Quote:
Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN
Gimme some proof otherwise I call comlete BS.
|
I was talking about the "feel" of their broadcasts. I do not attend nor do I have proof of any image-management meetings.
edit: their handling of the Rothelesberger rape accusation is an example of how their on-air personalities / opinions are driven by a corporate philosophy.
link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...don&id=4405442
tl;dr - They didn't cover (didn't even acknowledge) an accused rape of an athlete that was going to be on their network soon (ABC's Shaq show) or the hotel property they have ties to. This after they were all over any comparable case that they didn't have "interest" in.
Other examples:
-multiple columnists deriding Jay Glazer for calling Favre's re-unretirement shortly before it came (after predicting the same thing earlier)
-too many cases to mention where Mort or Clayton claimed to have broken a story that they didn't break
-Obvious conflict of interest of consistently having active athletes contribute content (imagine the reaction if Fox News had Karl Rove do a special report on the President)
-that's all I've got for now.