Ombudsman Ohlmeyer Vows To Mediate Between ESPN, Consumer

Ohlmeyer Strives To Serve The Audience

ESPN's Don Ohlmeyer in his first contribution as Ombudsman wrote he plans to "probe beyond rationalizations and that very human quality, defensiveness," to give consumers a "better understanding of how ESPN works, and give ESPN a better understanding of how" consumers feel. Ohlmeyer noted the column will "allow me to answer your questions, air your complaints, and give you a peak behind the curtain," and ultimately the "reward could be an informed audience and better coverage for the ESPN fans." He added he strives to "Respect the audience;" "Serve the audience;" and "Listen to the audience." Ohlmeyer addressed ESPN's coverage of a civil suit against Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger, as the net for over two days "decided not to report the story." Ohlmeyer said of ESPN's coverage, "If you feel they do a good job over time, you hang with them. If they don't, you go elsewhere. That's the pact." But many consumers felt the net had "broken the pact" by electing not to cover the Roethlisberger story.

TO COVER OR NOT TO COVER? ESPN Senior VP & Dir of News Vince Doria explained how the net chooses to address stories such as the Roethlisberger issue. Doria: "First, is there a legal component? Are there criminal charges, an investigation, an arrest? In this case, there was never a criminal complaint. Second, is there a past pattern of behavior? In this case, as far as we could determine, there was not. Third, at the time the suit was filed, can we reasonably believe it might have some on-the-field impact? As the suit was filed before teams opened training camp, we didn't feel we could make that case at this point." He continued, "Roethlisberger called a press conference two and a half days later. At that point, our concern for fairness is moot, and we moved ahead with our reporting. It was never our intent to be out front on this story." Doria said the net reported on a civil suit related to free agent WR Marvin Harrison because it "related to a prior criminal investigation" and thus "fit our criteria." But he noted ESPN in '05 chose not to report a civil suit filed against then-Falcons QB Michael Vick, "based on the same reasoning we used in the Roethlisberger situation." Doria added, "Being ethical and fair can be in conflict with all that you know. ... If we don't know something is true, then we're involved in harming someone's reputation." Ohlmeyer noted the Roethlisberger suit was "based on a year-old claim with seemingly little supporting evidence," and whether ESPN reported on it was "immaterial in terms of the public's right to know -- it was being reported everywhere else." But Ohlmeyer added, "The more I thought about it, the more that mantra rang in my ears: 'Serve the audience.' Even if ESPN judged that it should not report the Roethlisberger suit, not acknowledging a sports story that's blanketing the airways requires an explanation to your viewers, listeners and readers. And in today's world they are owed that explanation right away -- to do otherwise is just plain irresponsible." ESPN needed to be "proactive, not reactive," and if it "felt it needed to explain its rationale to the New York Times or the Washington Post, then there is no excuse for not giving the same explanation directly to its audience" (ESPN.com, 8/18).

REAX: THE BIG LEAD writes the column was not "quite the brutal criticism we expected, but it was the guy’s debut at the .com, so maybe he decided to come out with the slingshot instead of the heavy artillery" (THEBIGLEAD.com, 8/19). PRO FOOTBALL TALK's Mike Florio wrote, "We agree with Ohlymeyer's conclusion as to ESPN's error, but we would have preferred to see a more probing interrogation of Doria, especially in response to the flimsy argument that ESPN couldn't have been protecting Roethlisberger because it has gone after other NFL players" (PROFOOTBALLTALK.com, 8/18).