ESPN and the Sandusky sex case

[Versatile]

Thought that was interesting. Every single other major website focuses on Sandusky's side. Here are the headlines:

Yahoo! Sports: "Child sex case: Penn State authority figures must answer in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal."
Sports Illustrated: "Ex-Penn State assistant charged in child sex case"
CBS Sports: "Paterno to testify in Sandusky sexual abuse case"
Fox Sports: "Ex-Penn State coach arrested, AD charged in sex abuse case"
USA Today: "Ex-Penn State coach charged with abuse"
The New York Times: "Former Coach at Penn State Is Charged With Abuse"
The Washington Post: "Scandal could take Penn St. beyond redemption"
Los Angeles Times: "Ex-Penn State assistant football coach accused of sexual abuse"
SB Nation: "Jerry Sandusky Indicted On Sex Crime Charges, Penn State AD Charged With Perjury"

The list could go on...

Maybe I'm just cynical of the World Wide Leader, but that buried and vague headline is the only reference to the case on the ESPN.com homepage. Go to the college football page, and the only difference is that it's bumped up a few spots. Same headline.

I'm surprised by the way most of these sites have played this. I get that LSU-Alabama is the big thing. I get that the other stories ESPN has above the Penn State story are all legitimate. But I thought Yahoo! Sports, USA Today and The Washington Post made the right decisions in playing it in very visible locations. To me, this was the big story of the weekend. This could bring down Paterno.

So is this the Worldwide Leader burying negative coverage or just a case of a bad/tired night homepage editor?

Also, how do you think this case should be covered moving forward?

 

[btm]

 

[HejiraHenry]

Well, as an entree into the overall story, I'd say the fact that a BCS "big six" AD is facing perjury charges is a helluva angle. Since Sandusky is no longer a coach, it may be the most pressing issue in terms of sports, rather than the law & order story.

 

[BYH]

There are no accidents at ESPN when it comes to negative stories involving the money trains. I'm sure this will be covered as extensively as the Roethlisrapist case.

 

[Versatile]

Well, as an entree into the overall story, I'd say the fact that a BCS "big six" AD is facing perjury charges is a helluva angle. Since Sandusky is no longer a coach, it may be the most pressing issue in terms of sports, rather than the law & order story.

You can say that, though I and apparently many others disagree. But I would argue, then, that headline should be "Penn State AD charged with perjury in sex abuse case," or something to that effect. Surely you're not suggesting perjury charges in a ponzi scheme investigation are as big a deal as in a case involving the sexual abuse of a child.

 

[HanSenSE]

I'm with Versatile ... seen the WWL play up or down too many stories depending on its relationship with the network to think that it's an overworked webby on a busy college football Saturday.

Is there anyway to see what's trending there, though?

 

[Versatile]

I'm with Versatile ... seen the WWL play up or down too many stories depending on its relationship with the network to think that it's an overworked webby on a busy college football Saturday.

Is there anyway to see what's trending there, though?

A Ctrl+F on the homepage produces no results for "Paterno," "Sandusky" or "sex" and only the one headline for "Curley" or "Penn State."

The only difference on the college football front is a link to "Maisel: Inside Joe Paterno's 400."

 

[HanSenSE]

I'm with Versatile ... seen the WWL play up or down too many stories depending on its relationship with the network to think that it's an overworked webby on a busy college football Saturday.

Is there anyway to see what's trending there, though?

A Ctrl+F on the homepage produces no results for "Paterno," "Sandusky" or "sex" and only the one headline for "Curley" or "Penn State."

The only difference on the college football front is a link to "Maisel: inside Joe Paterno's 400."

So that explains those hounds baying ...

 

[93Devil]

There are no accidents at ESPN when it comes to negative stories involving the money trains. I'm sure this will be covered as extensively as the Roethlisrapist case.

You might have a point, but in this case there at least was a perp walk. That means something more is happening than some questioning.

 

[imjustagirl]

Well, as an entree into the overall story, I'd say the fact that a BCS "big six" AD is facing perjury charges is a helluva angle. Since Sandusky is no longer a coach, it may be the most pressing issue in terms of sports, rather than the law & order story.

You can say that, though I and apparently many others disagree. But I would argue, then, that headline should be "Penn State AD charged with perjury in sex abuse case," or something to that effect. Surely you're not suggesting perjury charges in a ponzi scheme investigation are as big a deal as in a case involving the sexual abuse of a child.

so you want to drop one word -- Curley -- and add in "in sex abuse case?" Pretty sure THAT ain't fitting.

A.) There are no "bad" night editors at ESPN.com. Don't be assholes.
B.) The story came out early enough they weren't "tired" either.
C.) I'd like to know when this image was grabbed. I'm assuming around the time the thread was started, meaning it had been on the site for countless hours. Because yes, at ESPN, they do rotate stories through, barring something like a major death. It's not going to stay as the main story when Alabama-LSU is going on.
D.) The headline IS vague, but trust me when I tell you, those little links can be HARD to write when you're trying to strike the right tone. Especially with that damn video icon. That link has 41 characters. Go for it, and that's not taking into account the l that takes up no room.

You have 41 characters. What headline do you write?

 

[YankeeFan]

Well, as an entree into the overall story, I'd say the fact that a BCS "big six" AD is facing perjury charges is a helluva angle. Since Sandusky is no longer a coach, it may be the most pressing issue in terms of sports, rather than the law & order story.

You can say that, though I and apparently many others disagree. But I would argue, then, that headline should be "Penn State AD charged with perjury in sex abuse case," or something to that effect. Surely you're not suggesting perjury charges in a ponzi scheme investigation are as big a deal as in a case involving the sexual abuse of a child.

Hell, I thought the headline on our own SJ Sports & News thread played it down.

I figured it was a recruiting scandal and nearly didn't click on the thread.

Did all of this just come out, or had it already been reported that Sandusky was under investigation?

 

[1HPGrad]

Used to think the E stood for Ego.
Now, Excuses.

 

[ondeadline]

The SportsCenter I watched this morning didn't even mention the story for 27 minutes. Incredibly bad news judgement.

40-character headline: Child sex, perjury charges at Penn State

 

[wicked]

D.) The headline IS vague, but trust me when I tell you, those little links can be HARD to write when you're trying to strike the right tone. Especially with that damn video icon. That link has 41 characters. Go for it, and that's not taking into account the l that takes up no room.

You have 41 characters. What headline do you write?

We're in a similar spot, at about 50 characters give or take for our heads in our stack/waterfall/rail/whatever ESPN calls it. It's a ***** to write those heads.

 

[1HPGrad]

OD: I seriously hope IJAG was kidding about the difficulty level involved in writing a 41-character headline. If that's the bar, raise it. No need to indulge that silliness.
I've thought this for about a decade, but the biggest problem with ESPN is we keep expecting it to be a news station. It's not. So I don't really get all that miffed when they ignore the UM mess or downplay this. I don't expect them to be out front on this stuff.
I expect them to be on camera, screaming, handing off footballs, writing cheesy scripts, wearing Tiger faces, etc. They do all of that exceedingly well.

 

[ondeadline]

That's what we get, but I expect more. It's just pathetic that SportsCenter buries a story that obviously is a sports story and a very disturbing one at that. It was the first story on NBC Nightly News on Saturday night.

I guess if was Brett Favre instead of Jerry Sandusky, it might be played a little differently?

 

[LongTimeListener]

It has the exact same headline treatment now that it had 24 hours ago, with a wire services story and no other coverage. At this point it's pretty clear that ESPN has chosen the cover-up route; I will be interested to see if there's some business connection, such as a special on the life of JoePa and the record, that comes to light as a possible explanation. When they buried the Roethlisberger stuff, it did just so happen to occur on the same day that Big Ben was headlined as one of the main participants on Shaq's ABC reality show.

 

[playthrough]

ESPN simply did not do this story nearly enough justice. If they want to say there's no conflict, no cover-up, fine, I won't be that cynical. But then your news judgment is just effing horrible.

On weekends they can hide behind the "Sports" in "ESPN". I'll give them some credit if they make this their lead story at some point on Monday on all platforms and put a reporter on it. But they also may just keep leading with LSU and whatever Tony Romo does today.

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

OD: I seriously hope IJAG was kidding about the difficulty level involved in writing a 41-character headline. If that's the bar, raise it. No need to indulge that silliness.I've thought this for about a decade, but the biggest problem with ESPN is we keep expecting it to be a news station. It's not. So I don't really get all that miffed when they ignore the UM mess or downplay this. I don't expect them to be out front on this stuff.
I expect them to be on camera, screaming, handing off footballs, writing cheesy scripts, wearing Tiger faces, etc. They do all of that exceedingly well.

Amen to that. Don't settle for a shoulder shrug and saying, "Can't do better."

I see they're now up to 44 characters, with the headline, "Penn State bars accused ex-coach from campus". Does that smack anyone else as faint praise of Penn State's reaction to this?

I think I'm more offended by the fact that they're still relying on AP the whole way. A story this big doesn't warrant getting some of your own people in Happy Valley to work the story? No opinion pieces (even if written from the columnist's couch) about these horrible accusations and the big picture on what it means to Penn State football/athletics?

Someone else mentioned Brett Favre. I seem to remember ESPN talking heads being on the scene in Mississippi pretty regularly in the last couple years to report on him retiring/not retiring. It's sad that a story this much bigger can't get the same treatment ...

 

[ondeadline]

Dan Wetzel had a very well-done piece about the story on Yahoo! on Saturday afternoon. It is pathetic that ESPN.com still is leaning on AP for content.