Memo to ESPN: Just Shut Up
From Bill Hofheimer of ESPN’s communications department:
"In the course of reporting the news of the deadline, we also noted the possibility that Favre could still join the Vikings once the deadline had passed. Clearly, that’s important context. We stand by our reporting."
Well, I stand by my reporting -- Werder and Mortensen are still idiots.
5 months ago
Anthony21
33 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
lol So basically..
There’s a deadline, but they aren’t going to stick to it.
WOW.
by Frost on Jun 10, 2009 9:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps even too kind ...
Let’s not unduly degrade the category known as “idiots” by associating it with these guys.
by Elgar on Jun 10, 2009 9:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like they’re playing both sides so they can’t be wrong to cover up there stupid ass first report saying there was a deadline. So stupid
by Zoxide on Jun 10, 2009 10:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow, could they have backpedaled any quicker?
Biggest sham since Favre’s “retirement.”
In AP I trust
Just say no to Favre.
by FarvaForTheVikings on Jun 11, 2009 1:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I am convinced (have been for long before this saga actually) that the sports media can just make thing up whenever they feel like it. Remember the Randy Moss mooning incident? It was a non-issue as far as I was concerned. Joe Buck, sanctimonious ass that he is, made it sound like Moss just murdered a child. The next couple days and weeks after, all we heard on ESPN was how the Vikings just had to trade Moss. Why? I never did figure that out. Why the hell did we trade him? The drumbeat from the national sports press is what did it. They are really not much better than tabloids in the end. I don’t they why anyone would take anything Ed Werder or Mortenson say seriously. From what I can gather, they are right about 50% of the time on what they “report” and that kind of accuracy can be gleaned from a coin or a eight-ball.
by jjstraka on Jun 11, 2009 1:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Moss was traded
so that a used car salesmen could pocket one years worth of his salary when he sold the team.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Jun 11, 2009 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This just further solidifys my justification for staying away from ESPN for news.
by timmy_ on Jun 11, 2009 7:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It actually doesn't bother me as much...
Because it’s Favre. The guy takes two hours flip flopping on having eggs or pancakes for breakfast every morning. You honestly think the guy doesn’t tell everyone he knows that he’s contemplating coming back and every detail he can? Favre seems to love the attention, so he’ll get it from his family and friends. When he inevitably changes his mind, do you think he calls every single person he’s talked to and tells them the new change right away? Probably not. I’m sure he tells them when he sees them, so Favre leaking faulty information should be a given.
Every Favre story should come with a disclaimer that it is liable to change in the next 8-12 seconds.
He had to live in Mississippi because there would be far too many choices to make in any type of big city.
“Uhhh…uhhhh…soup! No wait! Salad!” But it was too late.
Visit:
http://www.vikingvigil.com
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
by Manimal on Jun 11, 2009 8:03 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Only at the Brett Favre Steakhouse.
Sadly, he wasn’t there.
I mean, who wouldn’t want to dine in the Hall of Fame room?
It’s the effin Brett Favre Steakhouse!
Sadly, no, he wasn’t there, so he couldn’t choose. When he’s at the Steakhouse, he just orders everything on the menu and changes his mind twenty times before deciding what to start with. Luckily, they reheat it for him. True story.
Visit:
http://www.vikingvigil.com
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
by Manimal on Jun 11, 2009 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait?
Does that mean that if he comes to Minnesota, we can have the Brett Favre steakhouses in our own town?
LOL, have you guys looked at the pictures of the inside of his steakhouse?
It has all this attention paid to make it look like a nice upscale steakhouse. Custom designed interior with mood lighting, an “exquisite wine list” and walls covered in pictures of Brett Favre.
by Bjorno on Jun 11, 2009 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The decor sounds similar to what Satan has set up in hell.
In AP I trust
Just say no to Favre.
by FarvaForTheVikings on Jun 11, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell would be eating there eternally with Brett Favre as your dinner date.
And waiter.
And hostess.
And cook.
And waitress.
Yes, waitress and hostess.
Shudders, holding back vomit
Visit:
http://www.vikingvigil.com
Skol Vikings!
Woot Woot!
by Manimal on Jun 11, 2009 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
gaaa… waaa…. HUUUAAHHGGGUU!!!
There goes that crunchwrap…
In AP I trust
Just say no to Favre.
by FarvaForTheVikings on Jun 11, 2009 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
did u sneeze or something?
Haha
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Jun 11, 2009 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I sneezed, puked, coughed, hacked, had a seizure, and blacked out. All at the same time! That’s how much Manimal’s image disturbed me.
In AP I trust
Just say no to Favre.
by FarvaForTheVikings on Jun 11, 2009 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I don’t mean this as an insult but I find it tacky you call out the very sites and sources that you use for your information.
Without either ESPN or CNNSI or even the Star Tribune you’d have no access of coverage whatsoever of the Vikings. You and this site is simply a collection of other people’s reporting with your own take. That is and always will be what blogging.
I could be wrong but I am guessing that this site has no press credential and has no inside access.
I along with everyone on the planet is sick of contradictory Brett Favre reports and possibly sick of #4 himself. However these reporters breaking the news or attempting to break the news are either being fed wrong information by the Viking camp or by the Bus Cook camp. It happens.
These reporters are attempting to do their job and it’s far more embarrassing for them to be wrong than most could ever imagine.
Reporters don’t get their job by waiting for everyone else to report something and offer their own take, instead they are constantly calling, fact checking and attempting to break news. The age of the internet has hurt the credibility of news reports because everyone rushes to be the first to “break” the news. This leads to inaccuracies and bad reporting.
I ask that the next time you want ESPN or Peter King to “just shut up” that you think about where this site would be without their content.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
by mjschaefer on Jun 11, 2009 1:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I could be wrong but I am guessing that this site has no press credential and has no inside access.
apparently BSPN has no press credentials or inside access either.
by iseepurplepeople on Jun 11, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So when someone’s doing a crappy job, they shouldn’t be called out? ESPN, SI, etc. claim to be authoritative sources for original, inside reporting — when they mislead their audience, they don’t deserve to be criticized? Shouldn’t our job, as consumers of their reporting, be to keep them accountable? I’m not denying that we get the vast majority of our content from sites like ESPN and SI, but the tradeoff for that is an inability to critique them when they’re doing poorly? I just don’t buy that.
by Anthony21 on Jun 11, 2009 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have the right to critique them, sure. But if you haven’t noticed it’s the entire media not just several sources.
This basically points to me that the two main parties (Vikings and Favre Camp) are using the media to be misleading. Whether it is some kind of negotiation ploy or not, I don’t know. It has happened before and it will happen again.
Holding people accountable is great, you can offer suggestions, you can point out faults. If it gets bad enough you can stop watching or stop reading their content.
But you won’t.
Why? Because without their content you have nothing but analysis. While your analysis could be fantastic and factually accurate at the end of the day, you’ll have no basis to back these things up. You aren’t reporting. You simply regurgitate the news and add some thoughts.
You are not a reporter. You don’t deal with sources and you don’t really have a boss here. So to call these people idiots without actually coming close to what they do is wrong.
This isn’t shoddy reporting but rather bad judgment when it comes to running stories. But if all you are being fed is misleading information how can any story be accurate?
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
by mjschaefer on Jun 11, 2009 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This isn’t shoddy reporting but rather bad judgment when it comes to running stories. But if all you are being fed is misleading information how can any story be accurate?
Well, then you’re just running stories for the sake of running stories — you’re trying to create developments out of thin air and are doing little more than lying to your audience. I have a problem with that. No, I can’t disagree that the media is often used for purposes of misdirection, but I guess I’m struggling to understand what exactly that makes the role of the media in your view. If it simply feeds us misinformation, the sports media’s job is to mislead the public and be unaccountable to them because we don’t understand what it’s like to be a reporter?
I can’t accept that. I think sports fans deserve reporting that aims to get it right rather than be first to the punch on a given story. I think sports fans deserve reporters who aim to build trust with their audiences rather than make a reckless drive to break as many stories as possible.
So really, we don’t disagree in our assessment of the media — I just think that if their stated purpose is to inform people with original reporting, we ought to praise them when they do a good job at that and hold them accountable when they fail.
You are not a reporter. You don’t deal with sources and you don’t really have a boss here. So to call these people idiots without actually coming close to what they do is wrong.
I’ve been blogging about the Vikings for over six years — if I write a big game recap, and someone who has only been reading blogs for a month or two thinks I did a lousy job, does that make their opinion invalid because they’re not a blogger and haven’t come close to doing what I do? If I’m not doing my job, I’m still immune to criticism from people who don’t understand what a blogger does or have no such experience?
by Anthony21 on Jun 11, 2009 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As you stated we aren’t at a disagreement with the media. I think we both recognize that there are misleading reports and actions. I don’t so much find fault with the reporters as I do with how media has turned. It’s not longer enough to report something instead it needs to be done as quickly as possible.
We both agree that speed doesn’t beat accuracy. However we as consumers are the ones who would be angry if ESPN, CNNSI or whoever was withholding information. We live in a time period as such that all news goes to print or to the public immediately. Thus it is the internet age and one of no attention span. We want everything faster.
Reporters are caught between a rock and a hard place. There editors demand speed. Media wants the attention. No reporter sets out with the idea of being wrong. They are handling their job as best they can given the pressure environment.
I know you don’t think that these reporters are willing to mislead us. What do they gain from it? Instead they are trying to fill the hunger that we as sports fans have created for up-to-the-second information.
Journalism is a competitive nature. They take missteps and make mistakes. We as consumers of media have created this problem. We want everything now. If that means dropping the third fact checker to get it on the website and drive traffic (which brings more ad money) then the choice is obvious.
Minnesota and Bus Cook knows this. It’s not their reputation on the line.
I just don’t feel that we can sit and call this shoddy reporting without investigating how we’ve come to reach this point.
I don’t mean to belittle anything you’ve done as a blogger. I’ve found your input on this site to be good and quick.
However if you were held to the same regard as these people, shouldn’t we be angry at you for misleading us?
No because you are the middle man. That’s where I think reporters are. Caught in the middle between two parties and a broken media system. Basically they’re being left out to dry.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
by mjschaefer on Jun 11, 2009 7:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Journalism is a competitive nature. They take missteps and make mistakes. We as consumers of media have created this problem. We want everything now. If that means dropping the third fact checker to get it on the website and drive traffic (which brings more ad money) then the choice is obvious.
Bingo — that’s the root of my criticism. It has become such a competitive industry that fact-checking has been thrown out the window and accuracy has become a lesser priority to being the first outlet to report something. I would much rather have a more methodical media that takes the time to get it right, even if that diminishes expediency. But as you say, the consumers want things now even at the expense of accuracy.
Does that excuse the stunning amount of inaccurate reporting that’s characterized the Brett Favre saga? In my opinion, it doesn’t. Mainstream media outlets are treated as more credible than blogs because they ought to have fact-checkers, editors, and reporters well-versed in industry practices and ethics. I just sit down, type something up, and publish it. The fact that mainstream media is becoming less and less trustworthy, then, is something I find troubling — their role is to report, our role is to commentate, so we naturally rely on them doing their job and doing it well. I’ve frankly been embarrassed this week because I wrote a number of lengthy pieces based on ESPN reports I initially thought to be reputable but were later displayed to be false.
But hey, if the public doesn’t demand change, nothing will change. That’s what I guess I’m trying to do by pointing out the missteps of ESPN, SI, etc.
by Anthony21 on Jun 11, 2009 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate you pushing for change but we both know that it’s not going to happen. No matter how many times media outlets are wrong they won’t change their system. If they are right one time then people will ignore the other nine false reports.
I think what I mainly take issue with is the calling of Werder and Mortensen idiots. As I’ve already discussed these guys are just doing their job. They are trying to break stories and obviously being given false information. They are doing what is required by their bosses and demanded by the masses. And they are not being willfully ignorant nor are they attempting to be distrustful. It’s worth keeping in mind that these people are fantastic reporters. You don’t get a job at ESPN for being sloppy. They work all kinds of crazy hours and continue to work on this story which I’m sure that they are sick of by now.
A media is only as reliable as it’s sources. I think this is where we can both agree. There are too many unnamed anonymous sources. This needs to stop. Either name the source or keep digging until someone else is willing to confirm.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
by mjschaefer on Jun 12, 2009 12:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the job of the media is to report accurate information as quickly as possible. it’s there job. if they don’t do their job well they get hammered for it. same as anyone else. when shiancoe looked bad in his first season with us we railed on him and questioned his acquisition. last year was much better and now most of us feel we have solid te.
it’s not hard. get the facts as quickly as you can. if it’s not a fact don’t report it. simple as that. if you mess it up because you didn’t do your due diligence, expect to hear about it. it’s the media so you’ll hear about it from a lot of people. do your job correctly and you won’t get bashed. you can stick up for them all you want but at the end of the day, it’s the journalists job to report facts. who, what, when, where, how, why. that’s basic journalism. if one of those is missing, you didn’t do your job.
by iseepurplepeople on Jun 12, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right it’s so painfully easy. I’ll retract all of my statements.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
by mjschaefer on Jun 12, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
