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

[Koma]

Two quotes from this piece caught my attention:

As Wingo later told me, "We all, not only Mark and Cris but myself included, had a real visceral reaction to seeing those tapes for the first time, and their opinions were driven by their emotions. Before seeing the tapes, they weren't sure what benefit they might have, but when they saw the way it matched up -- with down and distance on the scoreboard, the coaches' signals and the formation all matched up -- they both were thinking, 'Holy Cow!'"

How could Wingo, Carter, and Schlereth not have a solid idea what would be on those tapes? Did they not see the week 1 tape leaked that was leaked to Fox? I would be shocked if someone at ESPN didn't record that. If they didn't see it, did they not at least read the description of what was on that tape? Did they ignore the league saying, basically, "It's nothing new" less than a week before the tapes were shown to the public. Unless they were not ignoring this story right up until that day, it doesn't seem possible that they had no idea what would be on the Walsh tapes.

It's also tough to accept that Carter and Schlereth, who had long pro careers and have probably seen 100's of hours of game film, reacted like it was a strategy session shot from a vent in the visitor's locker room in Gillette. If they were trying to be objective, they're reaction was not genuine.

Also, in the section she wrote about the Joey Porter comments:

"On the day the tapes were released, we contacted every opposing team affected and not a single team would comment," Stiegman said. "So one reason we ran the Porter story is that to this day, not a lot of people in the league -- front office, coaches or players -- will talk about it publicly."

I think Bill Parcells just said something about it just last week. Funny how ESPN ignored the comments from a media favorite and former employee. It couldn't have been because Parcells' views didn't fit with that company's agenda, could it?

 

[PatriotsReign]

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

It wasn't an indictment of Greg Esterbrook. She primarily said that the medium itself creates situations where time has to be filled with the opinions of commentators. Remember, the Patriots are known for only talking to those reporters they like, so the rest of the commentators are left speculating about what might-have-been. A more open interview policy might result in more balanced reporting.

My hope is that the Patriot players and coaches do just the opposite. I hope they're MORE difficult for ESPN to interview next year. I also hope they openly talk with the NFL netword just to rile up ESPN executives

 

[NJPatsfan26]

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

My hope is that the Patriot players and coaches do just the opposite. I hope they're MORE difficult for ESPN to interview next year. I also hope they openly talk with the NFL netword just to rile up ESPN executives

I can see it now....during a press conference.....

ESPN Reporter asks BB a question....

BB....next question.....

and so on and so on....

Oh and the same for the Boston Herald....

 

[SamBam39]

ho hum.

espn employee reporting on whether espn was wrong?

claims she doesn't blame them. claims it's the nature of reporting issues in today's world?

smootch smootch smootch - do I get to keep my job?
smootch smootch smootch - did I make it sound like I was being 'objective'

get real. all media is out of control and has become childish, agenda driven, emotional rants.

 

[NJPatsfan26]

ho hum.

espn employee reporting on whether espn was wrong?

claims she doesn't blame them. claims it's the nature of reporting issues in today's world?

smootch smootch smootch - do I get to keep my job?
smootch smootch smootch - did I make it sound like I was being 'objective'

get real. all media is out of control and has become childish, agenda driven, emotional rants.

Couldnt agree with you more my friend....good work...

 

[JoePats]

Two quotes from this piece caught my attention:



How could Wingo, Carter, and Schlereth not have a solid idea what would be on those tapes? Did they not see the week 1 tape leaked that was leaked to Fox? I would be shocked if someone at ESPN didn't record that. If they didn't see it, did they not at least read the description of what was on that tape? Did they ignore the league saying, basically, "It's nothing new" less than a week before the tapes were shown to the public. Unless they were not ignoring this story right up until that day, it doesn't seem possible that they had no idea what would be on the Walsh tapes.

It's also tough to accept that Carter and Schlereth, who had long pro careers and have probably seen 100's of hours of game film, reacted like it was a strategy session shot from a vent in the visitor's locker room in Gillette. If they were trying to be objective, they're reaction was not genuine.

Also, in the section she wrote about the Joey Porter comments:


I think Bill Parcells just said something about it just last week. Funny how ESPN ignored the comments from a media favorite and former employee. It couldn't have been because Parcells' views didn't fit with that company's agenda, could it?

Excellent post...Further, the most shocking part about the Walsh tapes was they included video of the Chargers' cheerleaders.

 

[DarrylS]

It is easy for all those idiots in Bristol to spew their venom and say as they please, but this will be buried somewhere.. if ESPN had any testicles they would hit them in the pocketboook.. but I suspect nothing will really happen as the masses loved the hysteria... it is about the ratings and the medium, rather than the message.

 

[PatsRI]

One more case of everyone in the media saying "we were wrong or over zealous". Of course it's always way after the fact and hidden many pages or links inside of where an original story bashing the team was found.

 

[Dirty Business]

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

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.

I didn't know she published a monthly column. I wrote to her awhile back regarding Greg Easterbrook and shortly after she laid into him in her column. It was a great read. I was more than pleased when she recently came out with her column about ESPN and their Spygate coverage. I was wondering if anyone was going to do something about these stooges? I wanted to go down to ESPN and rip those damn microphones away from Wingo, Carter, and Scherleth. By the way where is Scherleth and Carter? I haven't seen them lately on NFL live and I've noticed the talk about the Patriots is 0, which is good.

 

[Rob0729]

Two quotes from this piece caught my attention:



How could Wingo, Carter, and Schlereth not have a solid idea what would be on those tapes? Did they not see the week 1 tape leaked that was leaked to Fox? I would be shocked if someone at ESPN didn't record that. If they didn't see it, did they not at least read the description of what was on that tape? Did they ignore the league saying, basically, "It's nothing new" less than a week before the tapes were shown to the public. Unless they were not ignoring this story right up until that day, it doesn't seem possible that they had no idea what would be on the Walsh tapes.

It's also tough to accept that Carter and Schlereth, who had long pro careers and have probably seen 100's of hours of game film, reacted like it was a strategy session shot from a vent in the visitor's locker room in Gillette. If they were trying to be objective, they're reaction was not genuine.

Also, in the section she wrote about the Joey Porter comments:


I think Bill Parcells just said something about it just last week. Funny how ESPN ignored the comments from a media favorite and former employee. It couldn't have been because Parcells' views didn't fit with that company's agenda, could it?

Not only did the media not pick up Parcells' comments about Spygate, but they quoted him extensively from the same article when it pertained to Jason Taylor. So you know they saw the comments.

As for Huey, Dewey, and Louie (Schlereth, Wingo, and Carter), it was well reported before the day of the broadcast that there was a tape exactly like they saw which caused them so much shock. Either they didn't do their homework or Wingo was a little disingenuous to LeeAnn Schreiber. I don't get the shock anyway. Just because the Patriots edited the signal footage into the the coaches tape is not like they stole the playbook or something.

Also, I don't get how Schlereth and Carter could make a jump from the shock of a video that was clearly edited sometime after the game to convince them that the Patriots had to viewing the film during the course of the game. Wouldn't seeing this tape generate the opposite reaction. Since they feel that the Patriots put so much post-game effort to edit the film, it is only logical they used the film for future use not in game use.

I do feel Ms. Schreiber wrote a good and rather tough piece on ESPN (although letting Easterbrook off the hook), but I think Wingo was covering his own arse in his response to her questions. I personally think ESPN went into this trying to sell how damaging the tapes Walsh had to cover their own butts for four months of selling how Walsh had the smoking gun and also to keep people watching their Spygate Special. If Schlereth and Carter said that the tapes were nothing new, they would have had everyone turning off their sets long before the Goodell press conference. I think Schreiber was feeling the same thing based on the content of her story.

 

[upstater1]

ho hum.

espn employee reporting on whether espn was wrong?

claims she doesn't blame them. claims it's the nature of reporting issues in today's world?

smootch smootch smootch - do I get to keep my job?
smootch smootch smootch - did I make it sound like I was being 'objective'

get real. all media is out of control and has become childish, agenda driven, emotional rants.

This post makes no sense. She doesn't have/need a job at ESPN. She's employed elsewhere, and has steady employment, as a reputable author. She has a one year contract with ESPN. It's almost over. After which, ESPN will contract with a new ombudsman. She has as much to fear about repercussions as someone retiring from their job in 2 days.

 

[primetime]

espn employee reporting on whether espn was wrong?

Leanne Schreiber was the first female sports editor of a major newspaper in the nation; namely, the New York Times some 35 years ago. My guess is she doesn't really need employment as the ESPN ombudsman to keep her afloat financially. She's torn into Easterbrook and Cowherd, for instance, but her column is rarely read.

 

[cavtroop]

Leanne Schreiber was the first female sports editor of a major newspaper in the nation; namely, the New York Times some 35 years ago. My guess is she doesn't really need employment as the ESPN ombudsman to keep her afloat financially. She's torn into Easterbrook and Cowherd, for instance, but her column is rarely read.

and what good is 'tearing into' these reporters, if noone reads the article, and nothing changes behind the scenes at ESPN? The ombudsman has no teeth.

 

[since67]

Well...it shows that that the industry that is ESPN held the reins in the frenzied defamation of the Patriots. The story in fact is a negative one, and they made the results exponentially more devastating by broadcasting malicious rumors to the entire nation for a sustained period. Without any regard to thinking before speaking, they purposefully engaged in fueling allegation. In a most unprofessional sense they endorsed speculation for the sake of their sick agenda ('filling' airtime).

If there's no new story then for goodness sakes children...do not make one up.

It's not only pathetic, it's borderline criminal. Again, no different than the tabloids which willingly lie to sell copy.

It proves their untrustworthiness for the record.

 

[since67]

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

Shouldn't this be in the whining thread?

whine (hwn, wn)
v. whined, whin·ing, whines
v.intr.
1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.
v.tr.
To utter with a whine.
n.
1. The act of whining.
2. A whining sound.
3. A complaint uttered in a plaintive tone.

I think your use of the word "whining" must be challenged. When there is a legitimate issue and one charges "foul" then I would not think of that as whining. I assume you see no legitimacy to the initial post in this thread in order to have such an opinion.

 

[Hardboiled]

Two quotes from this piece caught my attention:

How could Wingo, Carter, and Schlereth not have a solid idea what would be on those tapes? Did they not see the week 1 tape leaked that was leaked to Fox? ... I would be shocked if someone at ESPN didn't record that. If they didn't see it, did they not at least read the description of what was on that tape? Did they ignore the league saying, basically, "It's nothing new" less than a week before the tapes were shown to the public. Unless they were not ignoring this story right up until that day, it doesn't seem possible that they had no idea what would be on the Walsh tapes.

Add Peter King to that group. He was disturbed by the "methodical nature" of the taping shown in the Walsh tapes. I can't him seriously if he didn't know or have an idea of what the tapes looked like. Also this was in May. The story started over eight months before. What did he think they looked like? Unmethodical?

 

[upstater1]

Add Peter King to that group. He was disturbed by the "methodical nature" of the taping shown in the Walsh tapes. I can't him seriously if he didn't know or have an idea of what the tapes looked like. Also this was in May. The story started over eight months before. What did he think they looked like? Unmethodical?

He imagined that Belichick would hire an employee to occasionally film signals, sometimes the employee would be picking his nose and reminiscing about the time he put a sharp blade on his roommate's bed, or otherwise filming the bums of opposing cheerleaders. He didn't expect such a well done professional job.

Oh wait...

 

[PAPatsjunkie]

I guess to continue on the the theme that ESPN does hate Boston:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/2008_06_17_ESPN_com_apologizes_for_C_s-Hitler_reference_/srvc=home&position=recent


ESPN.com apologizes for Celtics-Hitler reference


An ESPN.com columnist is apologizing - through a statement released by the Web site - for likening cheering for the Boston Celtics [team stats] to Adolf Hitler and nuclear war.

In her original column railing against the Celtics, Jemele Hill wrote, “Rooting for the Celtics is like saying Hitler was a victim. It’s like hoping Gorbachev would get to the blinking red button before Reagan.”

Hill’s piece was posted on ESPN.com late Saturday, and a spokesman for the sports powerhouse said yesterday that the crude comparison was edited out within hours.

 

[jmt57]

I had no idea about the Hitler reference, even the biggest Boston sports team haters would admit that's crossing the line.

What is rather telling to me is that in both cases the apologies can not be found unless you looked elsewhere. In the Celtics - Hitler column apology, it's found in the news & opinion section of the Herald - not exactly an area most sports fans venture to on a regular basis. A statement was apparently released by espn, but I could not find it anywhere on espn's web site. So I googled "jamele hill espn apologize" and still no link to the statement, just an article on deadspin. Ironically, what did come up were previous columns by Hill on three different occasions, in regards to three seperate incidents, in which she opines that apologies are not enough in each story.

Regarding the apology by the ombudsman, nobody outside of readers of patsfans.com would have ever been aware of the column if not for Florio's mention of it on PFT.

As an enterprise that holds such a huge market share, espn has a very large effect in shaping the opinions of sports fans throughout North America. The average sports fan (outside of New England) gets the majority of their information from espn. With that much power comes additional responsibility. The reporting was irresponsible, and then given the chance to correct it, espn elected to bury the apology - rather than informing sports fans and give them a chance to make a more informed opinion.

There's about a dozen gem-worthy quotes in Schreiber's column, but I do still have several questions.

- Why was this not given some more prominence, and why was the word spygate not used in the story's title (which would have garnered more readers)?

- Why was there not more oversight in what was such a high profile event? This wasn't just another SportsCenter, it was a 'special' covering possibly the biggest story of the year. A VP says he gave directives to the columnists and analysts to stick to the facts when the Herald story broke; was there no similar meeting prior to the coverage of the Walsh - Goodell press conference? Even without such directive from management, where is the show's producer and director as Schlereth and Carter created "a runaway train of inflammatory speculation." They should be in those guys ear pieces getting them back on track, and talking to them during commercial breaks, reminding them to make clear the distinction between facts and opinions.

If the executives had clearly stated throughout the company the importance of fair and balanced reporting, and opinions based on fact, then Schlereth and others should be reprimanded or fired for not following company directives. If it was not made clear, then the executives like Doria and Stiegman should be held accountable and be let go for not doing their job.

- Why was Easterbrook not taken more to task? When it appeared Walsh had tapes of the walk-through, that was of utmost importance and taping signals was of minimal benefit. Then, when Walsh had no walk-through tape, Easterbrook flip flops and claims the opposite is true and calls for a suspension.

- We are to believe that Joey Porter is the voice of reason? And that espn could not find one single person to take a differing opinion? Why limit the search to current players? Porter was brought on because he is outspoken; his response was no surprise.


Ninety minutes of one opinion, 90 seconds of another. That was the balance.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

The Pats must be setting some kind of record, like having received the most media apologies in a year