Todd McShay is Getting Heat for Attending SOTS...

Submitted by FauxMo on February 9th, 2016 at 2:30 PM

So, there is apparently heat on ESPN's Todd McShay for attending SOTS last week, with some questioning his ability to remain unbiased and "objective" afterwards:…


After thinking about it, I tend to agree; by attending this event McShay has really called into question the rock-solid journalistic integrity of ESPN. It's almost as bad as if, say hypothetically, ESPN owned a network that featured just one of the major college football conferences and thereby could be accused of hyping said conference whenever it had a chance! But thank God ESPN is all over this breach of ethics so we can go back to trusting them again...


(P.S. Anyone who doesn't instantly note the sarcasm here should punch themselves in the face...)



February 9th, 2016 at 3:11 PM ^

A Colombian Necktie is when you slit someone's throat from ear to ear and pull the tongue through the hole to simulate a necktie. A Tijuana Necklace is a used tire soaked in gasoline, put over someone's head and neck, and lit on fire. As I said, these were extreme punishments that I rejected after thinking about it... ;-)


February 9th, 2016 at 4:10 PM ^

I think if you are really talented and incredibly evil, you could almost seemlessly transition from a Pearl Necklace to a Colombian Necktie to a Cleveland Steamer. Although the last of the three is likely to get you caught (I watch a lot of Forensic Files from 2 AM to 4 AM...).


February 9th, 2016 at 5:37 PM ^

Can we please look at McShay's appearance for what it was, or maybe those outside the bubble of criticism could see how the ESPN brand could be tarnished by simply having McShay on board, not to mention anyone else remotely connected to the network but with some tenuous Michigan connection.

What are they gonna say about Desmond being there, or Lou being there, when Lou's presence (based on being asked, the husband of a cancer victim, who is the daughter of Charlie Winner, a former NFL coach, and who stole the show with his various off-the-cuff remarks, many of which McShay initiated). I mean the entire point of putting McShay, Lou and Mike Shanahan off to the side of the stage, was to separate them from the pure Michigan perspective and give them the space to be analysts. You either get that based on understanding and configuaration of both the stage, programming or you don't,

The only bias I saw was the fact that Harbaugh likes McShay because he invited him to appear. Gee, nobody in the sports broadcasting business ever seeks to cultivate relationships with influentail figures. I don't think the folks in Bristol have a big problem with this.


February 9th, 2016 at 4:40 PM ^

McShay's quote from the article: "I completely understand that I made a mistake and clearly should have discussed this appearance with ESPN in advance."

How does this get twisted into the following headline?: "ESPN's Todd McShay Says It Was A 'Mistake' To Attend Michigan's 'Signing Of The Stars"

Yes, he did use the word "mistake" (way to quote ONE WORD in your headline), but the context pretty clearly explains that his mistake was not first telling ESPN he would be in attendance.  He does not appear to express any regret for actually attending the event, nor should he.




February 9th, 2016 at 3:25 PM ^

as "journalistic objectivity" in sports broadcasting. To what purpose does it serve? Who does a "lack" of objectivity serve or not serve? Sports are entertainment, period. Just because they are a big business that should not matter. Am I the only one who feels it is completely ludicrous that ESPN (and other networks) say things like (ex: on College Gameday) "Kirk you can't pick the winner today because you are calling the game with Kris Fowler, but give us a key to the game." Huh? Who cares if he predicts who he thinks will win? So what if people watching the game assume--rightly--that Kirk may just want the Buckeyes to win, or Bob Griese the Wolverines. In fact, sports would be even more fun if the biases of the announcer were right out in the open.


February 9th, 2016 at 7:41 PM ^

I generally like the national broadcasts, with some reservations (Beth Mowins, Pam Ward, Tom Hammond) the point is that trying for objectivity is silly and pointless. It's entertainment, great entertainment--not the presidential election or really any issue whatsoever that actually impacts people's well being and lives. So "journalism" pretentions are really trivial and silly. How important is objectivity in People magazine?