krulewitz said. “We couldn’t confirm it. It’s obviously a judgment call. Given the nature of the story, we needed to bring a lot of sensitivity to our reporting and do what we felt was the most responsible thing.”
Krulewitz, who says that ESPN will continue to monitor the situation, explained that the decision not to acknowledge the report “had nothing to do with” FOX, which originally reported the story.
“We consistently give credit to other news organizations,” Krulewitz said.
Frankly, we know more than a few journalists who would dispute that point.
Back to the crux of the story, we’re having trouble understanding the difference between the Favre story and the Boston Herald item regarding allegations that the Patriots had videotaped the Rams’ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. ESPN couldn’t confirm the Walsh story. ESPN presumably brought “a lot of sensitivity” to the reporting. And ESPN presumably did what ESPN felt was the most responsible thing.
So why did they acknowledge the Walsh story and not the Favre story?
In Favre’s case, the allegations relate to arguably petty conduct that was neither illegal nor a violation of the rules. As to Spygate II, the claims against the Patriots struck to the heart of the overall credibility of an entire NFL franchise, and undermined all of its accomplishments during this decade. The mere existence of the story created a significant distraction for key members of the organization only one day before Super Bowl XLII.
Applying the standard that ESPN has employed regarding Favre, ESPN should have at least refrained from commenting on the Walsh story until the day after the Super Bowl.
But ESPN didn’t. And our next e-mail to Krulewitz will ask him, politely yet directly, to help us understand the difference between these two situations.
Are you kidding me? ESPN is by far the most dominant force on TV with males of all demo's. Between the x games and the sports they will only grow.
Only people in NE hate ESPN, but you still tune in. I will bet you 1 trillion bucks ESPN never "goes out of business".
One hand I agree re: ESPN's domination; I have the utmost respect for them as a business despite how much I despise them for their content, policies, and lack of responsibility in shaping public opinion.
On the other side, many people despise ESPN, if for no other reason that those fans pay far more attention to critical remarks of their favorite teams than they do when analysts say something favorable. For example, while all the Pats fans last year were hating ESPN for the way they handled spygate, fans of other teams were convinced ESPN loved the Pats for their stories about the team being undefeated and haing a chance to go undefeated. Fans in every area are convinced ESPN is biased against their favorite team, and hate them based on that belief.
Regarding the "never" comment, I'm not so sure. On one hand ESPN's management has been adept enough to embrace technology and now owns not only sports television's, but also sport internet's most popular location. On the other hand, I can think of other companies that were 'never' going to not be dominant, or at least significant, such as GM, Ford, Sears, US Steel, or the railroad industry; or to be more recent and market specific, look at the IT sector and companies like Novell, Hayes, 3Com and AOL. Would you have thought a year ago Lehman Brothers would be bankrupt? To bet "a trillion dollars" that espn would 'never go out of business' is rather short-sighted.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ESPN's refusal to report on Favre/Lions vs. Walsh story
Linear Mode
