ESPN executive editor John Walsh spoke with Dan Patrick on The Dan Patrick Show Thursday afternoon, touching on the two major controversies of the week: ESPN’s reluctance to report on the Ben Roethlisberger story and the video of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews.
Walsh on the decision making process in regards to the Roethlisberger story:
Patrick: “Let me start with when you first heard about the Roethlisberger story. When did you find out?
Walsh: “That’s a — I can’t even, uh, personally, my schedule was such that I didn’t hear about it until it was well, well into the mix, let’s put it that way. But to put a date and time on it, I can’t do that.
Patrick: “What’s the process of what happened after the Roethlisberger story arrives in the newsroom, of how to cover it, if to cover it, or to stay away from it?”
Walsh: “The news editors are — the man who runs our news operation, Vince Doria — meet and they discuss exactly what the merit is of the story, where it’s going to go, and communication by e-mail, communication by personal conversation, and sometimes in meetings, and basically, we have a policy in place, and we try to honor the policy, and do the best we can. Sometimes there are exuberances, or instances when people are unfamiliar with it, and decisions are made outside of that. But in this instance, the decision was exactly what — the way you portrayed it.
Patrick: “But, I’m just trying to follow — it’s a civil lawsuit here, that have sexual assault attached to them, with Ben Roethlisberger. From what I was told, that you guys covered the Shannon Brown story — a back-up point guard for the Lakers — a pending civil lawsuit that had to do with sexual assault, because it was in season. If this is a month later, is Ben Roethlisberger then a story, just because of the timing of it, John?
Walsh: “What happens here, is that we have had a history of civil lawsuits, Dan, dating back — we’ve done this over, almost 20 years now, 15-16 years — where there have been athletes who have been involved and charged in civil lawsuits, and the civil lawsuits have been dropped, and the reputation of the athlete for a period of time has been, to a certain extent, sullied, and so what we’ve done is say that we would like to have more of a position on this where there is a news hook or some acknowledgement — a news event that prompts us to cover it.”
Patrick: “But the Commissioner came out and said they’re looking into the Roethlisberger story. So there’s your news hook, John.”
Walsh: “There are, you know, there are positions where you make judgements along the way on a microscopic level, of ‘hey, this event happened, that event happened’ and ‘okay, we’re going to do it’. But the merits of the news story are always up for judgement on an individual basis. So, at some point you say, ‘okay, this has reached a level where it should be reported’.
Patrick: “Should you guys have reported this sooner, John?”
Walsh: “You know what, I wish I were involved in the day-to-day operations–“
Patrick: “But knowing what you know, John, as great a newsman as you’ve been, understanding a story and when it starts and where it is now, I said you guys should have been on this earlier.”
Walsh: “I don?t think that question should be answered until we see how the news story unfolds. I really don’t. I mean, I don’t–“
Patrick: “Yeah, but we don’t have that luxury, John.”
Walsh: “I think too much is made, Dan, too much is made of, in the environment, in the blogosphere and sports talk radio, too many judgements are rushed to be made before we know what we should know about a case. And I think that’s something we are living with and coping with — and you must be living with that, day-to-day.”
Walsh on the perception of a conflict of interest due to ESPN’s reluctance to cover the Roethlisberger story.
Patrick: “I think the blogosphere, though, does impact how we cover stories. How has it impacted how ESPN is covering stories?”
Walsh: “We are continually in discussion about that, about what–whatever the news story is. We’re in continued discussion. And you want to get to the bottom of it, and honor and respect all of the people who are involved — including the victims — and, we know, we’re on both ends of it at times. Because people are covering us, and you have to figure out, where does this stand relative to what we know to be the facts at that time? And it’s–it’s not easy anymore.”
Patrick: “Yeah, but the problem I had, John, is it forces me to read between the lines here, that Roethlisberger doing an ABC reality show with Shaq, he’s in ESPN promos, he’s plays in the NFL, marquee team, ESPN is run on NFL money — and I just think it sounds — it made me read into more than I wanted to read into this, that maybe you’re dictating and not covering sports, and I just didn’t like that aspect to this.”
Walsh: “You know what, I think one of the biggest problems that we have today is reading into–between the lines.”
Patrick: “But you forced me to, though, John, if I say–“
Walsh: “We don’t force you to — we don’t force you to read between the lines.”
Patrick: “John — John –“
Walsh: “Nobody forces anybody to read between the lines.”
Patrick: “John, Associated Press had the story –“
Walsh: “Your job forces you to read between the lines.”
Patrick: “You have Roethlisberger on a reality show on ABC on Friday, John.”
Walsh: “I didn’t even know that. I didn’t even –“
Patrick: “Well, but you didn’t make this decision.”
Walsh: “That has nothing to do with the value of a news story. And if you don’t know that, you’re reading between the lines in a way you shouldn’t be. If you have to do that for talk radio or the blogosphere, okay, do it. But that’s not — things like that have nothing to do with the decision –“
Patrick: “John, Kevin Blackistone, who works on Around the Horn and writes for AOL FanHouse, brought up these sentiments. This is an ESPN employee.”
Walsh: “People bring up the sentiments, and people bring up whatever the surrounding facts are, but — the people making the decisions — matters like that have nothing to do with it.”
Walsh on the Erin Andrews situation and the decision to ban New York Post writers from ESPN outlets.
Patrick: “Letting go the New York Post writers because of the coverage of Erin Andrews, uh, that decision — what was that based on?”
Walsh: “That was based on the coverage The Post gave of the story, that our executives felt was so over the line and so embarrasing and rephrehensible to Erin, a respected and wonderful colleague, that we felt if we were the parents of the victim of this crime and we saw the words New York Post on our air, that we wouldn’t be doing justice to what the person that we know is our colleague.”
Patrick: “FOX last night, Bill O’Reilly showed video — blurred out — with Erin Andrews. Would that affect any FOX employees from being on ESPN?”
Walsh: “I’m sorry, I didn’t catch that.”
Patrick: “Bill O’Reilly show last night, he showed the footage, blurred out though, with Erin Andrews, and then talked about it, will that affect — similiar to the Post showing pictures of Erin and, obviously, portions of her body blacked out, that affected these writers from the New York Post working with ESPN. Will what FOX did last night affect any future appearances by FOX employees?”
Walsh: “I don’t know, because I didn’t see it. I did see the Post coverage, so I don’t — since I didn’t see the show last night, I can’t say — I’m not the only person, that, it’s a collaborative culture that makes decisions, so I don’t really know what happened — I didn’t see it, so.”
Patrick: “Any consideration of sitting Erin out of games to protect her for a while?”
Walsh: “Listen, this is a period when Erin is recovering from a crime that was committed against her, and we’re not jumping to any conclusions about anything. What we want to do now is support Erin, do the best we can for Erin, to come back and recover from a crime.”
(via Jimmy Shapiro/sportsradiointerviews.com)
