July 27th- It should’ve been made clear to us over a year ago.
The usually cheerful David Stern looked as if he carried the burden of a nation, as he stood somber and stone faced before a throng of reporters, forced to address the then recent allegations of an NBA referee who bet on games he officiated.
On the eve of the 2008 NBA Finals, what some perceived to be one of the biggest scandals to hit professional sports in the last 25 years, weighed heavily on the mind of the NBA commissioner who saw the soundness of his league hanging in the balance.
But as the main purveyor of sports news, ESPN did little to give the story of this magnitude its proper traction, quickly isolating it to one day’s worth of intense coverage. The possible compromising of games which threatened the integrity of one of America’s major sports drifted away from the screens of the Walt Disney owned company like two ships passing in the night. The same could be said about ESPN’s recent coverage (or lack thereof) of a civil lawsuit filed by a woman claiming Super Bowl winning quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, sexually assaulted her in 2008.
In what has been a hot topic of discussion in the blogosphere, internet messageboards, sports talk radio and various news outlets the past several days, the lack of ESPN’s coverage behind the brewing scandal surrounding one of sports biggest names has opened the network to mountains criticism.
One question being asked is if the early absence of ESPN coverage behind Ben’s legal problem is due to his upcoming appearance on the reality show “Shaq Vs.” which will air on its sister network, ABC. When looking deeper at the NBA fiasco and its eventual disappearance off ESPN’s radar, it’s quite clear that the “World Wide Leader” will cast aside its journalistic principles (try not to laugh after reading that) to protect whatever enterprise they have a vested interest in.
In early 2002, the NBA signed a six-year pact with the ESPN/ABC, as the sister companies paid of $400 million a season to air its games. The deal was later renewed in 2007 and extended to the 2015-2016 season. With their product in question by the bourgeoning referee scandal, the network quickly closed ranks around its newly acquired toy. Various analysts like David Aldridge and Stephen A. Smith, defended the league as if their salaries depended on it (which they did). Tim Donoghy, the referee in question who was later convicted on gambling charges, was eventually isolated as a rogue figure. Now the controversy around ESPN’s silence around Ben Roethlisberger has left them again scrambling to protect the image of their brand.
In what can be called the “Damage Control” tour, the four-letter network has taken similar action, sending its minions out to quell the constant criticism circling around their actions (or lack thereof). But in doing so, they’ve only added fuel to the fire. Through twitter, ESPN TV personality and columnist Jemele Hill stated that ESPN doesn’t report on civil cases that don't have criminal charges attached to them.
Oh really, Ms. Hill? Shannon Brown, Isiah Thomas, Robbie Alomar and a laundry list of others would like to have a word with you.
To make matters worse, the damage control tour took an even further tailspin when ESPN Vice President John Walsh, decided to climb down from his Bristol, CT tower and to take a stop on the Dan Patrick radio show. Responding to the question of whether or not the Roethlisberger story should have been reported sooner when interviewed by former ESPN personality Dan Patrick, Mr. Walsh responded saying, “I don’t think that question should be answered until we see how the news story unfolds.”
Is this man serious? This declaration coming from a man whose network relies on NFL Insider, Chris Mortensen. A man whose “sources” put New York Giants fans on edge several years ago after saying Eli Manning would be out for the remainder of the season with a shoulder injury only for his “other” sources to say otherwise AFTER the Giants announced that Eli would start the following Sunday.
Thank god for radio, because one wonders if Mr. Walsh’s statement could have been uttered without an accompanying wink and a smile.
But another question which has arisen since “Roethlisberger-gate” is tied to an age old subject that America is still uncomfortable to talk about. Had Ben been of a darker hue, would the “wait and see” approach have made its sudden appearance?
The faint odor of white privilege around ESPN’s treatment of Ben Roethlisberger has hovered with a silent yet enveloping heaviness of a muggy mid-summer afternoon. ESPN’s sudden practice of “benefit of the doubt” coverage is almost certainly a purchase that historically has been paid on privilege’s coin. African Americans have rarely been afforded that privilege through the press, as their relationship with the American media has a long and chronicled history of guilty before proven innocent coverage and a complete lax of journalistic ethics and principles.
While the network is currently playing catch up, hiding behind the rightful questioning of the merits of the accusations facing Ben, this sudden practice of “Fair and Balanced” (where have you heard that before?) coverage is often away in a one sided tsunami for athletes of color when faced in the same predicament.
While many people site the accusatory finger that was pointed vehemently at members of the Duke Lacrosse team several years ago in their much publicized rape case, holes in the accusers accusations were so routinely sited in the press that the case being dismissed was of NO surprise to a general public fully aware of its flaws prior to judgment being passed.
One would hope that this type of balanced coverage was standard practice. But as the later acquittal of the accused Central Park Jogger rapists has shown, little to no press circled around the possibility of innocence, only the certainty of guilt (As of now, this writer has a difficult time believing Ben Roethlisberger is guilty of any wrong doing).
But as the clock struck 12 and the bells around Big Ben failed to ring in Bristol, Connecticut, the resulting sound and the noise associated to their silence has been deafening. In its silence, ESPN has awakened many to the network’s hypocrisy and unbalanced principles and ethics.
Hopefully, those who have opened their eyes to this reality will continue to pressure the network into providing its viewers with honest coverage or demand that other options are added on the dial for sports news.
Subscribe to TPFSports by Email
