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

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.

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

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

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.

Isn't that Matt Mosley's Hashmarks?
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

Great article.

She killed Carter and Schlereth.

But she left Easterbrook off the hook.

I believe she missed the earlier article in which Easterbrook was certain there was a Rams walkthrough. I've written to her about missing that article.

I also thought she let Wingo off the hook by blaming his lack of objectivity on ESPN's format.
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

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

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

iam sure this article will be buried inside the espn web site .
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

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

You're right, I'm not. She blasted Wingo, Carter, and Schlereth. At least she did that. But, other than that, the entire article was about how much better live SportsCenter broadcasts would be and used Spygate as a reference point. It's good, but not as vicious as I was hoping for.
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

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.

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

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.

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

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

I didn't want to open a new ESPN Spygate thread, but I did want to link to a Jemele Hill article from yesterday about Tim Donaghey and had an interesting reference that will be overlooked by many:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/080611&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1

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

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.

maybe it was "edited" out.
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

While it was mildly refreshing to see her take ESPN to task for their ridiculously over-the-top coverage of the Matt Walsh story, it was ultimately disappointing that she let the network off the hook for it's terribly biased coverage. She could have/should have come down much harder on Wingo, Carter and Schlereth for their shameful performances on the day of the Matt Walsh meeting. And somehow that scumbag Mike Fish get's off with barely a mention by one of his supervisors on how things "didn't pan out".

It is obvious that the Patriot's brand has taken a major PR blow and most of it can be traced back to this lousy network and it's roster of buffoons. Just look at the thread from earlier today about the Pat's question on "JEOPARDY".

The revolting innuendo that ESPN has been forcing down the throats of the public has been accepted as fact.
 
Re: ESPN Ombudsman to investigate ESPN's coverage of Spygate

I can't wait to read Ombudsman's report or article before commenting.
 
Can some one tell me why, what ESPN has done isn't slander?

Couldn't/Shouldn't one or all of these guys be summoned to the courts?
 
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=schreiber_leanne&id=3438752

I'm not sure if she fully addressed the outstanding issues or just picked and chose certain aspects to address

But this passage jumped out at me as something that should have been begging for more of a serious reaction:

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.

So apparently these supposedly knowledgeable commentators - not to mention the ombudsman herself who has had ample time to research this issue - can't contemplate the fact that it is humanly impossible to tape form all those multiple locations and viewpoints, edit all the video in, perfectly synchronized with audio and signal calls, let alone analyze it and convey it to the team in a new game scheme in time for second have adjustments or "during the course of the game" as they say?

I wouldn't want to come down to ESPN's level but at this point I'd say there is ample evidence that everyone at ESPN has an IQ equal to their age - either that or there an agenda of ignoring the facts and common sense in favor of hyperbolic headlines.

And how strongly has ESPN been rattling the cages regarding the actual ADMITTED cheating by NBA officials?
 
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.

Rob, you may be correct, we'll have to be patient and wait and see. I do need to make a slight correction to my statement above, regarding how espn is making this column available. Regarding the link at the very bottom of espn's web page to Schreiber's column - that actually still links to last month's column dated May 15th, titled Coloring Outside the Lines. The new column discussing coverage of Walsh's tapes and how it was reported on NFL Live, titled "'Sports Center Specials' too often just hot air on hot topics" is not (yet) linked anywhere on espn's web site, and cannot be found without the link provided earlier in this thread by BrianPat.
 
Will Pats haters at ESPN be DISCIPLINED or FIRED as a result of this investigation OR is it a BS 'fair and balance' report?

Will we see a 'SORRY PATS' article from ESPN like the one we read at Herald newspaper?
 
Last edited:
So, I guess the question is simple:

When will ESPN be airing the Sportscenter Special "ESPN and Spygate: How we screwed the pooch"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/16: News and Notes
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-14, Mock Draft 3.0, Gilmore, Law Rally For Bill 
Potential Patriot: Boston Globe’s Price Talks to Georgia WR McConkey
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/12: News and Notes
Not a First Round Pick? Hoge Doubles Down on Maye
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/11: News and Notes
MORSE: Patriots Mock Draft #5 and Thoughts About Dugger Signing
Matthew Slater Set For New Role With Patriots
Back
Top