NJPatsfan26
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 3,416
- Reaction score
- 1,388
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate
Indeed!!!!
Two words: F@#$ ESPN
Indeed!!!!
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Two words: F@#$ ESPN
I hope she buries Easterbrook and Fish specifically. Those two don't deserve jobs drawing stick figures with crayons for the local middle school newspaper.
Florio is trying to sell PFT to ESPN.
Really? I thought he left espn due to frustration with what he could and could not write. PFT would not be as popular with tighter editorial control of the content. And if espn really wanted to, they could launch their own copy-cat version without having to pay Florio for PFT.
Her story is already done, I posted a link to it this morning in this thread. Personally, I do not think you'll be satisfied
Her story is already done, I posted a link to it this morning in this thread. Personally, I do not think you'll be satisfied
I do think overall, Schreiber article was pretty tough on ESPN (you are not going to get an Ombudsman to display moral outrage), but she did give Easterbrook a free pass. My beef with him (which I wrote to Ms. Schreiber in my letter to her) was that in February he claimed taping signals was no big deal because he assumed Walsh had the tape of the walkthrough and when Walsh didn't produce the tape of the walkthrough Easterbrook called the taping of signals and Belichick's subsequent actions worthy of a lifetime ban. She definitely dropped the ball on that one.
She missed the earlier Easterbrook article. Apparently, the complaining Patriots' fans only referenced his latter "suspension" article.
Patriots fans were angry about Easterbrook's opinion, and Schreiber rightly defined it for what it was: an opinion.
It would have been much more effective if she had received emails about Easterbrook's poor reporting, namely the fact that in an earlier article he was certain about the walkthrough tape.
Rob, I agree with your assessment. She dropped the ball on not calling out Easterbrook's flip flopping in order to continue his own agenda. However, she did do about as good a job as could be expected in calling out Schlereth and Carter, and to a lesser extent Wingo.
I am disappointed - though not surprised - with the (lack of) prominence of this article. espn's front page of their web site has links to about a hundred stories, and this one is literally at the very bottom of the page; you won't even see it unless you scroll down to the bottom, so most readers will never notice it. In addition the link simply says "Schreiber: coloring outside the lines." That title doesn't exactly grab your attention the way something like "Spygate coverage: our mistakes" or "Hindsight of spygate reporting" would. How about including a link somewhere under the NFL tab; where there is no mention of Schreiber's column? I would be shocked if her column is ever mentioned on NFL Live (though it should be) or anywhere else on espn's various television channels, and would also be very surprised if it makes it's way to their magazine.
So here's my suggestion for NBA commissioner David Stern, who has again found out the hard way that the Donaghy scandal isn't going anywhere: Learn from what NFL commissioner Roger Goodell went through with Spygate, which exposed that cheating in the NFL is acceptable as long as it isn't advanced by technology.
She got it. This thread was started because she responded to my e-mail pointing out his hypocrisy of saying videotaping signals was no big deal in February to it being worthy of a lifetime ban last month after Walsh had nothing. Either she didn't actually read my e-mail and just gave me a blanket response or she just decided not to include that in her piece.
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!'"
Fueled by that emotion, Schlereth imagined how such tapes might affect the outcome if film was shot, edited and utilized "during the course of a game" -- a practice Patriots coach Bill Belichick had consistently denied since last September, and for which there was no evidence. Never mind. The mere possibility that tapes could have been shot and used during a given game, with likely "amazing" effect on game outcome, got Schlereth and then Carter so riled up that pretty soon they had convinced themselves of the virtual certainty of their speculation.
I do think overall, Schreiber article was pretty tough on ESPN (you are not going to get an Ombudsman to display moral outrage), but she did give Easterbrok a free pass. My beef with him (which I wrote to Ms. Schreiber in my letter to her) was that in February he claimed taping signals was no big deal because he assumed Walsh had the tape of the walkthrough and when Walsh didn't produce the tape of the walkthrough Easterbrook called the taping of signals and Belichick's subsequent actions worthy of a lifetime ban. She definitely dropped the ball on that one.
Rob, I agree with your assessment. She dropped the ball on not calling out Easterbrook's flip flopping in order to continue his own agenda. However, she did do about as good a job as could be expected in calling out Schlereth and Carter, and to a lesser extent Wingo.
I am disappointed - though not surprised - with the (lack of) prominence of this article. espn's front page of their web site has links to about a hundred stories, and this one is literally at the very bottom of the page; you won't even see it unless you scroll down to the bottom, so most readers will never notice it. In addition the link simply says "Schreiber: coloring outside the lines." That title doesn't exactly grab your attention the way something like "Spygate coverage: our mistakes" or "Hindsight of spygate reporting" would. How about including a link somewhere under the NFL tab; where there is no mention of Schreiber's column? I would be shocked if her column is ever mentioned on NFL Live (though it should be) or anywhere else on espn's various television channels, and would also be very surprised if it makes it's way to their magazine.
Give it a day or two. Easterbrook's article calling for Belichick to be banned for life was burried for about 24 hours before it was on both the main page and the main NFL page.