Interesting stuff re: Matt Walsh story origins @ ESPN [merged]

[GoWhalers]

From the ESPN ombudsman column (scroll all the way to the bottom):

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&id=3240223


I'm scratching my head a little on this -- how does someone like Easterbrook, an opinion column writer, become an investigative journalist? Isn't it readily obvious that any "tips" garnered through an opinion column writer would have a non-objective slant?

 

[#12]

Re: Interesting stuff re: Matt Walsh story origins @ ESPN

i hate espn and after reading that i hate them even more (if thats possible)

 

[DefenseRules]

Re: Interesting stuff re: Matt Walsh story origins @ ESPN

And yet some of you continue to visit their website, tune into their channel and link their articles to our messageboard. I have no use for them. They are garbage just like the Herald.

 

[Pats726]

Re: Interesting stuff re: Matt Walsh story origins @ ESPN

From the ESPN ombudsman column (scroll all the way to the bottom):

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&id=3240223


I'm scratching my head a little on this -- how does someone like Easterbrook, an opinion column writer, become an investigative journalist? Isn't it readily obvious that any "tips" garnered through an opinion column writer would have a non-objective slant?

Intyeresting..by the way does she have an e-mail addy?? I have looked for it and..not there..and that is for ESPN writing as opposed to the TV..correct?? Is there one for television and all they have said there?? I just wonder as there have been many things said which were quite unfair...an understatement.

 

[PAPatsjunkie]

Re: Interesting stuff re: Matt Walsh story origins @ ESPN

Intyeresting..by the way does she have an e-mail addy?? I have looked for it and..not there..and that is for ESPN writing as opposed to the TV..correct?? Is there one for television and all they have said there?? I just wonder as there have been many things said which were quite unfair...an understatement.

There is an email button on the right side of her article, I sent her a little note about this. She did include on-air "analysts" comments as well in this article.

 

[allworldrussfrancis]

Re: Interesting stuff re: Matt Walsh story origins @ ESPN

From the ESPN ombudsman column (scroll all the way to the bottom):

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&id=3240223


I'm scratching my head a little on this -- how does someone like Easterbrook, an opinion column writer, become an investigative journalist? Isn't it readily obvious that any "tips" garnered through an opinion column writer would have a non-objective slant?

I actually thought the ombudsman piece was interesting and seemed to be fair. Although if you put the pieces together, they are basically saying that it was their story (Fish was speaking with Walsh for weeks) but they only published it after the NY Times did their story including comments from Spectre indicating there could be a congressional hearing. Its not too hard to connect the dots here - ESPN writer (when they wouldn't publish his story) gives scoop to contact at the Times who is aware of Spectre's interest and voila we have a story solely because it comes from the mouth of Spectre.

 

[BradyisGod]

ESPN Ombudsman

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&id=3240223

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."




----------

Didn't see this posted.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

Re: Interesting stuff re: Matt Walsh story origins @ ESPN

i hate espn and after reading that i hate them even more (if thats possible)

i'm still wondering when somebody, anybody, is going to report what michael holley said on eei the other day. THERE IS NO TAPE. when schill's doctor comes on eei and says his opinion differs from the sox, or any other negative issues concerning boston teams it's reported within hours on espn. holley said there is no tape a week ago and still nothing. this is one of many reasons why i can't stand espn. they only report what they want to report. not all the facts and always has a ny slant. then joe six pack sits back, soaks it up and quotes them like the bible.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Re: Interesting stuff re: Matt Walsh story origins @ ESPN

i'm still wondering when somebody, anybody, is going to report what michael holley said on eei the other day. THERE IS NO TAPE. when schill's doctor comes on eei and says his opinion differs from the sox, or any other negative issues concerning boston teams it's reported within hours on espn. holley said there is no tape a week ago and still nothing. this is one of many reasons why i can't stand espn. they only report what they want to report. not all the facts and always has a ny slant. then joe six pack sits back, soaks it up and quotes them like the bible.

If this entire story proves to be pure rumor and Alan Specter can be proven to have purposefully brought his attack upon the NFL on SB weekend all to hinder the Patriots chance of winning the SB, somebody should pay...and pay big!

I just wonder if Robert Kraft has some lawyers doing some due dilegence on this very topic. It all just seems too coincidental and bizarr. It would be beyond human comprehension that anyone would every plan & carry out such a plot.

The Conspiracy Theory against the New England Patriots? Now wouldn't THIS be a great story?

 

[NYCPatsFan]

...


I'm scratching my head a little on this -- how does someone like Easterbrook, an opinion column writer, become an investigative journalist? Isn't it readily obvious that any "tips" garnered through an opinion column writer would have a non-objective slant?

Not sure how/why you think Easterbunny became an investigative journalist. Doesn't she say that he was one of the contributors?

from that article...."that the story, written by investigative reporter Mike Fish, listed columnist Gregg Easterbrook, notorious critic of Patriots' coach Bill Belichick, as a contributor"

 

[Rob0729]

In fairness to ESPN, I always thought that they released this story because the NY Times brought up Walsh the day before. They had to make the decision to run with what they had or let someone else scoop them.

But I don't excuse them for running a very damaging piece based on innuendo and no research to make sure that Walsh really had anything. That article deserved to be on Mike Florio's site, not on ESPN.com. No professional journalistic source should ever run a piece quoting someone who claims to have damaging information on a person, company, or team; but refuses to provide what it is or proof that that what he/she is saying is true or the journalist being able to get independent varification from at least two other sources. That is the first rule of journalism.

 

[allworldrussfrancis]

Re: Interesting stuff re: Matt Walsh story origins @ ESPN

If this entire story proves to be pure rumor and Alan Specter can be proven to have purposefully brought his attack upon the NFL on SB weekend all to hinder the Patriots chance of winning the SB, somebody should pay...and pay big!

I just wonder if Robert Kraft has some lawyers doing some due dilegence on this very topic. It all just seems too coincidental and bizarr. It would be beyond human comprehension that anyone would every plan & carry out such a plot.

The Conspiracy Theory against the New England Patriots? Now wouldn't THIS be a great story?

I think they will end up with nothing other than what was already known. No Rams tape, no smoking gun. My guess is that even if Walsh talks, all he will say is that he was doing the same thing Estrella did - videotaping defensive signals from the sidelines, which I am not sure was even against NFL rules at the time. But neither Sepctre, ESPN or the NYT will fall on the sword, instead they will make a big deal of the fact that "the Patriots have been taping signals for years, etc, etc."

 

[JoeSixPat]

Here's a sad commentary for ESPN. As an avid Patriots and overall sports fan, I've read the OMBUDSMAN'S articles this football season more often than I've read the work of any of their so-called reporters.

 

[WTE]

I saw this little tidbit about Matt Walsh in the comments section at barstoolsports.com:

I have known Matt Walsh personally - he married someone that I was friends with....no longer friends with her partly because once she met Matt she became an even bigger liar than she was before - his influence. He is abusive to his wife if that is any indication of the type of person he is Matt is one of the worst people I have ever met in my life - he doesnt know what truth is and he always looks out for himself. When he was fired from the Patriots he told all of us he quit. I always knew it was a lie because he was collecting unemployment...so the patriots must not have given him any kind of package when the fired him. Right before he got married he was emailing some stripper about how he wants to rub up against her and he was so stupid that he copied everyone in his address book including his soon to be wifes family and friends. He said that his email account was stolen by someone and that is who emailed the stripper. Hopefully all his lies will catch up with him this time

— Kellyt, Feb 07 2008, 7:27 pm

http://120930-app1.barstoolsports.com/randomthoughts/2008/02/02/who_would_you_rather_stab/

 

[GoWhalers]

Not sure how/why you think Easterbunny became an investigative journalist. Doesn't she say that he was one of the contributors?

from that article...."that the story, written by investigative reporter Mike Fish, listed columnist Gregg Easterbrook, notorious critic of Patriots' coach Bill Belichick, as a contributor"

Here's the quote from the article that raised my eyebrow:

"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."


So Easterbrook gets an "anonymous tip" and passes it on? My expectation is that tips, etc. should be run through a real journalist -- whose job it is to get to just the facts and weed out mistruths -- not an op-ed writer.

Think about it...would you expect groundbreaking investigations to come from the likes of Lou Dobbs, Ann Coulter, Michael Wilbon, Jim Rome, Charles Krauthammer, etc? Of course not, their jobs are to provide opinions on the reported news.

You give a journalist a tip if you want to break a true story out, because they're going to check it before they put their reputation on the line. You give an op-ed writer a tip if you want to get out a rumor or lie, because the op-ed writers aren't beholden to the truth.

 

[#12]

Re: Interesting stuff re: Matt Walsh story origins @ ESPN

i'm still wondering when somebody, anybody, is going to report what michael holley said on eei the other day. THERE IS NO TAPE. when schill's doctor comes on eei and says his opinion differs from the sox, or any other negative issues concerning boston teams it's reported within hours on espn. holley said there is no tape a week ago and still nothing. this is one of many reasons why i can't stand espn. they only report what they want to report. not all the facts and always has a ny slant. then joe six pack sits back, soaks it up and quotes them like the bible.

Exactly! The comment Brady made on Weei concerning "killing teams" was overplayed to no end on sportscenter, so why hasn't the other side in this issue been taken into consideration? From someone who lives outside of the NE area, I can tell you that it's been hard having espn as my only source of Patriots media. Thankfully with the internet (and this new national obsession with the Pats) I refuse to really deal with them anymore, but you're so right about the negative slants they spin on boston teams. And I'm not just talking about the weekly negative story on the Pats...I feel like they paint Boston to have this inferiority complex to NY teams, which is beyond stupid seeing as NE teams have been more successful as of recent. And why the hell does anyone truly care bout the Knicks? THEY SUCK. I understand they are a big market team but they aren't doing **** this year, and if you look at it that way, the bulls suck and are a big market team but dont get any mention. I remember espn's endless coverage of curses with the Sox, but I always thought the Cubs "curse" was worse seeing as they haven't won in over a century (and maybe also bc im a fan of them), yet they don't so much dwell on it (thankfully) just bring it up for fodder from time to time. They paint Boston to be a town full of negative ppl, and their bias is so obvious it's disgusting. I'm from the midwest and im sick of it and all the average joes reciting what was said on espn as evidence to their already weak arguments and opinions...

So once again I say f*ck espn, with how much they make you'd think they'd put out a better product.

**END RANT**

 

[#12]

Here's the quote from the article that raised my eyebrow:

"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."


So Easterbrook gets an "anonymous tip" and passes it on? My expectation is that tips, etc. should be run through a real journalist -- whose job it is to get to just the facts and weed out mistruths -- not an op-ed writer.

Think about it...would you expect groundbreaking investigations to come from the likes of Lou Dobbs, Ann Coulter, Michael Wilbon, Jim Rome, Charles Krauthammer, etc? Of course not, their jobs are to provide opinions on the reported news.

You give a journalist a tip if you want to break a true story out, because they're going to check it before they put their reputation on the line. You give an op-ed writer a tip if you want to get out a rumor or lie, because the op-ed writers aren't beholden to the truth.

Good point...which makes this whole thing that much more ridiculous/infuriating

 

[bpeter17]

So Easterbrook gets an "anonymous tip" and passes it on? My expectation is that tips, etc. should be run through a real journalist -- whose job it is to get to just the facts and weed out mistruths -- not an op-ed writer.

Think about it...would you expect groundbreaking investigations to come from the likes of Lou Dobbs, Ann Coulter, Michael Wilbon, Jim Rome, Charles Krauthammer, etc? Of course not, their jobs are to provide opinions on the reported news.

You give a journalist a tip if you want to break a true story out, because they're going to check it before they put their reputation on the line. You give an op-ed writer a tip if you want to get out a rumor or lie, because the op-ed writers aren't beholden to the truth.

you have to be joking me.

First of all, they gave the F'ing tip to a reporter .

As far as routing it through the proper channels - people with "tips" don't sit around and research the person they should give the "tip" to. Tips come through friends and contacts in the industry. You don't think Curly Haired Boyfriend gets any "tips"? Bob Ryan doesn't get "tips"? You want "tips" routed through the right channels? Get real.

I saw this little tidbit about Matt Walsh in the comments section at barstoolsports.com:

so we think matt walsh is a dirty liar but we'll believe something someone wrote on a message board?

 

[#12]

you have to be joking me.

First of all, they gave the F'ing tip to a reporter .

As far as routing it through the proper channels - people with "tips" don't sit around and research the person they should give the "tip" to. Tips come through friends and contacts in the industry. You don't think Curly Haired Boyfriend gets any "tips"? Bob Ryan doesn't get "tips"? You want "tips" routed through the right channels? Get real.


so we think matt walsh is a dirty liar but we'll believe something someone wrote on a message board?

Easterbrook is no more than a opinion columnist...reporter is a BIG STRETCH. He has consistently written negative Patriot articles with misconstrued or made up facts and we're supposed to believe his "tip" is credible? And was it just a coincidence that the person who received the "tip" has been consistently portraying the Pats as "evil"? In that case I could just make up a lie and pass it on as a "tip" as long as I knew the right ppl with the right agendas. Do you think they should then publish an article stating it as if it is a fact and coming to foregone conclusions when everything else is pointing to it being false? ESPECIALLY when you think of the timing of it all.

 

[GoWhalers]

you have to be joking me.

First of all, they gave the F'ing tip to a reporter .

As far as routing it through the proper channels - people with "tips" don't sit around and research the person they should give the "tip" to. Tips come through friends and contacts in the industry. You don't think Curly Haired Boyfriend gets any "tips"? Bob Ryan doesn't get "tips"? You want "tips" routed through the right channels? Get real.

Not sure who Curly Haired Boyfriend is, but anyways...

According to the article, it was an anonymous tip to Easterbrook, who forwards it onto ESPN, who assigns a reporter to investigate. You've got to admit that sounds pretty bogus, no? I'm imagining the conversation went something like this:

Easterbrook: Hey guys, I'm hearing through a source that the Patriots videotaped a lot more than was previously believed.

ESPN: Who's the source?

Easterbrook: I don't know, he's anonymous. But I think there's something there.

ESPN: OK, we'll get a reporter right on it.


<<yeah right >>

Opinion columnists aren't real journalists. How many "tips" a day do you think Ron Borges gets about how Belichick is an evil coach, or Skip Bayless gets about Clemens using steroids, etc.? They are just conduits for people with agendas.