PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate [June Update]


Status
Not open for further replies.

Rob0729

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
49,611
Reaction score
28,307
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:

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
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

I hope she rips into everyone at ESPN for what they've done since the beginning.
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

I'm sorry, but what is an Ombudsman? And if she works for ESPN, why would she be objective?
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

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

Thank you....
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

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:

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/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&id=3240223
 
Last edited:
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

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/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&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?
 
Last edited:
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

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.
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

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/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&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.
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

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
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

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:


Thanks for sticking with this Rob. Michael Holley said the day after the Walsh testimony that one day soon scrutiny would begin to focus on the media and their irresponsible (bordering on irrational) handling of the coverage of this whole largely media driven tempest. It will come from serious journalists and acadamians who are mortified by associaion with these weasels. It's not that they had an agenda, per se, it's how sloppy they were in persuit of it that offends those people. Perhaps her piece on ESPN's role will be the first serious shot across the media bow. Although I liked Jim Nantz's take for openers. That is a little different since he's looking at it as a sports/football analyst. It needs to be assessed by journalists strictly on the basis of what it says about a segment of their profession behaving in a thoroughly unprofessional manner because they predetermined the end would justify the means.
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

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


I think I could only tolerate Colin Cowherd...
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

Perhaps her piece on ESPN's role will be the first serious shot across the media bow.

Don't hold your breath.

An "ombudsman" is a fancy word for the lipstick a media outlet puts on its own pig. When they screw up, they assign the ombudsman to write a little me culpa wrist slap that is buried with the buy here/pay here furntiture store ads on page 89 and seen by nobody.

By putting lipstick on their pigs in this fashion, they can claim with a straight face to have "integrity".
 
Last edited:
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

even if she writes somehting about ESPN's coverage it will be hidden in their website without the people who she might call out getting notified or reported.controversy is ESPN's agenda . they really dont keep the ombudsman for journalistic ethics just as a showpiece.
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

Reflecting on this media witch hunt for something that coaches and league executives are increasingly admitting is being done by all teams, I think we need a catchall term to describe their scandalous behavior

Howabout - "Spygate-gate"?
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

even if she writes somehting about ESPN's coverage it will be hidden in their website without the people who she might call out getting notified or reported.controversy is ESPN's agenda . they really dont keep the ombudsman for journalistic ethics just as a showpiece.

Last time it was displayed pretty prominently. She also emails everyone who's contacted her. I assume that means someone like Florio would be able to post it and run with it, whether or not ESPN tried to bury it or not.
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

I just wrote her and sent her FRAME....will be interesting to see her response.

I think she is our last hope as far as any kind of hope for ESPN realizing that when they became part of the story, they became biased.
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

While having the ombudsman is nice; and an ombudsman who actually takes an even handed approach to analyzing the the whole situation is nicer still.....in the end it doesn't matter a whole hill of beans.

Unless the Ombudsman's article is posted in size 42 font on page 1 espn.com; this is the same thing as the page 1 NYT headline slamming someone with the correction on page 4 size 10 font. All anyone remembers is the headline; not the retraction.
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

Though the ombudsman role appears on the web site, it does not appear on television - specifically on NFL Live. Television is still a far more pervasive force in forming public opinions, and the four letters have more influence in the market of sports on TV than Home Depot does on home improvement, Lifetime does on women's made for TV movies, or Microsoft has on computers.
 
Re: what is her email adress

thank you!!!!!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Patriots Kraft ‘Involved’ In Decision Making?  Zolak Says That’s Not the Case
MORSE: Final First Round Patriots Mock Draft
Slow Starts: Stark Contrast as Patriots Ponder Which Top QB To Draft
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/24: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/23: News and Notes
MORSE: Final 7 Round Patriots Mock Draft, Matthew Slater News
Bruschi’s Proudest Moment: Former LB Speaks to MusketFire’s Marshall in Recent Interview
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/22: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-21, Kraft-Belichick, A.J. Brown Trade?
MORSE: Patriots Draft Needs and Draft Related Info
Back
Top