ESPN "mistreats" Leach, objectivity, intelligence

Submitted by wolverine1987 on

In this mornings SportsCenter, Hannah Storm, in reporting the news that Tommy Tuberville was hired at Texas Tech, said "Tuberville was hired after the firing of Mike Leach for mistreating receiver Adam Jones."

It apparently doesn't bother ESPN that it is at minimum, worthy of debate that any "mistreatment" took place at all. It certainly isn't reflected in their conclusion, and the statement of "fact" that harms a man's reputation, or the lack of objectivity reflected in their 100% lining up behind one of their own employees. It doesn't seem to matter to ESPN what the truth of the matter was--or they have decided what the truth was. Either way violates the standard that they should be setting.

Sambojangles

January 10th, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^

Technically, she could have been referring to Tech's reasons for firing, with no judgement by her or ESPN. If so, though, I think it should have been more clear. I noticed it live, too, I though they could have at least added "allegedly" to the statement.

Magnus

January 10th, 2010 at 12:08 PM ^

It's not really debatable. Texas Tech did indeed fire him for mistreating James. That was their reason (well, one of them). Texas Tech deemed it mistreatment.

Now, whether he was actually mistreated based on the rest of the world's definition, you can argue that.

If I break up with my girlfriend because she "cheated on me" by kissing another guy, it doesn't matter whether her friends think it was cheating. It only matters that I thought kissing equals cheating.

wolverine1987

January 10th, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^

In your example, your girlfriend kissing another guy is a fact that everyone considers cheating, no matter their orientation. It is far from clear that many people consider making a dude stand in a room for an hour mistreatment. Tech's opinion of it is relevant when a media outlet makes a statement--but so is Leach's. To not use "allegedly' is a flagrant judgement that harms his reputation. without acknowledging that there is even another side. And unlike you, a media outlet owes the public BOTH sides. You only owe you and your friends your own. A media outlet owes the public, as well as the parties they are covering, the fairness of the other side. To further your analogy. ESPN could have stated that "he was fired for making Adam James stand in a room for an hour"--that is the truth, just as if you said you broke up with her because she kissed another guy. Then the public could have decided--instead, ESPN decided. That is wrong.

Magnus

January 10th, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^

First of all, I personally know people who don't considering kissing to be cheating. There are differing moral views that ask the audience for interpretation.

Leach's opinion is NOT relevant, because he's not the one who fired himself. Texas Tech fired him for mistreating a player. They are the employer, and the university's interpretation in this case is the only one that matters (until a decision is handed down in a potential lawsuit).

wolverine1987

January 10th, 2010 at 8:09 PM ^

That is different from a third party (ESPN, a media outlet that is supposed to hold themselves to objectivity, especially when discussing a man's reputation) treating a person fairly in a news story. You and I, in discussing your girlfriend, have no responsibility except to our own view of how things happened with her. A media outlet in a news story, by definition, has a responsibility to present both sides--that is the whole point of a news story. If Olberman or O'Reiily discussed the story, I wouldn't expect them to be objective--they are about opinion. If you and I discussed it, same thing.

If you got fired from your job for supposedly stealing office supplies, or for allegedly sexually harassing someone, and that was somehow newsworthy, it would be incumbent on the media to say "Magnus was fired for ALLEGED sexual harassment." Without the qualifier, they would have just defamed your reputation. And I find it hard to believe in that case that you would say in response "My company's interpretation is the only one that matters."

wolverine1987

January 10th, 2010 at 8:32 PM ^

Unless you are familiar with the law, or with journalistic ethics, or simple fairness, all of which unambiguously support my position. If you want to dismiss the logic of a proper journalistic approach, which is reinforced every day, and to not address my last paragraph at all, by saying we're talking in circles, time to move on, though you may want to reconsider the somewhat childish rejoinder that 10 year olds use every day. I usually like your stuff, but hmm, whoa.

I guess I'll just say we agree to disagree.

4godkingandwol…

January 10th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^

... it's when they go into news mode that people are irked. People really need to start viewing ESPN news more like Entertainment Tonight, Hollywood All Access, and shows of that nature, and not like ABC news.

If they wanted to be a real news organization, Kentucky basketball and USC football would have a lot more investigative journalists breaking stories. Note: IIRC, it doesn't surprise me that Yahoo sports first broke the Reggie Bush story. It's not in ESPNs best interest.

adub24

January 10th, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^

Ever since I heard Craig James speaking during the Champs Sports Bowl "as a father," rather than "as an analyst," I was convinced that ESPN was completely unprofessional and one-sided in the story. I generally think ESPN is too based on gimmicks now anyway, but it is really frustrating when the network with a monopoly on sports news is that unreliable.

ThWard

January 10th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^

"Mistreatment" was the undebatable reason cited by Tex Tech for firing Leach. I think ESPN's handled this beyond poorly, but stating that Tex Tech fired Leach for mistreating a player is 100% accurate.

caveman.lawyer

January 10th, 2010 at 2:01 PM ^

I agree that "mistreatment" is the stated reason for the firing, but wouldn't it be more consistent with journalistic principles for a news organization to refer to it as "alleged mistreatment"? In that way, ESPN would accurately report the stated reason for the firing without implying that they have drawn a conclusion one way or another about the allegation of mistreatment.

caveman.lawyer

January 10th, 2010 at 9:30 PM ^

Yes, the parties both acknowledge what led to Leach's firing, but the two sides do not agree that the conduct was "mistreatment." It's fine for ESPN to report that Texas Tech deemed the conduct to be mistreatment, but the way they reported it also implies that ESPN concluded that the conduct was mistreatment. That's where I think they went too far.

adub24

January 10th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^

My complaint with ESPN isn't the way they reported the information. Its that their "expert witness" (Craig James) was completely biased, and it changed the way they reported the story. All subsequent coverage of the story was pretty much done in a manner that declared Leach this monster who is probably getting mistreated by a punk kid and his annoying dad.

Tacopants

January 10th, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^

Leach's lawyer was on OTL. He looked like a douchebag without help from ESPN. Saying they didn't provide other coverage is just misleading.

As for coverage after the firing, the players for TTech all seemed happy. The team representatives all provided quotes suppporting the decision. It would have been irresponsible (Freep style) to hunt down dissenters and publish their thoughts as OMG dissent!

jerseyblue

January 10th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^

ESPN threw integrity out the window a lomg time ago. I remember like 2 years ago Mortenson said Eli Manning had an injury and would be out for something like 6 weeks. The Giants GM Ernie Accorsi said it was minor and Eli wouldn't miss any time. Mortenson got defensive and said he's sticking with his source. Then Accosi said he's why we he lie? Eli is ok. So Eli played that Sunday and Mortenson never recanted.

thevictors85

January 10th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^

i also lost respect for ESPN during the tiger woods saga -- citing sources from TMZ.com rather than actually doing their own investigative reporting...

Tacopants

January 10th, 2010 at 1:08 PM ^

Complaining about ESPN is getting kind of old. 90% of content that Pam Ward isn't allowed to touch is generally quality, and you've seen how ham fisted sports content can be (Versus, Fox BCS, FSN content other than actual sports, and BTN)

If you don't like ESPN, Fox's highlight show is bare bones, half an hour long, and goes after just the facts. I'm not sure what they said about the Leach situation, because I don't watch it. It's an option, you don't have to watch ESPN if you don't want to.

michman999

January 10th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^

Man, it's football, not ballet. A face mask pull here, a shoulder pad tug there, an occasional f bomb...part of the fabric of the sport. I know we don't know all the facts, but c'mon, banished to the backyard shed because of a concussion? Leach, what the hell were you thinking? And, Craig James biased? What exactly did Craig James do to warrant the criticism darting his way? Hopefully, what all of us would do as parents and attend to our children. Does Adam James possess an exponentially enlarged sense of entitlement? Perhaps. Was it fed by a dad who some suggest is similarly afflicted? Perhaps. Does this make them the villains of this drama? IMHO, absolutely not. Now, I don't know the man, but I got to believe James did what he did because he is a father first - I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt. I would do the same. Cut the man some slack.

M-Wolverine

January 10th, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^

Craig James cheated big time as a player, enough to be the last major program to get the death penalty. Some remember that, and don't think of him as the highest character individual, so we take what he says with a grain of salt. Doesn't mean bad things don't happen to bad people. Just that it wouldn't shock anybody if he's a wee bit self-serving.

umchicago

January 10th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^

though not all the facts are in, but it's been reported that craig james contacted the coach(es) several times compaining about his kid's playing time. that is BS. could you imagine if the parents of all 70-80 non-starters began complaining about their kids PT.

and remember the kid was concussed, and routinely broke rules (allegedly). so what do you do as a coach? you can't make him run sprints or do anything physical. he's concussed. i'm not saying what leach did was right but it is blown out of proportion IMO.

i think i would have handed him a gallon of paint and a brush and made him paint that shed or something similar.

Raback Omaba

January 10th, 2010 at 4:12 PM ^

Adam "Pacman" Jones would've made it rain on Leach if he were mistreated.

I think it's Adam James you are trying to talk about. Am I the only one who caught that?

MaizeNBlue

January 10th, 2010 at 5:18 PM ^

At least she didn't say "son of ESPN analyst Craig James" like they've added on EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE and EVERY SINGLE REFERENCE to the situation. THAT is annoying, especially because I'm not fond of Craig James as a commentator. Give me Kirk and Brent or pay Keith Jackson to come out retirement.

jsquigg

January 10th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^

Mike Leach broke the code of conduct and even though it is ticky tack to use that to fire him, Leach didn't apologize or do anything to make himself look better in the situation. I personally think Adam James and his dad probably exploited the situation, but that is all speculation at this point. If James was that bad of a kid, just dismiss him from the team, don't give him any way to get back at you.
I know that Mike Leach will land on his feet and Tech better hope it's not in the Big XII.

wolverine1987

January 10th, 2010 at 8:19 PM ^

not only did not break a code, but IMO he did nothing wrong. He punished James like a child, which is what he thought he was being. I don;t believe for a second that putting him in a room for awhile is anything less than embarrassing for James--that doesn't meet any personal standard I have for "mistreatment." Feel free to differ, but that very difference is what ESPN should have acknowledged.