What defamatory claim is ESPN strengthening?

it was done without an editors note which flies in the face of all journalistic integrity, and implicitly the assumption is something is being hidden.

I don't know why we'd assume that ESPN is sinister when their obvious incompetence can explain the facts just as well...

I think the issue is that when the article was originally published it said that there was no evidence of money changing hands.

Then, sometime later the article was changed and the part about no evidence of money changing hands was removed.

Normally, you don't change an article without some new information and generally you add something showing that there was a change ( like "update").

in general I agree with the rule of thumb that you shouldn't attribute to evil that which can be attributed to stupidity.

but we're pretty much dealing with a forgery scam being covered up and ESPN is being used to give it legs.

[This message has been edited by reb, (edited 8/20/2013 9:58p).]

I get that it's unprofessional or possibly irregular, but what's the basis for the logical leaps off of that like "libel suit" "strengthen defamation case" and other nonsensical explanations?

[This message has been edited by JJxvi (edited 8/20/2013 10:00p).]

If ESPN was backtracking, wouldn't they want to leave that sentence in?

It's pretty simple guys.

Markup is implying that ESPN has removed important content in order to make JFF look guilty of taking money. The previous arcticle stated that no one saw money exchange hands.

Why remove that?

[This message has been edited by Citizen reign (edited 8/20/2013 10:03p).]

It may be a little bit of a stretch but if the article originally said there was no evidence that money changed hands and then was later updated and that sentence was removed then it could be argued that ESPN is now saying there is evidence that money changed hands.

If they do not have evidence of this, then they are publishing something they know is false.

By removing that sentence, it makes Johnny seem 100% guilty. They removed any disclaimer of the lack of evidence against Johnny at the time.

I'm just speculating, aren't we all, but I think Rovell wants to stir the pot even more by making everyone think he has evidence.

quote:

---

It may be a little bit of a stretch but if the article originally said there was no evidence that money changed hands and then was later updated and that sentence was removed then it could be argued that ESPN is now saying there is evidence that money changed hands.

If they do not have evidence of this, then they are publishing something they know is false.

---

Exactly

ESpinIt

If he has some sort of new sleaze bag source who says he saw money change hands, why not write a new f'ing article? Why change the old one?

quote:

---

I get that, but what's the basis fr the logical leaps off of that "libel suit" "strengthen defamation case" and other nonsensical explanations?

---

Mark is saying that ESPN is visibly changing their story implying it as fact that Manziel received money, with no note explaining why. That change with no note, according to him, could be used as evidence of libel, intentionally trying to smear Manziel with no additional facts.

Aggie Dan,

Sorry, misread.

[This message has been edited by tiger08 (edited 8/20/2013 10:07p).]

Tiger,

I agree completely. What they did was unethical and broke all the rules of journalism. I just don't think it is Libel.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Rovell or Choed or ESPN trying to make it look like they now have evidence. That would be a news story they would run with the second they have it in hand.

It's 100% about making it appear it is 100% certain JFF accepted cash.

In other news, I've been on FS1 and ESPN-free for several days now, and it feels great.

Are they laying groundwork for a new article? One where a new "source" claims they have seen him take money and want to make it seem like they've always known about it? It doesn't make sense, but neither does changing and article like that.

Do you folks read the news on a regular basis or read about what's acceptable in journalism?

Changing a damning article with no acknowledgement of doing so can be considered sinful, ethically.

Something like this would, if it happened in a respectable organization (which wouldn't do it in the first place), call for an all-hands-on-deck meeting of every employee about what was acceptable, their responsibilities as journalists, someone probably gets fired, and an apology issued from whomever responsible and the editorial staff.

Everyday it looks more and more like ESPN is trying to protect their 300mm sipvestment.

If they can hurt A&M recruiting enough to give the sips back their free run on Texas, they have the biggest tv audience in the dumbster fire back.

The SEC is strong enough without A&M to bring in huge numbers with four or five other big draw schools. the dumpster fire only has OU and sip

nah i dont buy the sip involvement

this is about a couple useful idiots at ESPN that got scammed by a circle of crooks trying to protect their illegal money-making scheme

quote:

---

nah i dont buy the sip involvement

this is about a couple useful idiots at ESPN that got scammed by a circle of crooks trying to protect their illegal money-making scheme

---

I don't think the Sips are involved either. It's just ESiPN.

Although it is possible that some rich sip paid a couple of slim bucket dealers to get an idiot like Rovell to bite on a story.

Don't forget what Dodds said at the sip dinner about catching the SEC Ags cheating again.

[This message has been edited by Citizen reign (edited 8/20/2013 10:30p).]

quote:

---

Do you folks read the news on a regular basis or read about what's acceptable in journalism?

Changing a damning article with no acknowledgement of doing so can be considered sinful, ethically.

Something like this would, if it happened in a respectable organization (which wouldn't do it in the first place), call for an all-hands-on-deck meeting of every employee about what was acceptable, their responsibilities as journalists, someone probably gets fired, and an apology issued from whomever responsible and the editorial staff.

---

There was a time when this was true. But the mainstream media have long since sold their souls to the devil. The age of ethical journalism is but a distant memory.

ESPN is facing a lot of competition right now and the Manziel story brings a lot of page views and drives up ratings. The problem for ESPN is that a story saying that there is absolutely no evidence that Manziel took money is not going to do anything for ratings. But taking out that sentence (about there being no evidence) creates more buzz and causes people to come back to ESPN looking for more information.

In reality, by removing that piece of the article, they "refreshed" the story by getting panty wastes like some of you wound back around the axle and created more intertron traffic again. At a minimum, Rovell got more twitter follows out of it.

Schizo,

Not really. It's not. The problem is ESPN is not real journalism. They just pretend to be.

[This message has been edited by tiger08 (edited 8/20/2013 10:34p).]

I must be missing the conspiracy too.

Seems to me in Rovells story there was no evidence of money changing hands. I think that last line was from the story when it was just Rovells report. Schad's story was from actual brokers that claim they were paid so they had to have seen money change hands if they were reporting to Schad that they were paid.

Looks like espn writers originally just added Schad's report to the Rovell story without realizing the last sentence remaining in it no longer made sense given Schad's guys allegedly claim to have been paid. Evidently they discovered this and edited accordingly. Not sure it's worthy of a twitter war or claims of conspiracy but go for it if that's your thing.

Its just unethical. You need to explain why you changed it.

quote:

---

ESPN is facing a lot of competition right now and the Manziel story brings a lot of page views and drives up ratings. The problem for ESPN is that a story saying that there is absolutely no evidence that Manziel took money is not going to do anything for ratings. But taking out that sentence (about there being no evidence) creates more buzz and causes people to come back to ESPN looking for more information.

---

The Internet advertising model needs to change. Particularly when it comes to networks or people writing or posting news stories.

More page views equals more expensive ad placements equals more ad revenue. This leads to a lot of the unethical journalism.

[This message has been edited by Citizen reign (edited 8/20/2013 10:40p).]

depending on how this plays out, if I'm FS1 I'm watching closely and ready to absolutely crush ESPN's sports reporting credibility on this if the forgery angle gets traction

By the way, this is the most civilized and intelligent discussion I have seen on the zoo in a long time.

Another note about journalistic standards: it is common practice at every real news organization to explain to the readers why a source requested to remain anonymous. In general revenge, or covering for massive fraud do not qualify as good reasons to use anonymous sources.....

If Markup has confused two different articles, that changes this entire thread. Markup may want dig a little deeper too.