Kind of sneaky, aren't we ESPN?

ESPN.com's latest E-Ticket is on Conrad Dobler, yet another retired NFL player who's dedicated himself to fighting for pension and medical benefits for retired NFL players.

It's an interesting story, part of a suddenly loud chorus of coverage on the subject (Even the Sporting News, usually the NFL's biggest cheerleader, chimed in with a very interesting story about some retired players' dementia and depression.)

But that's not my point. This is the graphic that is ESPN.com's centerpiece at this moment:



Kind of sleazy to use SI's cover photo and headline as a design element but conveniently crop out their masthead, isn't it?

 

Yes.
But par for the course.

 

Good catch. The E-Ticket logo on the right is visible, though. I'm sure the designer had a good reason.

:

 

Oh, no doubt.

 

I wouldn't consider this fair usage.

 

I know bashing ESPN is sporting 'round here, most often deserved, but I'll disagree in this instance. On the inside page, the logo is clearly recognizable as SI's, and the writer mentions it in the third graf, viewable along with the inside graphic.

 

At least they didn't disappoint...

 

F_ Conrad Dobler and his dirty image. He cashed in with it for hundreds of thousands in the 70s in those Miller Lite commercials.

And F_ ESPN for trying to cash in with it for millions in the Aughts.

 

The writer did have to visibly strain to present Conrad Dobler as anything but a psychotic, but that's a whole other discussion.

 

Regardless of a mention of SI in the story, that is sleazy use. What, couldn't have an artist do an illustration?

 

SI should raise hell about it. ESPN shouldn't be allowed to use and SI cover and cut the mag's name off.

 

As I said, the SI logo is fully recognizable on the full illo on the inside, full-story page.

So what's the debate here? That it wasn't used fully on the front-page graphic?

As I said, the use of it "inside," as it were, and the plain mention of the story in question, with the cover shot in plain view, tells me they aren't exactly trying to hide the publication.

I think y'all are reaching here.