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

Of the ESPN employees, I agree.

 

This is at best completely reprehensible and at worst outright libel. I tend to lean toward the ladder as the malice is there, published for the world to read. Is this the future of sports journalism, outing the alleged sexual transgressions of people who in no way are public figures? Grantland Rice must be spinning.

 

If Deadspin posts erroneous damaging information about anyone, I hope they get sued to the point that the victim owns Gawker Media. But you can't honestly believe Daulerio decided to do this today without consulting the lawyers.

But there's a lot of defense of ESPN here that I can't understand. I don't care what Eric Kuselias did. I care very much that ESPN doesn't seem to give a crap about it. We're seeing a corporate culture that is completely rotted, and that's valuable information considering it's the single biggest sporting entity there is. (I suppose you could argue the NFL, but I'd still go with ESPN.) Look at all the executives who have knowledge of what's going on there and allow it to continue. That's an embarrassment, and it's good that it's in the public eye.

As a fan or reporter, I'd like to know why the Kuselias case is different from say Tirico or Reynolds or Salisbury. As a woman who works there now or left there on not-great terms (hello, Stacy Dales), I'd be talking to a lawyer about the kind of workplace environment I had to endure. I mean, we all laughed at Dales for quitting over not being in first class, but isn't it possible that was the last straw in a hayfield of examples of the men getting treated better?

And if I'm a class-action lawyer, I'm watching this intently and I'm contacting every woman I can find who has worked for ESPN in the past 20 years. When Freeman's book came out, weren't they supposed to be responding by getting rid of this shit? It sounds now like it's more out of control than ever. Mitsubishi paid big money for violations that were about on the level of what we've already heard about ESPN.

I won't even try to say these are being posted out of the public's right to know. They're being posted because A.J. Daulerio is a sleazebag who must have dreamed of working for the National Enquirer the way the rest of us dreamed of working for Sports Illustrated.

But ESPN/Disney enabling this to happen, that's a big story.

 

Honestly, Mizzou, I'm shocked you aren't a little disappointed so far. Two posts about two "Who is that?" ESPN employees isn't that big of a deal.

 

Kuselias is definitely a public figure. How is an ESPN executive not a public figure. You don't have to be well-known to be a public figure.

 

LongTimeListener, the point you touch on is a fair one. Perhaps there is a story there, and a very big/important one. But what Daulerio is doing isn't reporting the big, actual story. It's the media (term used very loosely in this instance) equivalent of writing nasty things about an ex-girlfriend in a bathroom stall.

Sure, but the latest employee posted most certainly is not.

 

Mizzou, do you believe the woman VP is a public figure?

 

I'm hoping they're leading up to the bigger ones. Obviously people here disagree, but Kuselias is a pretty big name in sports radio. I've known the guy for years. He's a complete douche. Maybe not quite as bad as Cowherd, but close.

 

So let's get this straight. A person (whose marital status is not mentioned) is accused without any proof of having a sexual relationship with a co-worker (whose marital status is also not mentioned). Both of these people are not public figures and based upon their titles don't appear to work in the same department. There is no allegation from the anonymous tipster that the relationship was not consensual or that anyone received any job benefit as a result of the purported relationship.

And this is being splashed out on a website for what reason?

 

Yes, I do. It's debatable, but I definitely think an exec at ESPN is a public figure.

 

Different genres have always existed. There was "Confidential" magazine and there was Life.

 

Any exec?

I've always been of the mind that a public figure had to be known to some degree in public to claim that position for a libel suit.

IMO, John Skipper would be a public figure to a small degree but maybe only to the greatest measure within the media world. John Q. FootballFan in Podunk wouldn't know him, or the female VP, from a knot on a tree trunk.

Anchors and 'talent' would be different, of course.