I just think not enough is being made out of the fact that they knew about the tape and they knew what was on it. Goodell, if he didn’t know what was on that tape, he’s a liar. I’m just saying it. He is lying. I think that dude is lying. If you put him up on a lie detector test that guy would fail. For all these people to pretend they didn’t know is such f------ b-------. It really is — it’s such f------ b-------. And for him to go in that press conference and pretend otherwise, I was so insulted. I really was.
I think the people defending Bill Simmons are making the mistake of thinking that ESPN is a news organization. In my mind, it’s closer to a retailer of some sort, like a car dealership that only sells one make of car.
And it’s no wonder. His statements about Goodell clearly violated ESPN’s long-standing core value of…
little help?
That’s the root of a lot of ESPN’s problems from a journalistic standpoint, yes. It is a news organization by any definition. But it’s also a broadcaster and a promoter, so it wants to stay on good terms with the leagues and players it covers.
And that’s ESPN’s biggest problem. It tries to hold itself out as a news organization, so things like that just drive home that its in bed with the things its covers, and is completely unobjective in its reporting.
Nonsense. I can’t begin to count the number of times the baseball announcers have criticized the slobberfest Jeter is getting this year. (Being unable to get to 1 = can’t begin to count, right?)
I wouldn’t say “completely unobjective.” I would say it’s compromised at times, and that’s bad enough because it creates a lot of doubt. I thought their reporting last week on the Ravens’ handling of Ray Rice was very good. They won’t entirely refuse to report negative things, but they’ll downplay stuff sometimes - like when they pulled out of that documentary about head trauma because it upset the NFL.
I give Simmons some credit for discussing something other than the NBA salary cap. He was a scream, a total must-read, when he had his bostonsportsguy.com page, but since joining ESPN it’s been mostly wordy, pretentious - and, worst of all boring - crap. Now it’s worse on his Grantland site, a haven for writers who hate being edited.
If this is a sign he’s getting his mojo back, I’ll start paying attention again.
This is really the only answer here. I’ll admit that I was kind of shocked when I saw this initially - with the kind of stuff that we regularly hear on the air, three weeks for calling Goodell a liar? Especially juxtaposed with the, what, three days that Stephen A Smith got for his recent comments? That seems kind of silly to me. But viewed in the light of Defending the Shield, yeah, I can see it.
(I guess I’m vaguely pro-Simmons, though I’d say that I’m more pro-Grantland: the Simmons content on its own, particularly his writing, has been on autopilot for years now. But Grantland produces a ton of really good content re: both sports and pop culture, and while it’s not all hits, it’s responsible for giving a very visible platform to guys like Bill Barnwell, Zach Lowe, and Andy Greenwald.)
One of the key issues that journalists have to do is balance the competing benefits (and drawbacks) of access versus accountability.
The problem with ESPN is that it is almost a completely access-focused organization, and as a result is usually incredibly bad at accountability journalism, at least when those who need to be held accountable are the same people and the same organizations to whom the station wants access. The sports leagues themselves recognize this, and do everything they can to cultivate the access side of the relationship, knowing that it compromises accountability reporting. Hell, in Washington, Dan Snyder goes even further, spending money to employ formerly-critical reporters, to buy up critical organizations, and to co-opt the rest by spending advertising money with them.
As SenorBeef notes, this problem is not peculiar to sports journalism. Perhaps the most obvious examples in politics are the talking-head news programs on Sunday mornings. It’s well-known in DC that excessively penetrating and probing questions, and a tendency to get too confrontational, will simply result in your show losing access to the people who matter.
I was pretty shocked by this quite frankly. First, because Simmons himself seemed pretty certain he was not gonna catch any flak for his comments. A few moments later, he actually said:
[QUOTE=Bill Simmons]
I really hope someone calls me or emails me and says I’m in trouble for anything I say about Roger Goodell. If one person says that to me, I’m going public. You leave me alone. The commissioner is a liar, and I get to talk about that on my podcast. Please, call me and say I’m in trouble, I dare you.
[/QUOTE]
Two, individual media content creators are far more powerful and valuable than they have ever been, so choosing to punish a guy who makes them a ton of money and content for his pretty tame comments seems foolish in the long run. Yes, Simmons isn’t as big as the ESPN brand, but he is arguably their biggest star, and punishing him for saying what many have said is probably not gonna make it easy to hire the next Nate Silver, etc.