Kind of sneaky, aren't we ESPN?

Ummm...Yes. That's exactly what the problem is. But it's not really much of a "debate."

And frankly, it's not much of a graphic. It's someone else's 30-year-old work copied with minimal visible credit given, and then an "E-ticket" logo stuck next to it and a headline slapped underneath it. The SI art and cover headline are the dominant element of the graphic, and whoever put it together was OBVIOUSLY at pains to make "Sports Illustrated" unreadable on the front page of ESPN.com. Whether or not its mentioned "inside" is more or less irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I can see the WWL not wanting to give SI any play, but if that's your aim, don't use their work for your own profit.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=conraddobler&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab5pos1

They gave them play. Plenty of it.

The story said:

"This is, after all, the same Conrad Dobler whom Sports Illustrated anointed on its cover in 1977 as "Pro Football's Dirtiest Player," the same Conrad Dobler who titled his own autobiography "They Call Me Dirty." This is the Conrad Dobler who gouged eyes and twisted facemasks and worked hard to irritate everyone from Pete Rozelle to John Madden to a mild-mannered Mormon defensive lineman named Merlin Olsen."

NOT:

"This is, after all, the same Conrad Dobler whom a popular weekly sports magazine anointed on its cover in 1977 as "Pro Football's Dirtiest Player," the same Conrad Dobler who titled his own autobiography "They Call Me Dirty." This is the Conrad Dobler who gouged eyes and twisted facemasks and worked hard to irritate everyone from Pete Rozelle to John Madden to a mild-mannered Mormon defensive lineman named Merlin Olsen."

 

That's not the point of this argument.

 

Follow the link, look at the illustration and read the first grafs of the story.

Yep, they were really trying to hide where the image came from.

 

No matter the subject, there's always someone to defend the indefensible.

 

Drop the overdramatics. I know you're the political bigwig, but you're off base here. It's as simple as that. THEY GAVE SI CREDIT. MORE THAN ONCE.

But you're right. ESPN sucks.

 

LMAO. Who's quoting himself and being overdramatic in defense of ESPN?