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

No, I think douchebags who treat women like shit should be called out on it.

 

That's the same "logic" birthers used about Obama's birth certificate.

ESPN denying it turns it into a legit story. Right now, it's some gossip on a blog. And based on reactions around the rest of the blogosphere, it's very disappointing "Who gives a shit?" gossip about two people most fans don't care about.

 

Never mind that the second name they named was a woman, right?

I'm sorry. I left something out. You don't care about integrity in reporting AND you have a major axe to grind with ESPN. Of course, I can't prove those accusations, but why should that stop me?

 

Its been mentioned.

 

This headline made me laugh...

http://withleather.uproxx.com/2009/10/deadspin-is-doing-the-lords-work

 

But litigation isn't free. Discovery in a case like this can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. And even if you believe you are 110 percent correct, there is always the risk that a judge will not agree. It happens all the time.

And piggybacking off of Jim Carty's observation on the previous page, the deposition stage could be an absolute bitch for the defendant - and bring innocent people down. I believe that even sealed settlements - i.e. employee lawsuits that were settled with a confidentiality agreement - can be forced into deposition when related to the current case. Otherwise, from a public policy standpoint, potential defendants can absolutely stifle future meritorious cases with a series of "confidentiality agreements."

 

I think the aspiring (or perhaps practicing?) lawyer cuts right to the truth here. There is no effing way ESPN wants to have hundreds and hundreds of its employees deposed about sexual harassment. If you're Katie Lacey and you're in Norby's office today furious as hell, I'm betting you're going to be told "Sorry, but you have to take this one for the team, even if only some of what was said about you is true. We know these problems exist, and we've tried to clean them up, but not really. The last thing we want is to have lawyers pry open 100 instances of this."

I admit I was a little fascinated by the whole thing mostly because of schadenfreude. I think we're all a little fascinated by it, even if you feel shame and disgust as a result. I don't think I would have felt that way if one of my friends had their name dragged through the mud, even if those allegations were true. It's really hilarious until someone you know gets destroyed. But at the same time, it's hard to defend douchebags who treat women poorly and know they can get away with it because they're in a position of power. I don't agree with the way they did this at all, and obviously one of the few things people remember about me is how I used to rage against The Big Lead for doing this exact kind of thing.

But I think it's also to acknowledge that, in many respects, ESPN has grown too powerful and there is no longer any kind of gatekeepers in traditional media that can hold them accountable. And they're only growing more powerful. They're going to do their best to destroy sports sections in major cities over the next decade, given them even more unchecked power. The company wants to be Microsoft. Or Google. That makes me uncomfortable.

I'm sure Deadspin sees itself as the Rebel Alliance and ESPN as the Empire. I'm not sure that analogy holds up. But I see how that justifies it in their minds.

 

Great post. ESPN has reached the level where nobody wants to take them to task for anything because just about everyone in the business wants to be in bed with them (pun intended).

I doubt there are many big papers out there that don't have at least 1-2 people who are on ESPN's payroll in some capacity. Even those who are at SI or CBS Sports or AOL or Yahoo! don't usually want to burn that bridge. There are exceptions like Whitlock and Freeman and I'm sure there are a few others who belong on that list.

Does that prevent ESPN for getting called out for some of the bullshit it pulls? I think it does.

That's part of the reason why I'm enjoying this so much.

 

I keep hearing this justification about exposing ESPN's sexual harrassment and mistreatment of women. Problem is two of those outed yesterday, Lacey and Bell, were women, and I don't believe either were screwing a subordinate. So, as far as I can tell, that ain't what they were exposing at all. It was purely for the sake of titillation and rumormongering.

 

Well, run for the hills, Ma Barker! A sports gossip site running stories for the sake of titillation and rumormongering. Unprecedented.

 

It's possible one of the Deadspin guys once worked at or for ESPN.

 

Is this it?