Those Guys Have All the Fun - James Andrew Miller [370]
It was understandably big news when, on July 17, 2009, a civil suit was filed in Nevada District Court accusing star quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers Ben Roethlisberger of sexual assault—the same Ben Roethlisberger who had been featured in one of ESPN’s SportsCenter commercials and been given a prime seat at the ESPY Awards.
Another story soon grew out of the civil suit, however. The Roethlisberger story was news virtually everywhere—except on ESPN. For two and a half days, ESPN failed to report on the Roethlisberger charges anywhere in its empire—with the exception of its local Pittsburgh TV station. In response to criticism, network representatives claimed that ESPN was not reporting the story because no criminal suit had been filed.
That explanation hardly satisfied those critical of the network. “Since when,” asked John Gonzalez in the Philadelphia Inquirer, “has an athlete’s silence or lack of cooperation prevented ESPN from covering a story?” He cited ESPN’s coverage of civil suits against Adam Jones, Roberto Alomar, and Shannon Brown. Gonzalez also quoted an unnamed ESPN source who said, “People were going insane. Fox News was doing the story; the AP had it. And they wouldn’t even let us mention it.”
Bryan Burwell of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote, “Every other major sports news operation has reported that the lawsuit has been filed, [but] the biggest sports news organization in the country… has been mysteriously silent.”
Gradually, the attacks on ESPN became harsher and more severe, some pointing out a potential conflict of interest. Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk on NBCSports.com wrote that ESPN’s inaction “makes us wonder whether there’s a complete firewall between the business functions of ESPN and its journalistic activities.” Mike Francesa of WFAN said, “The bottom line is that ESPN is extremely protective of athletes, especially the ones that do commercials with them…. When they are in bed with athletes, they just protect them. We know that. That’s nothing new.”
And veteran sports reporter Frank Deford wrote, “ESPN’s refusal to report the story gave rise to criticism that it was not only protecting Roethlisberger’s reputation but… also shielding its TV partner, the NFL. It had taken a seemingly inviolate position that accusations in a civil suit could be false, yet incendiary enough to damage Roethlisberger’s reputation.”
In an instance of perfect timing, the whole thing blew up just after ESPN had named Don Ohlmeyer as its new ombudsman. In his first column on ESPN.com, Ohlmeyer wrote, “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.”
After two days, John Skipper told Vince Doria the story was too big to ignore any longer, and the network got on the case. What ESPN finally did was less the issue, however, than how long it had taken them to do it. In the ESPN newsroom, spirits were down.
VINCE DORIA:
When Ben Roethlisberger was accused—in a civil lawsuit—of sexual assault, we did not initially report it. This was consistent with our policy on these types of stories. Accusations of sexual misconduct are damaging, of course, and regardless of the outcome of those allegations, they often continue to be part of an individual’s reputation. There are a number of factors to consider in making the decision to report a story like this. Does the