What is wrong with ESPN??

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

ESPN (while NFL Network continues to replay GameDay and Total Access) has been covering Sean Taylor the man (both the good and the bad) through all its platforms (tv, radio, online) all morning long.

The complexity of Sean Taylor adds to what makes all this so tragic and compelling.

Sorry if I seem harsh but I don't understand the need to bash ESPN at every turn. And maybe, definitely actually, I take it too personally. But you'd be the same if I spent my time talking about how you constantly fail at your jobs.

SS we've bantered about our media experience so I somewhat understand what you're feeling. ESPN is big dog and the big dog gets blamed for everyone elses bites sometimes.

One of the reasons I got out of the field is because of coverage like this. While a small part of his life, his past legal and on field troubles have (presumably) nothing to do with this tragedy and really shouldn't be mentioned in any stories related to this. If it were Pac Man Jones that this happened to, it would make more sense and a correlation could be made more readily but as it stands it's just another example of the media going to the negative in order to spice up a story.

I know it's probably not the right time for this but, I can't help to think there is a sterotypical undertone to some of the comments from the media, 'This is the circle he surrounded himself with. He hung in violent crowds so why should we be surprised this happened. He had gun incidents in the past so this can't be so unexpected.' One incident automatically lumps him in with the image of a 'thug' that the media perpetrates consistently. Sean wasn't Tank Johnson, he wasn't Pac Man Jones, he wasn't Chirs Henry..

This was a man who had one incident, had removed those people from his life, had moved on as a man and a father who died protecting his family. Let's see if ESPN, NFL-N or anyone else has the courage to honor him for being home, asleep at 1:30am, with his girlfriend and child in the room, not at a nightclub or a strip bar and he did what any real man would do if he had to, he died protecting his family.

I hope the Redskins PR staff is taking note of those (Bayless, Wilbon, etc) who have run to the negative so immediately and bar them from Redskin Park forever.

[FRPLG]

My feeling is that all of the negative stuff in his past is completely irrelevant to this. He wasn't shot in a night club or at some crack house. He was at home asleep with his fiancee and baby girl. Then some piece of crap cuts his phone lines breaks in and shoots him dead. Whether he had past legal trouble or not has no bearing here and the fact that he had become a better man, a man to look up to means he deserves to be remembered that way and ESPN seems to be doing a pretty shitty job of remembering him the way he should be remembered.

[irish]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

My feeling is that all of the negative stuff in his past is completely irrelevant to this. He wasn't shot in a night club or at some crack house. He was at home asleep with his fiancee and baby girl. Then some piece of crap cuts his phone lines breaks in and shoots him dead. Whether he had past legal trouble or not has no bearing here and the fact that he had become a better man, a man to look up to means he deserves to be remembered that way and ESPN seems to be doing a pretty shitty job of remembering him the way he should be remembered.

Unfortunately I think we will soon find out that some of the negative stuff in his past is directly related to this incident. IMO, this has all the earmarks of a revenge hit.

He had become a better man but I'm sure those that did this to him didnt care.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Let me say something in defense of ESPN here.

They have a story on their hands today that they are not accustomed to covering. Star athletes in the prime of their careers and in the middle of their seasons just don't get killed [maybe murdered with pre-meditation?] very often. In fact, I'm trying to think of a previous case with all of those factors in it. I can't come up with one that has all of the factors. ESPN is "feeling its way" in its coverage here...

There was more "info" to report in the T.O suicide nonsense and the Ben Roethlisberger accident stories because there were more "publicity folks" involved and fewer "police folks". When the police are investigating a homicide - particularly one that has all the earmarks of being a "really high profile case" - they tend to play their cards very close to their vest. So, ESPN - and the rest of the media - cannot come up with new info on any regular basis. And ESPN does have lots of time to fill on the air...

So, what does ESPN have at its disposal to talk about. It can show Sean Taylor playing football at Miami and in Washington. They can show his highlight plays. They can show his teammates/coaches saying what a wonderful person/player he was. [They even have to be careful there lest someone criticize them for "intruding on the grief" suffered by those players/coaches.] Then what? Remember, ESPN has lots of time to fill on the air...

What else is "background info" here? That's the sordid stuff that seems to get folks riled up here. But there isn't all that much more that ESPN has at the moment.

And if they just mentioned his killing and then ignored the story, people here would be angry at ESPN for snubbing Sean Taylor and/or the Redskins and/or ...

No one is really to blame for the coverage of this tragedy so far because there just isn't enough factual info yet to make it into anything meaningful.

And for those of you who are angry at ESPN's coverage, just wait until Nancy Grace and Larry King get on the story.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Let me say something in defense of ESPN here.

They have a story on their hands today that they are not accustomed to covering. Star athletes in the prime of their careers and in the middle of their seasons just don't get killed [maybe murdered with pre-meditation?] very often. In fact, I'm trying to think of a previous case with all of those factors in it. I can't come up with one that has all of the factors. ESPN is "feeling its way" in its coverage here...

There was more "info" to report in the T.O suicide nonsense and the Ben Roethlisberger accident stories because there were more "publicity folks" involved and fewer "police folks". When the police are investigating a homicide - particularly one that has all the earmarks of being a "really high profile case" - they tend to play their cards very close to their vest. So, ESPN - and the rest of the media - cannot come up with new info on any regular basis. And ESPN does have lots of time to fill on the air...

So, what does ESPN have at its disposal to talk about. It can show Sean Taylor playing football at Miami and in Washington. They can show his highlight plays. They can show his teammates/coaches saying what a wonderful person/player he was. [They even have to be careful there lest someone criticize them for "intruding on the grief" suffered by those players/coaches.] Then what? Remember, ESPN has lots of time to fill on the air...

What else is "background info" here? That's the sordid stuff that seems to get folks riled up here. But there isn't all that much more that ESPN has at the moment.

And if they just mentioned his killing and then ignored the story, people here would be angry at ESPN for snubbing Sean Taylor and/or the Redskins and/or ...

No one is really to blame for the coverage of this tragedy so far because there just isn't enough factual info yet to make it into anything meaningful.

And for those of you who are angry at ESPN's coverage, just wait until Nancy Grace and Larry King get on the story.

I don't buy it. Yes, this is unprecedented on some level, but ESPN like most of media outlets are reaching for the most convenient narrative here - "Yet another young star athlete caught in the cross-fire of violence."

I believe ESPN calls itself the "Worldwide Leader In Sports? Well then act like it! Don't re-hash what everyone is re-hashing. Dig deep and get beneath the surface. In other words, do some reporting not repeating. Get on the front end of this story and tell us something we don't already know. And because they are a national outlet, they have a much bigger responsibility.

As far as background info not available, if ESPN can routinely run footage of a guy running touchdowns in college, dunking a basketball in high school, swinging a golf club at the age of three, and other background facts that we aren't privy to, I'm sure they have the resources to talk about the good human being Sean Taylor is.

[pg86]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I don't buy it. Yes, this is unprecedented on some level, but ESPN like most of media outlets are reaching for the most convenient narrative here - "Yet another young star athlete caught in the cross-fire of violence."

I believe ESPN calls itself the "Worldwide Leader In Sports? Well then act like it! Don't re-hash what everyone is re-hashing. Dig deep and get beneath the surface. In other words, do some reporting not repeating. Get on the front end of this story and tell us something we don't already know. And because they are a national outlet, they have a much bigger responsibility.

As far as background info not available. If ESPN can routinely run footage of guy running touchdowns in college, dunking a basketball in high school, swinging a golf club at the age of three, and other background facts that we aren't privy to, I'm sure they have the resources to talk about the good human being Sean Taylor is.

The sad part is disney owns this network.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

SS we've bantered about our media experience so I somewhat understand what you're feeling. ESPN is big dog and the big dog gets blamed for everyone elses bites sometimes.

One of the reasons I got out of the field is because of coverage like this. While a small part of his life, his past legal and on field troubles have (presumably) nothing to do with this tragedy and really shouldn't be mentioned in any stories related to this. If it were Pac Man Jones that this happened to, it would make more sense and a correlation could be made more readily but as it stands it's just another example of the media going to the negative in order to spice up a story.

I know it's probably not the right time for this but, I can't help to think there is a sterotypical undertone to some of the comments from the media, 'This is the circle he surrounded himself with. He hung in violent crowds so why should we be surprised this happened. He had gun incidents in the past so this can't be so unexpected.' One incident automatically lumps him in with the image of a 'thug' that the media perpetrates consistently. Sean wasn't Tank Johnson, he wasn't Pac Man Jones, he wasn't Chirs Henry..

This was a man who had one incident, had removed those people from his life, had moved on as a man and a father who died protecting his family. Let's see if ESPN, NFL-N or anyone else has the courage to honor him for being home, asleep at 1:30am, with his girlfriend and child in the room, not at a nightclub or a strip bar and he did what any real man would do if he had to, he died protecting his family.

I hope the Redskins PR staff is taking note of those (Bayless, Wilbon, etc) who have run to the negative so immediately and bar them from Redskin Park forever.

I just dont see how one can say that ST's off field troubles can not be mentioned when talking about his life. Those things were part of his life. So were the gun incidents, the violent crowds and his recent turn around. For better or worse it was all his life.

I dont think any of us really know what ST was because he wouldnt tell us.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by irish

I just dont see how one can say that ST's off field troubles can not be mentioned when talking about his life. Those things were part of his life. So were the gun incidents, the violent crowds and his recent turn around. For better or worse it was all his life.

I dont think any of us really know what ST was because he wouldnt tell us.

If this happened to Favre, would there be such a focus (or at all) about his past drug addiction or his hard partying ways when he was a younger man? I'd be shocked if it was made mention at all. Certain aspects of the media make their name and revel in negativity and exploit it when it's convenient to their story or overall agenda.. This is what I see in the national coverage.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

If this happened to Favre, would there be such a focus (or at all) about his past drug addiction or his hard partying ways when he was a younger man? I'd be shocked if it was made mention at all. Certain aspects of the media make their name and revel in negativity and exploit it when it's convenient to their story or overall agenda.. This is what I see in the national coverage.

I think if BF died of a drug overdose or at a party the focus would be there. Favre's partying days were years ago now and the addiction to drugs he had a prescription for was even maybe 5 years ago. Most of the ST things were barely 2 years ago and most of those were negative. If ST had a past of singing in the church choir and helping little old ladies across the street then that's what the media would be talking about but for better or worse he didnt have that kind of past. The media is only showing his history, the good, bad & ugly.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by irish

I think if BF died of a drug overdose or at a party the focus would be there. Favre's partying days were years ago now and the addiction to drugs he had a prescription for was even maybe 5 years ago. Most of the ST things were barely 2 years ago and most of those were negative. If ST had a past of singing in the church choir and helping little old ladies across the street then that's what the media would be talking about but for better or worse he didnt have that kind of past. The media is only showing his history, the good, bad & ugly.

In light of the circumstances I'll agree to disagree with you on this. My past personal experience in that field tells me the media tend to be selective historians on stories (whatever makes the story more salacious) and is generally less gracious to those who don't choose to be media friendly.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

In light of the circumstances I'll agree to disagree with you on this. My past personal experience in that field tells me the media tend to be selective historians on stories (whatever makes the story more salacious) and is generally less gracious to those who don't choose to be media friendly.

I'm sure they are selective but what I am saying is that ST was only 24, he didnt have much of a history to select from and what was there could be seen as negative.