ESPN Will Not Report Roethlisberger Story

by Ken Fang on July 21, 2009

Despite news outlets picking it up, ESPN remains steadfast in its stubbornness to ignore the Ben Roethlisberger lawsuit story. Last night, it was reported by various media outlets including CBSSports.com, Yahoo!, Pro Football Talk and others that the Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback is being sued by a woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Roethlisberger in a Nevada hotel last year.

Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio wonders if ESPN is attempting to protect a relationship with the quarterback. In the story, it’s pointed out that Roethlisberger is appearing on ESPN corporate sibling ABC next month in Shaquille O’Neal’s new reality show.

But shortly after 1 p.m. ET today, Florio discovers that ESPN has issued a strict “DO NOT REPORT” order, baffling its staffers. Thanks to the Sports Media Watch for the link.

So is ESPN protecting Roethlisberger to maintain a corporate relationship and access to the athlete? If it is, it’s another arrow for critics to shoot at ESPN as allegations continue that the network gets too close to certain athletes it covers.

In addition, the network’s silence on the story while others report is a hole too big to ignore. And the fact that ESPN jumped all over the Pacman Jones story while refusing to mention Ben Roethlisberger now gives the African American community fodder that the Alleged Worldwide Leader caters to white athletes.

The criticisms may not be true, but as long as ESPN executives continue to hide under their desks on the Roethlisberger story while other outlets continue their investigations, the arrows will continue to be fired at the sports behemoth.

UPDATE, 3:10 p.m.: In an update to an earlier post, Deadspin says it’s heard from an ESPN staffer saying it won’t report on civil lawsuits against athletes. But while other outlets still report the story, ESPN’s stance on this particular development is quite strange indeed. However, ESPN.com did make one particular reference to the story.

  • Bruce

    They had no problem reporting that a woman was *thinking* about filing a civil suit against Lakers guard Shannon Brown in June.

  • EC

    In defense of ESPN, it’s not as if Roethlisberger is going to prison (it’s a civil case) and given that Roethlisberger plays for the Steelers, there’s no way that the Commish would ever apply his conduct policy to suspend or fine Roethlisberger.

  • Ken Fang

    But to be the only media outlet not to report it? ESPN may have its justification, but it looks like it’s hiding something or protecting an athlete when all other outlets including sister network ABC reports it. And if ESPN wants to be journalistically sound, it has to report this story.

  • MarkB

    Why would ESPN want to be journalistically sound? They’re in the entertainment business. This isn’t Woodward and Bernstein we’re talkin’ about – this is Britney Spears and Aston Kutcher and American Idol – only for guys. The E in ESPN stands for Entertainment, not Ethics.

  • EC

    I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear earlier. My first point was semi-serious (contrast with Michael Vick). My second point was tongue-in-cheek – which is that the Steelers are one of the Commish’s binky teams, along with Jets, Giants and Colts. So, just like the Commish didn’t take any action against Plaxico while he was still on the Giants, and while he hasn’t taken action against Shaun Ellis or Marvin Harrison, you can be sure that he won’t do anything even if Roethlisberger is found liable. By contrast, if this involved Tom Brady, you’d already be seeing espn.com/brady-misconduct, Gregg Easterbrook on his selective-moral high horse and Twitter feeds from Mike Fish.

  • http://fangsbites.bostonsportsmedia.com/2009/07/a-super-sized-wednesday-links/ A Super-sized Wednesday Links

    [...] Sports Business Daily looks at the reaction to ESPN’s stance and thanks to SBD for quoting my post from [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: