> Once again: this occurred during a *podcast*. Not during a news program. > Not during anything that even looks like a news program. A *podcast*. And > by someone that no one has ever, *ever* suggested is a part of ESPN's > news-gathering operation.
I'm less of a Simmons fan than some people (including whoever titled this thread), and I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Lipsyte said, if not his conclusion. What's impressive is that ESPN continues to run the Van Natta/Van Valkenberg investigative pieces even as they suspend Simmons for voicing the obvious conclusions from them. Of course, it's easier to suspend Simmons during the NBA offseason. My question is how representative the Goodell comments are of the podcast. Was this a step or two beyond how far Simmons usually goes, or is the "problem" just that Goodell is the target? As long as the podcast and Grantland fall under the ESPN brand, the company has some responsibility for their content. I have to be convinced that this discipline is for more than ESPN trying to patch up its relationship with the Commissioner, though. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
