Big Ben accused of sexual assault

[NovaStar]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

That is a funny quote. Charges haven't been filed. Also, I'm saying this goes beyond a love for Ben, it's about destroying programming. If Ben backs out of the Shaq reality show that will create a big problem for ABC (which also means ESPN/Disney).

What up Wharton, been a while. I dug this up, seems appopriate:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...rger-situation

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaStar

What up Wharton, been a while. I dug this up, seems appopriate: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...rger-situation

What's up NovaStar. Where you been?

I like how he broke down the links where ESPN broke their "rule" ha ha. I can't remember where I heard it but someone on the radio put the pieces together of all the ABC/ESPN/Disney franchise had coming up for Ben. Definitely wasn't Mike and Mike for obvious reasons so I guess some local yahoos, but makes sense in this case. Doesn't make it right but makes a bit of sense.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by slickdtc

It is strange that ESPN isn't blowing this up yet. I don't even think they're playing favorites. They blow up any story. Weird.

This story is obviously straight bull.

I think that's why ESPN isn't covering it.

The most mention necessary is "some trick *** ho is trying to gold dig Big Ben"

[p_rushing]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

This story is obviously straight bull. I think that's why ESPN isn't covering it. The most mention necessary is "some trick *** ho is trying to gold dig Big Ben"

Come on, if this was TO, even worse Vick, they would have at least a mention and probably an interview with one of their legal guys about what it all means. Most likely they would have daily coverage of what is happening, what's next, and what they think might happen.

[J0nnD0ugh]

Quote: Originally Posted by p_rushing

Come on, if this was TO, even worse Vick, they would have at least a mention and probably an interview with one of their legal guys about what it all means. Most likely they would have daily coverage of what is happening, what's next, and what they think might happen.

Agreed. They'll take from unnamed sources reports of a so-called private conversation involving TO & lead off SC w/it. They'll fill the airwaves w/damaging information, obtained illegally, on Barry Bonds. But reports on Brett Favre handing out information to Packer opponents isn't news. A lawsuit involving Big Ben that is in the public record isn't news.

That's why I say SC is the FoxNews of the sports world.

[Steelerfan2k1]

Maybe ESPN has some sort of bias, but I also can't help but wonder if ESPN has access to the "real story" of what is going on here, and is just waiting on something to release the story.

This is just a pure guess on my part, but it is interesting that they are remaining silent on this.....

Nope - nevermind - they just ran the standard AP story on this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4349253

[Watson]

I dont beleive it. Ben can get better *** at home sitting on his couch.

[J0nnD0ugh]

Quote: Originally Posted by Steelerfan2k1

Maybe ESPN has some sort of bias, but I also can't help but wonder if ESPN has access to the "real story" of what is going on here, and is just waiting on something to release the story. This is just a pure guess on my part, but it is interesting that they are remaining silent on this..... Nope - nevermind - they just ran the standard AP story on this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4349253

If there was a "real story" behind it, wouldn't it be ESPN's obligation, as a source of news, to report it?

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad they are hesitant to reveal scandalous material w/people they like. I think there is too much sensationalism in the news today. I just wish they'd extend the same courtesy to those they don't like. Freedom of the press comes w/it the obligation to be even-handed. No feelings behind the words, just the facts. But news organizations have confused the "freedom of the press" w/all of our rights to "freedom of speech". Those are not one & the same.