The Roethlisberger Story Was Filled With Holes
BySeveral hundred e-mails to my radio show this week were outraged that I didn’t mention the Ben Roethlisberger controversy until Wednesday. Internet sports sights, from blogs to mainstream, lit ESPN up, ‘clearly they are protecting Ben, because of business relationships.’
Somehow, people who have never stepped foot on the Bristol campus are absolutely sure that news judgment is directly linked to either the sales staff or marketing department. Nothing could be more laughable.
ESPN is a huge campus where you rarely deal with people outside of your own department. At least in my case that’s true. And not once have I ever been pressured by sales, marketing or programming chiefs to cool down or ramp up a topic.
Now very occasionally (three to four times in my six years) I’ve been told to hold on a story until it’s been confirmed, or ESPN feels comfortable with the accusation. This story was one of those.
Since the accusations included a superstar athlete with a pretty clean track record and an accuser who filed a suit a year after the incident allegedly occurred, I had no problem holding off. Rape accusations, even when false, stick forever. I’ll choose right over first in this case. (It’s the same tact I took during the Duke lacrosse scandal, and I’m thankful for it).
I also like to put myself in people’s situations from time to time. If I got pulled over for a DUI or got caught carrying meth in the airport, I would expect the public to run with it and the media to report it. But if I was charged with rape, I would expect my record to speak for itself for a little while and hope that those in the media would hold off until more facts were known. Wouldn’t you?
I have no issue with people criticizing ESPN for holding a story that they feel deserves attention. But the accusation that ESPN has a cozy relationship with the Steelers quarterback, and therefore held the story, just doesn’t ring true to me.
First, ESPN has a contract or relationship with virtually everyone in sports, college and pro. Secondly, I’ve never seen that happen in my six years, and as one of the most opinionated people at the network, I would seemingly have at least some insight into that practice.
Many of you asked, “But what about the accusations to the Lakers guard Shannon Brown? ESPN reported those.’
Yes, they did. It should also be noted, Browns agent, Mark Bartelstein immediately released a statement defending his client and Brown also chimed in, opening the door, for us to comment.
In Roethlisberger’s case, neither was true. Not a peep from Ben, his agent, or the Steelers. ESPN simply waited. They leaned toward caution.
“But Colin, what about Randy Moss’ civil case?”
Moss, had a layered history of baggage, therefore executives probably felt more comfortable releasing that story. I’ve never asked but that would seem reasonable to me. Just like holding on the Roethlisberger story seemed equally reasonable.
That doesn’t mean ESPN was right, but it doesn’t make them wrong either.
I agree with how the Big Ben thing has been handled but I think that Kobe Bryant should have been afforded the same type coverage but he was crucified from day one (not necessarily by you, but in general).
Agreed
Your explanation of the events is woefully inaccurate.
His lawyer and the Steelers both issued statements shortly after the case came to light. His lawyer said, paraphrasing, that Ben did not do it and would defend himself.
The Steelers said that they had talked to Ben, supported him, would let the case run its course and make no further statements.
Both of these statements came days before ESPN acknowledged the matter.
Also, no media outlet has reported that Ben raped a girl, rather that a civil suit had been filed alleging that he did.
Therefore, your rationale for why ESPN did not report the story is a blatantly wrong. Ben\\\’s attorney and the Steelers both issued statements and no one has suggested that ESPN report that Ben raped a girl, but rather that a case was filed.
Given that there was no logical explanation as to why ESPN did not report on the issue, everyone begins to speculate. The easy explanation is that ESPN wants to keep a good relationship with Ben, the Steelers and/or the NFL. It is the easiest assumption, especially when ESPN has previously been alleged to do the same thing with other outlets.
Now the speculation that ESPN wanted to keep a good relationship with Ben is wrong, then so be it. But ESPN has failed to explain why it did not report that a claim was filed against the QB of the defending Superbowl Champion. Until ESPN gives a logical explanation, speculation will continue.
Respectfully disagree in this case. I don’t see what the issue would’ve been in simply reporting something that was a matter of public record in Douglas County, instead of communicating to ESPN employees via the company-wide memo to keep quiet like they did for the two days the memo was in effect.
I think the point is that ESPN gave the illusion that they were completely ignoring the story until it was right under their nose. At the point where every major news outlet is reporting the allegations and Roethlisberger’s lawyer is making prepared statements, then the “Worldwide Leader” should acknowledge that the story exists. I don’t think anyone wanted ESPN to bury Roethlisberger instantly, but ESPN is a source for news first and foremost and a source of opinion secondarily. It was a good idea to hold off on the editorializing as long as you did, but not reporting the news is always a bad idea.
I prefer the holes be filled.
All I can say is Duke Lacrosse. Play it safe, cause a lot of media folks made fools of themselves.