JDSal45
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 16
Greg Easterbrook's editor at ESPN.com is David Schoenfeld. You can reach him at (860)766-2000 extension 7172.
On Saturday, Gregg Easterbrook wrote the following:
"Also Saturday, Mike Fish reported on ESPN that St. Louis' walk-through was devoted to red zone plays -- all new plays and new formations the Rams had not shown during the season. Going into that Super Bowl, the Rams' "Greatest Show on Turf" was the league's highest-scoring team. In that game, St. Louis was held to a field goal in the first half. The Rams kept getting bogged down, as if New England knew what plays were coming. If the Patriots secretly taped the Rams' walk-through, then stopped the red zone plays the Rams showed in that walk-through, then won that Super Bowl by three points, then logic says New England materially benefited from cheating in the Super Bowl."
He has modified it somewhat since. But the implication is still exactly the same and just as misleading.
However, the facts of the matter are that Easterbrook wrote the Rams "bogged down" when they were in the redzone. Yet the ONLY time they were IN the redzone, they scored a touchdown. The time they were next closest to the redzone, on the 26 yard line, they scored a 26 yard touchdown.
If the Patriots taped the Rams redzone plays, why were they one for one with a touchdown in the redzone? Easterbrook, who has already been reprimanded for his reporting on Spygate, blurs the facts even in his re-write so the reader wouldn't know. Obviously most people don't know the Rams were one for one in the redzone, so he keeps it obscure. And obviously it was pointed out to him too, thus the re-write. But in keeping with his story, he didn't REVEAL such in the interest of balance. Nope, he just kept slinging mud and confusing the reader with cryptic writing. Did they bog down in the redzone? In his initial article he says yes, faced with the facts, he switched to implying it.
Easterbrook talks a lot about "integrity". Yet, he is showing none here. He is basically lying and twisting the facts to suit his agenda. In my opinion, since he has already been reprimanded on this very topic, this is an offense worthy of suspension. To blatantly lie about facts on a major website is appalling. At the very least, it is the worst kind of sloppiness and deserving of discipline.
I would ask everyone who agrees to call his Editor, Mr. Schoenfeld and ask for answers on this point. Be polite. Bring up other issues if you'd like. No anger, swearing or impoliteness. Simply a call for professionalism and answers in addressing this particular columnists tendancy, proven in fact, to lie and twist on this subject. We have hard evidence and we're just asking for answers why he is allowed to get away with it and then hold himself up as a bastion of integrity.
I called Mr. Schoenfeld myself and left a polite voice mail yesterday. So far, he has yet to get back to me. I'd ask others to do the same. This demands accountability.
J D Sal
On Saturday, Gregg Easterbrook wrote the following:
"Also Saturday, Mike Fish reported on ESPN that St. Louis' walk-through was devoted to red zone plays -- all new plays and new formations the Rams had not shown during the season. Going into that Super Bowl, the Rams' "Greatest Show on Turf" was the league's highest-scoring team. In that game, St. Louis was held to a field goal in the first half. The Rams kept getting bogged down, as if New England knew what plays were coming. If the Patriots secretly taped the Rams' walk-through, then stopped the red zone plays the Rams showed in that walk-through, then won that Super Bowl by three points, then logic says New England materially benefited from cheating in the Super Bowl."
He has modified it somewhat since. But the implication is still exactly the same and just as misleading.
However, the facts of the matter are that Easterbrook wrote the Rams "bogged down" when they were in the redzone. Yet the ONLY time they were IN the redzone, they scored a touchdown. The time they were next closest to the redzone, on the 26 yard line, they scored a 26 yard touchdown.
If the Patriots taped the Rams redzone plays, why were they one for one with a touchdown in the redzone? Easterbrook, who has already been reprimanded for his reporting on Spygate, blurs the facts even in his re-write so the reader wouldn't know. Obviously most people don't know the Rams were one for one in the redzone, so he keeps it obscure. And obviously it was pointed out to him too, thus the re-write. But in keeping with his story, he didn't REVEAL such in the interest of balance. Nope, he just kept slinging mud and confusing the reader with cryptic writing. Did they bog down in the redzone? In his initial article he says yes, faced with the facts, he switched to implying it.
Easterbrook talks a lot about "integrity". Yet, he is showing none here. He is basically lying and twisting the facts to suit his agenda. In my opinion, since he has already been reprimanded on this very topic, this is an offense worthy of suspension. To blatantly lie about facts on a major website is appalling. At the very least, it is the worst kind of sloppiness and deserving of discipline.
I would ask everyone who agrees to call his Editor, Mr. Schoenfeld and ask for answers on this point. Be polite. Bring up other issues if you'd like. No anger, swearing or impoliteness. Simply a call for professionalism and answers in addressing this particular columnists tendancy, proven in fact, to lie and twist on this subject. We have hard evidence and we're just asking for answers why he is allowed to get away with it and then hold himself up as a bastion of integrity.
I called Mr. Schoenfeld myself and left a polite voice mail yesterday. So far, he has yet to get back to me. I'd ask others to do the same. This demands accountability.
J D Sal
Last edited:
