ESPN ombudsman drops the ball

Many of you may not even know who Don Ohlmeyer is, but he is the the ESPN ombudsman. What this means is that his job is to convey the public response to what ESPN does to ESPN, and kind of be a voice for their displeasure. Here is his profile page.

He just wrote his first analysis for ESPN. After a lengthy introduction he specifically focuses on ESPN's handling of the Ben Roethlisberger rape incident and ESPN's decision to not report it (see older posts for more info). He quotes many followers who were upset by ESPN's decision. Then he proceeds to interrogate Senior Vice President and Director of News Vince Doria on the subject. Here's an excerpt:

Q: Do you feel you are consistent? One reader specifically asked about Marvin Harrison.

Doria: "With Marvin Harrison, we reported on a civil suit that related to a prior criminal investigation. It fit our criteria, so we went with it. In another instance, there were civil claims made against Mike Tyson for reportedly groping a woman in a bar -- because he had spent time in jail for rape, we felt there was a pattern, so ESPN reported it. In 2005, a woman filed a civil suit against Michael Vick, alleging that under the pseudonym 'Ron Mexico' he had unprotected sex with her, then revealed to her that he had herpes. We did not report the story, based on the same reasoning we used in the Roethlisberger situation -- no criminal component, no previous history on the part of Vick, it happened during the offseason. Vick never did respond publicly, the suit was settled, and we never reported on it. While many other media outlets reported the story, we faced no scrutiny, no criticism, virtually no attention to how we covered it. Times evidently have changed."

This is all fine and dandy but to me so far it just seems like a platform where it can seem like an ESPN rep can give reasons that sound legitimate, but really to me sounds like bullshit. Because of someone at ESPN who determined a pattern of actions they decide what to cover and what not to when it's a civil suit? What kind of standards are that? This Ron Mexico story sounds like news to me. Duh Vick didn't respond publicly, what is he gonna say? Of course the suit was settled so that Vick didn't have his name dragged through the mud for being a rapist. This most definitely is news that ESPN should have reported.

Ohlmeyer then goes on to some other complaints, namely ESPN protecting relationships it has with star players. Here's an excerpt:


Q: ESPN's motives have been questioned. One of the charges is being soft on the NFL and its players for business reasons. Your response?

Doria: "We've done a number of tough stories on the NFL over the years. We did a series questioning the league's handling of the concussion issue. More stories on the lack of funding on the retired players experiencing physical and emotional difficulties. The Pacman Jones situation, Michael Vick, Brandon Marshall, Spygate. None of these stories put the individuals or the NFL in a good light. Anyone who contends we shy away from stories that are critical of the NFL isn't paying attention."

This response does not answer the real question, and I think the problem is that the question is terrible because it is written by an ombudsman 'claiming' to be conveying the public sentiment. However, I don't think anyone is questioning ESPN's ability to objectively critique the NFL. The problem is the consistency. Pacman Jones is a complete scumbag who ESPN probably never wants to work with. They have no problem covering his off the field problems. However, Roethlisberger is a charismatic leader and 2 time Super Bowl winner. He's someone they'd love to have a good relationship with. THAT is why they didn't report on him, and THAT question was not asked. Why couldn't Ohlmeyer ask Doria: Were you afraid reporting on the Roethlisberger story would make him less accessable to your reporters? Doria's answer just says 'hey don't hate us we've covered the NFL in a negative light before!' But that's not a justification for not covering the Roethlisberger story.

Ohlmeyer then gives ESPN the defense it needs:


...the more I thought about it, the more that mantra rang in my ears: "Serve the audience." Even if ESPN judged that it should not report the Roethlisberger suit, not acknowledging a sports story that's blanketing the airways requires an explanation to your viewers, listeners and readers. And in today's world they are owed that explanation right away -- to do otherwise is just plain irresponsible. It forces your audience to ask why the story was omitted. It forces them to manufacture a motive. And it ultimately forces them to question your credibility.

I agree with Ohlmeyer here that they should have reported the story, but he has suggested that people have manufactured a motive for why ESPN omitted reporting on it. I don't think so. I think ESPN loves the access it has to Roethlisberger and showed what a friend does to help another out.

SI's Frank Deford speaks about ESPN

He's in the Sportswriter HoF so he probably has something valuable to say. Here's an excerpt from his short article pointing out the biggest problem with ESPN:

"A couple of weeks ago, ESPN initially refused to report the news that was everywhere else headlined — that Pittsburgh's Super Bowl quarterback Ben Roethlisberger had been accused of sexual assault. The network's excuses were too noble by half, because there's a double standard, and ESPN is known to cozy up to the very superstars it purports to cover.

Just suppose that CNN regularly had cutesy commercials for CNN starring Nancy Pelosi, John McCain and Rahm Emanuel. Well, that's the equivalent of what ESPN regularly does with top sports personalities. The practice is, simply, a journalistic disgrace, and, because ESPN is so powerful, it diminishes the integrity of all sports journalism."

Now we here at ESPNfail did not cover the Roethlisberger issue because it was in the past when we started writing and we try to stay as current as possible. However, while we're on the subject, we might as well say something. It took about 48 hours for ESPN to report the story that Ben Roethlisberger was accused of raping someone. Why was that? They had issued a 'do not report' memo to all their employees. They claimed this was because the matter was a civil complaint, which they don't cover out of fairness to the athlete. however it was picked up by the Associated Press. It was clearly a story, and it was clearly a story ESPN had reasons for not covering.

Why was this? Speculation said from sites like Deadspin that it might have something to do with the fact that ABC is a sister network of ESPN. Big Ben is set to appear on ABC's upcoming reality show Shaq Vs. where he competes against other athletes in their sports. It would not surprise me at all that they did not want this story to come out because it might hurt ratings on this show.

Even more scary though, is when Deford says that "ESPN is known to cozy up to the very superstars it purports to cover." This is hitting the nail on the head. ESPN wants to have all the

access to these athletes so they ask puffball questions like when Jim Rome asks a typical guest "Peyton, you won the MVP last year and had your best statistical season yet, how awesome is it to be you?" (I paraphrase). Jim Rome can be saved for his own post though. ESPN is grooming plenty of these guys to be future talking heads on their shows. I definitely wouldn't bet against Brett Favre appearing on NFL Live in the next couple of years. How are we supposed to trust a network that clearly doesn't ask the tough question? It seems to me Deford is saying we can't, but that ESPN has such a stranglehold on the industry that we have no alternative but to obey their false idols. We are not worthy!

KZ