• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

ESPN: At It Again

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
They may not be legally obligated to, but morally, why couldn't they at least go to the police & say "look, this is what we have, if you feel an investigation is necessary, go for it, if not, fine."?

That's my problem with the whole mess.

In that sense, it is the same as Paterno, IMO.

It comes down to media only goes to the police if they can corroborate the evidence. Maybe Davis didnt want them to go and they were protecting their source. Why didnt the wife go to the police? If Davis made the call, why didnt he go to the police? Blaming Espn here is difficult. Maybe they were trying to build a story and couldnt come up with one other person or any other evidence. You say that's the police's job? Well that is true, but that is also the job of a news agency.

Think of it this way, what is their motivation holding back evidence and not writing a story? Breaking a story like this is huge. If they feel they dont have enough evidence to break the story, then for sure a journalist doesnt have enough evidence to break the confidence of his informer. I really think we are being overly critical here because of how terrible the crimes are.
 
I really think we are being overly critical here because of how terrible the crimes are.

Exactly why they should they should have been critical too and did something about it.
 
It comes down to media only goes to the police if they can corroborate the evidence. Maybe Davis didnt want them to go and they were protecting their source. Why didnt the wife go to the police? If Davis made the call, why didnt he go to the police? Blaming Espn here is difficult. Maybe they were trying to build a story and couldnt come up with one other person or any other evidence. You say that's the police's job? Well that is true, but that is also the job of a news agency.

Think of it this way, what is their motivation holding back evidence and not writing a story? Breaking a story like this is huge. If they feel they dont have enough evidence to break the story, then for sure a journalist doesnt have enough evidence to break the confidence of his informer. I really think we are being overly critical here because of how terrible the crimes are.

You said it in your last sentence. The crimes are that terrible. Media or not, it's not ESPN's job to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to convict somebody. Maybe they didn't want to break the news, and that's fine, I'm fine with that part, but they should've gone to the police with it & let them handle it.

I'm not saying those other people aren't at fault. Anybody who knew should have gone to the police, that's what I'm saying.

Too much of the time, the media is worried about breaking the big story and/or not looking like dopes if they break the wrong one. When the crimes are this serious, who cares? Just do the right thing & make sure there's nothing there.

It's horrible to sit on this just because they were trying to build more of a story out of this and/or they didn't think there was enough to write about it.

Maybe it's just me, but whether it's ESPN, CNN, NBC, whomever, if they get something like this, they need to do their damnest to make sure there's nothing there, and ultimately (except when it's the decision of breaking the story or not), that's not their decision to make.
 
You said it in your last sentence. The crimes are that terrible. Media or not, it's not ESPN's job to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to convict somebody. Maybe they didn't want to break the news, and that's fine, I'm fine with that part, but they should've gone to the police with it & let them handle it.
.

It is the media job to report the news and protect their sources. The right to free speech is not about being allowed to insult someone, its about the media's fear of persecution and media sources fear of persecution. There is a much bigger picture here. It is often forgotten.

Example, most people think when you appeal a court ruling, you are appealing if the person did it or not. Not really. What is going on is your appealing the system. The trial is then on trial. Looking for mistakes. Actually being innocent is not a defense during the appeals process. We dont have a perfect system, but its the best in the world.

Same is true for the media. I really hate the media most of the time. But atleast we dont live in Iraq where the media only gets to report what the state wants them to report, or in England where they are completely out of control.

If Espn had corroborating evidence, I am sure they would have written the story and handed over the evidence. If you think logically about the story and remove any passion about the level of the crimes, we would see ESPN did what they were supposed to.

Why not blame Davis? He had the tapes for 9 years before he went to the police and he was a witness. He said it himself he knew there was others yet he waited to go to police? What was his motivation in giving the tapes to ESPN and not the police? Did he only give the tapes to ESPN on the promise they wouldnt give the tapes to the police?

In the end they had uncorroborated evidence and thus had a moral obligation to protect their sources. Its just like going to confessional. (i know this is an ironic example) or going to a therapist. A protected professional really has the obligation to their patient or church member before the law. Its how the system work. ESPN protected its source. Its the foundation of our freedom of speech.

Now a football coach does not have any obligation to protection and should have reported the abuse. Period.
 
I've thought for awhile that ESPN was the devil. Now I know.
 
It is the media job to report the news and protect their sources. The right to free speech is not about being allowed to insult someone, its about the media's fear of persecution and media sources fear of persecution. There is a much bigger picture here. It is often forgotten.

Example, most people think when you appeal a court ruling, you are appealing if the person did it or not. Not really. What is going on is your appealing the system. The trial is then on trial. Looking for mistakes. Actually being innocent is not a defense during the appeals process. We dont have a perfect system, but its the best in the world.

Same is true for the media. I really hate the media most of the time. But atleast we dont live in Iraq where the media only gets to report what the state wants them to report, or in England where they are completely out of control.

If Espn had corroborating evidence, I am sure they would have written the story and handed over the evidence. If you think logically about the story and remove any passion about the level of the crimes, we would see ESPN did what they were supposed to.

Why not blame Davis? He had the tapes for 9 years before he went to the police and he was a witness. He said it himself he knew there was others yet he waited to go to police? What was his motivation in giving the tapes to ESPN and not the police? Did he only give the tapes to ESPN on the promise they wouldnt give the tapes to the police?

In the end they had uncorroborated evidence and thus had a moral obligation to protect their sources. Its just like going to confessional. (i know this is an ironic example) or going to a therapist. A protected professional really has the obligation to their patient or church member before the law. Its how the system work. ESPN protected its source. Its the foundation of our freedom of speech.

Now a football coach does not have any obligation to protection and should have reported the abuse. Period.


I'm curious if you missed my earlier post. I did blame Davis too.

If you think logically about the story and remove any passion about the level of the crimes, we would see ESPN did what they were supposed to.

I dont think anyone here needs a lesson on the law...we get it. They can successfully hide behind it. Should they have? Hell fucking no. Who was the source they were protecting, Davis? Unless I'm missing something, he came to them. ESPN had 47minutes of audio from a victim that said he was molested. There is a witness, the wife of the pervert for 26 years, admitting her husband had a need to molest boys. 47 minutes from a victim and eye witness is more than enough evidence to take it to the police for a looksee. Did they have to legally? No. Should they have? Yep. Call them the "media" to make it sound better. In the end, they are human beings and parents, just like you and me. God forbid, if it were one of your children, there is not a chance you are saying "ESPN did what they were supposed to do". Going to the police, getting the guy arrested 8 years ago and preventing additonal molestations would have been wrong by ESPN??? That's insane.
 
... In the end, they are human beings and parents, just like you and me. ...

The court of public opinion is enough of a reason to have brought this out in a timely fashion, even for the media.
 
Anyone suggesting that the pedophile at ESPN is none other than John Clayton are completely insane...

I bet this is his "pickup wink"

500x_clayton1.jpg
 
I'm curious if you missed my earlier post. I did blame Davis too.



I dont think anyone here needs a lesson on the law...we get it. They can successfully hide behind it. Should they have? Hell fucking no. Who was the source they were protecting, Davis? Unless I'm missing something, he came to them. ESPN had 47minutes of audio from a victim that said he was molested. There is a witness, the wife of the pervert for 26 years, admitting her husband had a need to molest boys. 47 minutes from a victim and eye witness is more than enough evidence to take it to the police for a looksee. Did they have to legally? No. Should they have? Yep. Call them the "media" to make it sound better. In the end, they are human beings and parents, just like you and me. God forbid, if it were one of your children, there is not a chance you are saying "ESPN did what they were supposed to do". Going to the police, getting the guy arrested 8 years ago and preventing additonal molestations would have been wrong by ESPN??? That's insane.

I just have a harder time blaming an entity more than Davis or the Wife. We really dont know who even heard the tape at ESPN or it was a story they didnt believe so they didnt listen (mistake) or what.

And I did miss where you blamed Davis, my bad.
 
Expect the Walt Disney Company to come out with a statement about this shortly.
 
Anyone suggesting that the pedophile at ESPN is none other than John Clayton are completely insane...

I bet this is his "pickup wink"

500x_clayton1.jpg

Dudes got a fucking 12-head. Jesus christ.
 
Joe Paterno fulfilled his legal obligations, but didn't do enough. ESPN ripped him to shreds for doing so. Then it comes out that they did the exact same thing.
 
Joe Paterno fulfilled his legal obligations, but didn't do enough. ESPN ripped him to shreds for doing so. Then it comes out that they did the exact same thing.

Yeah, to be clear here, Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation under Pennsylvania state law. ESPN fulfilled their legal obligation. Both did not fulfill the ethical/moral obligation.

You can cut it a thousand ways, but its essentially the same thing when it comes down to it.
 
ESPN should have pressed Fine allegations


By Kelly McBride

There's a lot of outrage right now over ESPN's failure to report in 2003 that there were sexual abuse allegations against Syracuse assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine.

We're hearing it from fans through the Poynter Review Project mailbag. And a handful of critics have called out the network via blogs and Twitter, suggesting that if ESPN was not confident enough to publish, it should have at least gone to law enforcement with its information.

Eight years ago, ESPN journalists spent significant time and energy over roughly a six-month period interviewing one alleged victim, Bobby Davis; listening to the now-infamous recording between Davis and Bernie Fine's wife, Laurie; and trying to get other possible victims to talk.

Based on what Vince Doria, ESPN's senior vice president and director of news, told us this week, it's clear that the network didn't have enough information to publish a story at that time. Going public would have been journalistically irresponsible.

In the wake of the recent indictment of Jerry Sandusky at Penn State, Mike Lang came forward as the second alleged victim to accuse Fine. But in 2003, according to Doria, Lang was denying that he had been molested. Along with Lang, who is Davis' stepbrother, another man ESPN interviewed in 2003 denied he was a victim, and another potential victim refused to talk. The Fines both refused to talk as well.

Fine was fired Sunday after the 10-year-old voice recording of his wife, Laurie, emerged in which she discusses her husband's alleged abuse of Davis, and after the accusations of another alleged victim, Zachary Tomaselli, came to light.

Many critics have suggested that the tape of Laurie Fine should have been enough for ESPN to go public. It's not. Nowhere on the tape does she describe firsthand knowledge of her husband abusing children. She says that she thinks there were other victims, and disturbingly acknowledges that she believes Davis was abused by her husband. But she doesn't describe why she believes that to be true or say she witnessed abuse herself. (ESPN also couldn't prove until recently the woman on the tape was actually Laurie Fine.)

Newsrooms often deal with damning allegations, with no way to gather enough evidence to prove they are true. That's what happened to The Idaho Statesman when it was investigating rumors that Sen. Larry Craig was gay. It's also what happened to the St. Petersburg Times (which is owned by The Poynter Institute) and the Miami Herald when they investigated Rep. Mark Foley's questionable relationships with congressional pages.

When it comes to behavior behind closed doors, journalists often hit a dead end. When this happens, a journalism investigation becomes like a detective's cold case. You can keep knocking on doors, even though the chances of turning up new information seem remote and you do so at the expense of other investigations. You can also put the investigation on a back burner, stoking it only when new information arises. Or, you can drop it, which is what ESPN did in 2003.

We think the network gave up prematurely.

The network should have pursued two more lines of inquiry. First, someone should have called the chief of police in Syracuse (who, it turns out, was a former Syracuse basketball player, although no one at ESPN knew that at the time. But if they'd called, maybe they would have.) Reporters should have asked the police department why it wasn't pursuing an investigation. Given all that we know about people who sexually abuse children, if there was evidence to substantiate one case, it seems reasonable that police should look for more recent victims.

"We weren't looking to do any kind of examination of the Syracuse Police Department," Doria said. "We maybe could have checked further. At the time, Dennis Duvall was the chief, maybe if we had been aware of that, it would have piqued our interest."

Second, ESPN journalists should have called someone in the Syracuse president's office to ask whether there were other complaints and to review policies that govern the interaction of employees and children.

These two basic lines of inquiry could have shaken something loose. We do not believe ESPN acted with gross negligence, but rather a lack of persistence. And we don't believe ESPN was responsible for leaving other children vulnerable; that's on the Syracuse PD.

ESPN's lack of persistence is all the more glaring because by 2003, we as a society were coming to grips with the full implications of the systemic failure of the Catholic Church to protect children. Nowhere was this more evident than in the Northeast region, where Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law had lost his post in the wake of evidence (uncovered by Doria's former employer, The Boston Globe) that Law protected priests rather than hold them accountable.

There are a lot of parallels between the culture of sports and the culture of the Catholic Church. They are dominated by men. Successful leaders are lionized and worshipped by their followers. And there's a lot of money and power at stake.

When you pull back from the narrow view of the sports world and look at the broader picture, it's obvious that certain institutions are vulnerable to turning a blind eye to child sexual abuse.

Part of the watchdog role of journalists is to hold those powerful institutions accountable.

ESPN and other journalists could have, and should have, tried harder to do that back in 2003. It's possible the network still would have fallen short of the threshold to go public. But if ESPN had exhausted all the reporting possibilities at the time, today it could say in good conscience its news-gatherers did all they could do.

Instead, the best the network can say is that it did almost everything possible. It doesn't sound quite as good.

Link: http://espn.go.com/blog/poynterreview/post/_/id/187/espn-should-have-pressed-fine-allegations

If ESPN pursued this story as hard as they did tattoo-gate, something would have been uncovered then. It is sad that ESPN reserves the right to allow their agendas to inerfere with their journalistic responsibilities.
 
I am a little vindicated by the story though.The police knew, although maybe they could have pushed harder, it wasnt immoral what they did, just bad journalism. They police knew and they looked into for 6 months. What more do you guys want?
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top