It seems Deadspin is about to go guns blazing at ESPN re: sex rumors

Nice.

I hate Deadspin. I refuse to give that crap even a single click. This action today is despicable and I hope they get sued in such a demonstrative way as to set legal precedent for those "heehaws pretending to be journalists."

 

Every time Deadspin has even seemed to attempt to lean slightly toward developing even the slightest thing resembling journalistic standards they debut "Deleted Scenes" or pull something like today.

Nobody cares about ESPN sex scandals other than to read the latest rumor like any other entertainment blog. Am I going to stop playing fantasy football on their site because, shocker, people in the broadcasting business sleep around? Of course not.

It's playing up to the lowest common denominator, plain and simple. Pretending you're somehow being the "watchdog of the watchdog" because you want to air people's dirty laundry to sell a few extra cheeseburgers is delusional at best.

Besides, anyone think Gawker can actually afford to go toe-to-toe wrangling in court with an entity like ESPN? ESPN doesn't need to win in court, they can just bleed Gawker to death for fun.

 

I saw this news item here before going into the office, then saw Phillips' taking the leave of absence on the wires, and all the time I had to ask myself, "Why is this considered news?" It's titiliation, it's tabloid online journalism finding a new low and it's celebrity gossip, but given my news hole, it definitely wasn't news for my readers!

 

The Phillips thing is news. It's not front-page news, but it's justifiable as at least a brief on your baseball page. He's a former GM in the biggest market in the country and now a high-profile analyst who will be off the air for a while for a transgression. It's news, salacious or not.

However, Deadspin's little shenanigan - even though it was about 1/100th of what they pumped - is sickening. I hope ESPN levels them legally.

 

In a libel lawsuit, "actual malice" is publishing something that is either knowingly false or with a "reckless disregard for the truth."

Point of Order is exactly right, as I understand it. Libel cases can be very, very tough to win, especially for public figures. "Actual malice" is quite the bitch to prove. That's one reason why celebrities rarely go after the gossip rags/sites.

The original post from Deadspin stunned me. No matter what you think of ESPN or how despicable its corporate culture may be ... the original post sounded, to me, like they were going to post every single rumor they'd ever heard about any ESPN staffer. That's pretty irresponsible. From the way it panned out (two posts), it sounds like two things: (a) Either Gawker's lawyers got involved and put the kibosh on this or (b) Deadspin was just trying to freak out everyone at ESPN and drive up page views.

 

Here's hoping there are some bigger revelations on Day 2!!!

Go Deadspin Go!

 

Mizzou....how are you NOT a fan of The Hills and The City and all those other awful shows? You are one of the biggest gossip fans I know.

 

Though doth protest too much, Mr. Tirico

 

That judge was an idiot and his trial was a circus.

Carry on.

 

Lines of appropriateness in reporting are constantly being redrawn. We've obviously come a long way since the days when reporters kept private the private lives of athletes (Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle), celebrities and politicians (JFK). To me, these ESPN and Deadspin revelations just seem like a logical Web-based extension of Page 6. I'm long past shocked or surprised. My sensibilities have been numb with regard to salacious reporting since the mid-'80s.

 

I think it was a little of both, but mostly the latter. It certainly showed in their posts that the primary goal was to freak people at ESPN out.

 

I don't think it's close to split. Most people think it's reprehensible, except for Mizzou. Others are arguing the legalities of it.