Hruby on former 49er George Visger, and the price his brain paid for football

[Double Down]

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/page/George-Visger/george-visger-damage-done

A powerful piece. A lot of important questions being asked here by one of the best writers working, even if the answers are hard to figure out.

 

[Versatile]

I probably will read this because I enjoy Hruby's writing, but how many readers want another story about brain damage and football?

 

[Boom_70]

"He suffered his first concussion in ninth grade, on a helmet-breaking hit that left a bloody divot in his forehead. "

The NFL attorneys thank Mr Hruby.

 

[Double Down]

I probably will read this because I enjoy Hruby's writing, but how many readers want another story about brain damage and football?

Fewer than want a story about where Alex Collins will end up, I suspect. But on another thread, we have people arguing ESPN has a credibility issue when it comes to writing stories that appear to damage their business partners. Some go so far as to suggest ESPN outright won't do it. Here is an example of a pretty compelling story that hardly paints the NFL in anything other than a horrific light.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I probably will read this because I enjoy Hruby's writing, but how many readers want another story about brain damage and football?

I'm about a third of the way through the story, but I tend to agree with this. It's very compelling on its own. Puts you in the guy's head for sure. But the Jim McMahon story was also that, and a lot of others have been as well.

If we haven't reached the point of overkill on these, we're certainly very close to it.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I probably will read this because I enjoy Hruby's writing, but how many readers want another story about brain damage and football?

Fewer than want a story about where Alex Collins will end up, I suspect. But on another thread, we have people arguing ESPN has a credibility issue when it comes to writing stories that appear to damage their business partners. Some go so far as to suggest ESPN outright won't do it. Here is an example of a pretty compelling story that hardly paints the NFL in anything other than a horrific light.

Patrick Hruby could write that Roger Goodell has been selling crack-cocaine to 8-year-olds out of the Giants Stadium parking lot, and that would not change the point that ESPN - nor Fox, nor Sportsline - should not be eligible for major journalism awards. Conflicts of interest are about appearances. Once the appearance of a conflict of interest exists, then game over. No one has the time or interest for a case-by-case analysis. On its face, does Hruby's piece appear to pull no punches? Sure. Do we know that the truth wasn't even worse than portrayed, because of ESPN's business relationship with the NFL? We do not. And we have no way of knowing.

You are offering the same argument that a lot of good ol' boys from the APSE ran up the flagpole when the MLB.com employee was invited back to the judging.

"But you can trust this guy!"

"His work speaks for itself!"

Sorry, it doesn't.

P.S. When can I catch the next episode of "Playmakers"?

 

[Versatile]

But on another thread, we have people arguing ESPN has a credibility issue when it comes to writing stories that appear to damage their business partners. Some go so far as to suggest ESPN outright won't do it. Here is an example of a pretty compelling story that hardly paints the NFL in anything other than a horrific light.

The question wasn't of why you posted it here but why the piece was written. Did we need this story? I can't determine until I read it. Maybe it furthers the concussion issue. But we've reached the point of saturation on the long-form feature about the athlete who deals with the ramifications of concussions and contact. Those who want to read about them already have.

 

[silent_h]

But on another thread, we have people arguing ESPN has a credibility issue when it comes to writing stories that appear to damage their business partners. Some go so far as to suggest ESPN outright won't do it. Here is an example of a pretty compelling story that hardly paints the NFL in anything other than a horrific light.

The question wasn't of why you posted it here but why the piece was written. Did we need this story? I can't determine until I read it. Maybe it furthers the concussion issue. But we've reached the point of saturation on the long-form feature about the athlete who deals with the ramifications of concussions and contact. Those who want to read about them already have.

I'm interested in everyone's answers to this question. I think I did something different with this piece. I had a very specific effect in mind. But I tried to do it by showing, not telling.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Hruby has been an excellent voice on this subject for some time. I expect this one will be a great read.

Regarding the question of "how many more of these stories do readers want?" As many as there are, should be the answer. But this issue goes back to Al Toon and Chris Miller having trouble finding their way home.

ESPN tried to downplay the concussion/longterm football damages issue for as long as it could. It was the last major sports media outlet to put the Junior Seau suicide on its site, too busy concentrating on the Saints bounty scandal that day.

Then, its hand forced, a week of Outside the Lines on concussions followed, and now ESPN is really pushing the story. It has become a leader in such coverage.

But it did have to be cajoled into this.

 

[Double Down]

I probably will read this because I enjoy Hruby's writing, but how many readers want another story about brain damage and football?

Fewer than want a story about where Alex Collins will end up, I suspect. But on another thread, we have people arguing ESPN has a credibility issue when it comes to writing stories that appear to damage their business partners. Some go so far as to suggest ESPN outright won't do it. Here is an example of a pretty compelling story that hardly paints the NFL in anything other than a horrific light.

Patrick Hruby could write that Roger Goodell has been selling crack-cocaine to 8-year-olds out of the Giants Stadium parking lot, and that would not change the point that ESPN - nor Fox, nor Sportsline - should not be eligible for major journalism awards. Conflicts of interest are about appearances. Once the appearance of a conflict of interest exists, then game over. No one has the time or interest for a case-by-case analysis. On its face, does Hruby's piece appear to pull no punches? Sure. Do we know that the truth wasn't even worse than portrayed, because of ESPN's business relationship with the NFL? We do not. And we have no way of knowing.

You are offering the same argument that a lot of good ol' boys from the APSE ran up the flagpole when the MLB.com employee was invited back to the judging.

"But you can trust this guy!"

"His work speaks for itself!"

Sorry, it doesn't.

P.S. When can I catch the next episode of "Playmakers"?

Read what I wrote again, please, and try to view it as something other than an attack on your criticism, which it is not.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I probably will read this because I enjoy Hruby's writing, but how many readers want another story about brain damage and football?

Fewer than want a story about where Alex Collins will end up, I suspect. But on another thread, we have people arguing ESPN has a credibility issue when it comes to writing stories that appear to damage their business partners. Some go so far as to suggest ESPN outright won't do it. Here is an example of a pretty compelling story that hardly paints the NFL in anything other than a horrific light.

Patrick Hruby could write that Roger Goodell has been selling crack-cocaine to 8-year-olds out of the Giants Stadium parking lot, and that would not change the point that ESPN - nor Fox, nor Sportsline - should not be eligible for major journalism awards. Conflicts of interest are about appearances. Once the appearance of a conflict of interest exists, then game over. No one has the time or interest for a case-by-case analysis. On its face, does Hruby's piece appear to pull no punches? Sure. Do we know that the truth wasn't even worse than portrayed, because of ESPN's business relationship with the NFL? We do not. And we have no way of knowing.

You are offering the same argument that a lot of good ol' boys from the APSE ran up the flagpole when the MLB.com employee was invited back to the judging.

"But you can trust this guy!"

"His work speaks for itself!"

Sorry, it doesn't.

P.S. When can I catch the next episode of "Playmakers"?

Read what I wrote again, please, and try to view it as something other than an attack on your criticism, which it is not.

I read what you wrote, and I don't view it as an attack at all. I understand that other posters wrote that ESPN pulled punches, whereas I don't profess to care whether it actually has or not. I care about the appearance of a conflict. But the fact is that, yes, ESPN does have a credibility problem when it comes to coverage of the NFL. And, as Azrael pointed out, the New York Times arguably has a credibility problem when it comes to coverage of, say, Macy's. Those are the seeds we sow. There's a reason Consumer Reports does not run advertising.

 

[Double Down]

You are offering the same argument that a lot of good ol' boys from the APSE ran up the flagpole when the MLB.com employee was invited back to the judging.

"But you can trust this guy!"

"His work speaks for itself!"

I never said anything like this, frankly. Not once did I bring Hruby's credibility into this discussion. I believe the issue is complicated, that there are obvious conflicts of interest there, but that it's still possible to do good work. Whether it should be "Pulitzer eligible" isn't something I'm particularly passionate about. I just think this there are plenty of examples of different departments of ESPN looking at these issues critically. Doesn't mean the business side isn't still making billions of dollars.

 

[Norrin Radd]

You are offering the same argument that a lot of good ol' boys from the APSE ran up the flagpole when the MLB.com employee was invited back to the judging.

"But you can trust this guy!"

"His work speaks for itself!"

I never said anything like this, frankly. Not once did I bring Hruby's credibility into this discussion. I believe the issue is complicated, that there are obvious conflicts of interest there, but that it's still possible to do good work. Whether it should be "Pulitzer eligible" isn't something I'm particularly passionate about. I just think this there are plenty of examples of different departments of ESPN looking at these issues critically. Doesn't mean the business side isn't still making billions of dollars.

While I understand what you're saying and have knowledge of examples that support these views, I might prefer to see a different poster trumpeting the values of the Worldwide Leader, for obvious reasons.

 

[Boom_70]

You are offering the same argument that a lot of good ol' boys from the APSE ran up the flagpole when the MLB.com employee was invited back to the judging.

"But you can trust this guy!"

"His work speaks for itself!"

I never said anything like this, frankly. Not once did I bring Hruby's credibility into this discussion. I believe the issue is complicated, that there are obvious conflicts of interest there, but that it's still possible to do good work. Whether it should be "Pulitzer eligible" isn't something I'm particularly passionate about. I just think this there are plenty of examples of different departments of ESPN looking at these issues critically. Doesn't mean the business side isn't still making billions of dollars.

We've had many discussions here on SJ how a lot of outstanding work gets lost in all the ESPN junk and contradictions.

 

[Dick Whitman]

You are offering the same argument that a lot of good ol' boys from the APSE ran up the flagpole when the MLB.com employee was invited back to the judging.

"But you can trust this guy!"

"His work speaks for itself!"

I never said anything like this, frankly. Not once did I bring Hruby's credibility into this discussion. I believe the issue is complicated, that there are obvious conflicts of interest there, but that it's still possible to do good work. Whether it should be "Pulitzer eligible" isn't something I'm particularly passionate about.

I agree with you. In fact, I think that the coverage - this story included - that ESPN performs regarding its business partners is actually pretty courageous, all things considered. It's good to be king.

 

[Double Down]

You are offering the same argument that a lot of good ol' boys from the APSE ran up the flagpole when the MLB.com employee was invited back to the judging.

"But you can trust this guy!"

"His work speaks for itself!"

I never said anything like this, frankly. Not once did I bring Hruby's credibility into this discussion. I believe the issue is complicated, that there are obvious conflicts of interest there, but that it's still possible to do good work. Whether it should be "Pulitzer eligible" isn't something I'm particularly passionate about. I just think this there are plenty of examples of different departments of ESPN looking at these issues critically. Doesn't mean the business side isn't still making billions of dollars.

While I understand what you're saying and have knowledge of examples that support these views, I might prefer to see a different poster trumpeting the values of the Worldwide Leader, for obvious reasons.

We are in agreement there. I have a fairly obvious conflict of interest. It is to my detriment that I feel compelled to weigh in on any of this. I would love it if others might view ESPN with a bit more nuance, but (at least from my perspective) that is often not the case. I get it. It just doesn't square with my reality.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I just don't know if it's possible anymore to discredit the work because of the entity. We've all read and linked a hell of a lot of stories from MLB Network employees (Verducci primarily) and NFL.com. And as the years have gone on, tons of respected writers have gone from newspapers to their local sports network, where there are all kinds of affiliation agreements. Out here in the Bay Area, not only does Comcast have the Giants TV contract, but the Giants have a large ownership stake (I think about 25 percent) in that station. But when the playoffs came around, I was still bookmarking and reading their Giants coverage because it was the best, provided by reporters and columnists who used to cover the team elsewhere.

I think **** is drafting off the awards discussion here, but for a piece like this it's just wishing for the past to think we're going to have all these independent voices.

 

[Versatile]

I would guess the ESPN incentive isn't to lavish praise but rather to simply cover those things more. Double Down mentioned the Alabama-LSU issue of ESPN The Magazine, but that came out after the game. Alabama and LSU both had multiple games on ESPN down the stretch.

Would ESPN do a Red Wings-Maple Leafs Game Day edition?

 

[Norrin Radd]

I never said anything like this, frankly. Not once did I bring Hruby's credibility into this discussion. I believe the issue is complicated, that there are obvious conflicts of interest there, but that it's still possible to do good work. Whether it should be "Pulitzer eligible" isn't something I'm particularly passionate about. I just think this there are plenty of examples of different departments of ESPN looking at these issues critically. Doesn't mean the business side isn't still making billions of dollars.

While I understand what you're saying and have knowledge of examples that support these views, I might prefer to see a different poster trumpeting the values of the Worldwide Leader, for obvious reasons.

We are in agreement there. I have a fairly obvious conflict of interest. It is to my detriment that I feel compelled to weigh in on any of this. I would love it if others might view ESPN with a bit more nuance, but (at least from my perspective) that is often not the case. I get it. It just doesn't square with my reality.

As I said, I agree with what you're saying. But it's easy for your conflict to be the focus, rather than the message.

Anyway:

- There have been studies that indicate that ESPN's coverage of major sports does not necessarily dovetail with its broadcast rights. As in, ESPN the Magazine isn't going to ignore hockey and promote the NBA.
- ESPN did need to be cajoled into paying attention to concussions. But when it focuses on a story, it steamrolls everyone. I have consumed more concussion-related media over the last year than just about anyone on this board, and ESPN has been at the forefront, especially TV-wise. But darn it, they have just got to focus on the girls soccer concussion epidemic!
- ESPN does not shy away from covering negative stories about its partners. Where else will the NFL go? ESPN is the ultimate juggernaut in sports broadcasting. If you are not on ESPN, you are not at the big table.
- Think Goodell was happy with their harping on the bounty scandal? But that coverage actually spotlighted a problem ESPN TV has, which is that with few exceptions, the stories on First Take are the stories throughout the day. They get too focused on the same thing, which is why they fell asleep on the Seau thing.
- ESPN the magazine has a lot of amazing writing, if you can sift through the "EDGY!!" presentation
- Grantland's winners' history of rock and roll is awesome
- So is 30 for 30
- People who complain about ESPN (and the BCS, for that matter) apparently want to return to the land of Wide world of sports and shared championships. ESPN has helped sports media evolve tin ways none of us could have predicted.
- Must disagree with Mr. Whitman regarding awards. Media ownership has changed so much, with so few companies owning so many outlets, that "conflicts!" aren't really worth worrying about anymore.

I would guess the ESPN incentive isn't to lavish praise but rather to simply cover those things more. Double Down mentioned the Alabama-LSU issue of ESPN The Magazine, but that came out after the game. Alabama and LSU both had multiple games on ESPN down the stretch.

Would ESPN do a Red Wings-Maple Leafs Game Day edition?

Would it have the access to do such an edition? Or would the NHLs' broadcast/media partners pull rank?

 

[Azrael]

Would ESPN do a Red Wings-Maple Leafs Game Day edition?

Would SI?