|
May 21, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Monthly Archives
May, 2012
November, 2009 October, 2009 September, 2009 August, 2009 July, 2009 June, 2009 May, 2009 April, 2009 March, 2009 February, 2009 January, 2009 December, 2008 November, 2008
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (10)
William S. Stevens: 1948-2008 (22) Teixeira’s Options (18) Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (23) Appropos of nothing (4) Shyster's Daily Circuit
Rob Neyer
AaronGleeman.com Joe Posnanski Blog Baseball Analysts Baseball Musings Cot's Baseball Contracts It IS About the Money Keith Law Cardboard Gods Baseball Think Factory MLB Trade Rumors Retrosheet Vegas Watch Way Back and Gone Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog The Biz of Baseball The Daily Fungo U.S.S. Mariner Braves Journal Scott Simkus The Common Man Jorge Says No! Baseball Over Here Fack Youk Wezen-Ball Chop-n-Change |
Baseball. Blogging. Whenever.Thursday, October 22, 2009Deadspin’s assault on ESPNLike a lot of you, I've been watching the Steve Phillips business from afar. Between the almost complete lack of any real baseball angle whatsoever, and the fact that, unlike a lot of scandalous stories, this one has an innocent wife and children being dragged through it all, I really don't see the percentage in writing about it. I'll gawk like the rest of you, but it doesn't exactly scream out for coverage.Of greater interest to me is one of the things that has spun out of the Phillips story, and that's Deadspin's crazy-even-for-Deadspin assault on ESPN yesterday. If you missed it, Deadspin editor A.J. Daulerio, apparently pissed that he missed out on the Steve Phillips scoop due to ESPN stonewalling him when he sought comment on the affair last month, decided to let loose with multiple rumors he's been sitting on regarding the sexploits of ESPN employees. He reported on a sexual harassment complaint against radio guy Eric Kuselias, as well as his divorce. He went after Katie Lacey, ESPN's Executive Vice President for marketing, accusing her of sleeping her way to the top. In his last post he went on about the overall culture of ESPN, about how everyone there allegedly has sex with everyone else and how, somehow, the town of Bristol, Connecticut is to blame. These descriptions do not do it justice. He really pulled no punches. I read these with my mouth agape, not because of the allegations contained in them, but because of Daulerio's decision to actually write about them, and Nick Denton's presumed approval of them to begin with. Yes, the Gawker empire is well known for trafficking in scandal, but this seems above and beyond their usual brand of muck. As AOL's Clay Travis -- lawyer, and, it just so happens, former Deadspin assistant editor -- notes, this may not amount to a meritorious defamation suit by ESPN, but it's certainly closer to the line than Deadspin normally treads. I actually think ESPN would ultimately lose any lawsuit here simply because defamation is so hard to win, but I could see Disney and ESPN making the decision that, after all of the hell Deadspin has caused them, this is a decent enough place to draw the line, file the suit, and cause Nick Denton to have to pay a bunch of money in legal fees. Whether any suit is brought would likely hinge on the cooperation of either Kuselias or Lacey, whose lives would become open books in such a suit, but if one of them were pissed off enough and/or close enough to retirement to say sure, go ahead, it would be game-on. Maybe there are long odds against that happening, but are they so long that it was worth Daulerio taking such a risk? Moreover, is this really where the original promise of Deadspin and the sports blogosphere in general was meant to lead us? I'm not Buzz Bissinger when it comes to these matters, but as I sit here today and reflect on all of this, I am far from inspired. Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 3:55pm Comments
Jack Marshall said...
All journalism is biased, and that’s OK if the bias is controlled and acknowledged, and there is a good faith effort to be objective. I would say the Times’ bias is worse than Fox’s, because the paper denies it. When the Times decided that the misconduct by ACORN employees wasn’t worth mentioning in the paper until after the Senate pulled its funding, that was proof positive (among other incidents) that the judgment of the premiere newspaper in the US couldn’t be trusted to be objective. Essentially, economic pressures have shown that journalistic ethics were a sham, because the media now ignores them regularly to suit what it thinks are market demands. Posted 10/23 at 04:08 PM
tadthebad said...
I do happen to agree with Jack on the media bias issue…they all have their inherent bias, and it always comes through in their “reporting.” Subtle bias is often worse, in my opinion, because it can be cloaked by a facade of objectivity. Posted 10/24 at 11:00 AM
Peter Earl said...
The only person that receives a paycheck from ESPN that is worth a crap is Dan Le Batard. As far as the rest of them…fry them. Seriously, what obligation does Deadspin have to ESPN? They should cover up the misogyny that apparently is so prevalent? Posted 10/25 at 12:39 AM
Jack Marshall said...
The AP is now giving Deadspin credit for shaming ESPN into dumping Phillips. That is certain to encourage the website, and it is unwarranted. ESPN has gotten rid of high-profile sexual harassment-types before (see: Harold Reynolds), and was almost certainly going to can Phillips when things quieted down. Deadspin made it clear that it wouldn’t let things quiet down. I wish ESPN had waited. This is like negotiating with terrorists. Posted 10/26 at 10:40 AM
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. Next Post: And That Happened: ALCS>> <<Previous Post: The Negro League All-Stars for Strat-o-Matic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It seems like Jack is talking about fairness and Wooden is talking interest levels…
Jack- are there, in your view, any examples of unbiased journalism? Because I would argue that while both the NYT and Fox show bias, the type and degree of their biases is substantially different in a way that affects value .