ESPN EXPLAINS DECISION NOT TO REPORT FAVRE STORY

In conjunction with our stream of stories regarding the decision of ESPN not to mention the report regarding Brett Favre’s alleged Xs and Os session with Lions coaches, we’ve obtained the following statement from ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz. “Like all reports that come in, we gave careful consideration to this one,” Krulewitz said. “We couldn’t confirm it. It’s obviously a judgment call. Given the nature of the story, we needed to bring a lot of sensitivity to our reporting and do what we felt was the most responsible thing.” Krulewitz, who says that ESPN will continue to monitor the situation, explained that the decision not to acknowledge the report “had nothing to do with” FOX, which originally reported the story. “We consistently give credit to other news organizations,” Krulewitz said. Frankly, we know more than a few journalists who would dispute that point. Back to the crux of the story, we’re having trouble understanding the difference between the Favre story and the Boston Herald item regarding allegations that the Patriots had videotaped the Rams’ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. ESPN couldn’t confirm the Walsh story. ESPN presumably brought “a lot of sensitivity” to the reporting. And ESPN presumably did what ESPN felt was the most responsible thing. So why did they acknowledge the Walsh story and not the Favre story? In Favre’s case, the allegations relate to arguably petty conduct that was neither illegal nor a violation of the rules. As to Spygate II, the claims against the Patriots struck to the heart of the overall credibility of an entire NFL franchise, and undermined all of its accomplishments during this decade. The mere existence of the story created a significant distraction for key members of the organization only one day before Super Bowl XLII. Applying the standard that ESPN has employed regarding Favre, ESPN should have at least refrained from commenting on the Walsh story until the day after the Super Bowl. But ESPN didn’t. And our next e-mail to Krulewitz will ask him, politely yet directly, to help us understand the difference between these two situations.