No Roethlisberger stories on ESPN.com

I would imagine ESPN would counter your argument by saying that a criminal case came first, so that's why they reported on the civil suit.

 

One fact that I've not seen anywhere is that ESPN shared the broadcast rights with NBC for the tournamnent.

Certainly another possible reason for not pushing the story.

 

Oh, really. So the days when ESPN reporters got what was already in AP, and they would run a crawler saying, "Chris Mortensen has learned," are over?
Since when have they been shy about taking credit for someone else's work?

 

Roberto Alomar. No criminal case. Only civil. They reported it.
Case closed.

 

Cowherd loves his salary and is a boring clown who knows he hit the lottery with ESPN and will never have it so good again.

 

Even if this is an extortion attempt, it's still news. How ridiculous. If the suit is dismissed, does ESPN report it.

This comes from the place that showed Pacman Jones' stripper video (no redeeming news value).

All it showed was Pacman giving thousands of dollars to strippers (a ridiculous video, how could this be any fun?). It was titillating. But, its Pacman, not Big Ben.

 

I agree, but Bat was talking about the OJ case, not the Alomar case. My comment also dealt with OJ, not Alomar.

You're right, though. Definite double standard. You just can't use the OJ case to illustrate it.

I realize this post was unnecessary, but I'm bored.

 

John Walsh on with Francesa claiming that reason they did not run story was one of caution- used Duke lax case,

Confirmed that ESPN told affiliate talk show hosts not to discuss the case.

What a joke. Talk about trying to control the news.

 

He must have been making the rounds today. Was on the Dan Patrick show, too.

 

I can't believe they expect anybody to believe this explanation. It's obvious they don't like that this happened to Ben Roethlisberger. If this happens to Santonio Holmes, or Jay Cutler, for that matter, they're all over it.

 

Does Pittsburgh being one of only five ESPN owned-and-operated radio stations have anything to do with this?

If ESPN was looking at expanding its online local presence here like they're doing with the other four areas (discussed on another thread), it stands to reason why they don't want to rock the boat.

 

Whatever they are paying, if you consider yourself a credible journalist it would be hard to work for ESPN.