BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by BRV on Feb 15, 2016 17:52:20 GMT -5
Look, while you are getting mad out our "fake outrage", you are making fake outrage of your own against ESPN just because they are finally getting into this. What did you want? Did you want them to ignore this story? They have done that for days. And if you are mad because the media built him up to now tear him down.........welcome to the media. This has always (and I mean always) done. This isn't about fake outrage, this is about transparency. ESPN knew about this for years and years and years (not days). And they knowingly stepped around it to build Manning up, and now they're trashing him as much as anyone. But people aren't talking about that, they're talking about Manning. And I personally have never been a fan of Manning, and what he did at UT was awful. But that's 20 years ago, and now it's "news" for controversy sake. Because it's a down time in NFL coverage. I think that's worth saying. That ESPN is complicit in the cover-up, if you want to talk about brand and profile, and they're now leading the charge on his downfall. And all these people buy in because that's what they want. It's sick on all levels. Thank you for that news about the media though, never knew it! Most of the sports media world knew about it and has known about it for going on 20 years, they've just chosen not to give it proper coverage or acknowledgement because most of the national sports media is in the tank for Peyton and Archie Manning. The Manning family has had many of the most prominent national football reporters in their pocket since the first day Peyton stepped foot on campus in Knoxville, so of course these great many reporters will either tip-toe around a sensitive subject such as this or outright ignore it. The reason it was brought back into the news cycle in the last week is twofold. First, The Daily Beast on Feb. 2 ran a story titled "Peyton Manning's Forgotten Sex Scandal". That story was run presumably because Super Bowl 50 was likely Peyton Manning's final game in the NFL and he was receiving nothing but adulation and respect globally leading up to kickoff and a handful of reporters and editors probably thought to themselves, "Y'know, he's not the charmer everyone wants him to be," so they recalled this 20-year-old story. Second, Shaun King's story last Saturday ran for far more insidious and far more racially driven reasons, but the story was finally given the national spotlight that it has not received in 20 years. As I've said, whether the incident happened two days ago or 20 years ago, it needs to be told, if nothing more than as a cautionary tale to fans, coaches, and universities, to remind all that these heroes we see on our TV screens aren't the deities we so badly want them to be. And as much as I dislike Shaun King for a variety of reasons, attacking the messenger gets us nowhere in this discussion on hero worship, sex, gender, race, and college culture. When you say, "But people aren't talking about that, they're talking about Manning," then that's what the end result should be. As guilty as ESPN is for propping up Manning as this Dudley Do Right hero straight out of Mayberry, they're not the ones who allegedly sexually assaulted a trainer. Manning SHOULD be the one people are talking about because he's the one who allegedly committed this lewd, vile, heinous act. Is ESPN complicit in creating the myth of Manning? 100 percent absolutely. But should ESPN be the ones to have to answer these allegations? No, because the act of propping up a flawed athlete is far less than whatever it is Manning allegedly did to an innocent trainer.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Feb 15, 2016 17:59:56 GMT -5
Why didn't ESPN cover it before? It was not in the news cycle. That may suck but it's the answer. ESPN has had golf, tennis, track, football, basketball, Han interest spots aplenty to cover. They are in between college basketball championship season and the end of the super bowl, the NBA was on two day break. The story broke at the most opportune time for them and so yes they are going to run it into the ground and try to own it before fox, CNN, NBC etc can get it Exactly. I don't hate them for a business move. I hate that so many people take what they say at face value, and pick up their torches at whoever they're directed at today. I think we're all adults with brains and can talk about about these things honestly outside of this regularly scheduled trash fest. Bash Manning all you want, but doing it on ESPN's schedule to me seems silly. You do remember I was bashing Manning before ESPN cared.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 15, 2016 18:11:28 GMT -5
BRV, when I say that Manning is the one being talked about, I mean that as Manning HAS been talked about in ALL KINDS of places outside of the mainstream media about this exact transgression for years and years and years. It's beating a dead horse at this point. This isn't something that was a secret. Michael Sam being gay at Mizzou was a secret. There wasn't a peep about that. But look at any number of long Peyton comments sections on the interwebs, and someone will inevitably bring this up. Sometimes jokingly, sometimes not. But it's hardly hush hush. Now, it's being shouted from the rooftops. And to a large portion of sports fans, it's old news. And yes, ESPN should answer for why they knowingly stepped around this for two decades and now are lambasting him. This isn't some scoop, it was out there for anybody to see for years. And nobody at ESPN is going to come out and say "When I heard about this in 1999, I didn't want to believe it." It's not going to be acknowledged in any way.
And let's again make it clear. I don't like Peyton. I'm not trying to cover up for the guy. I could not care less about the downfall of his legacy or brand. I read about this 16 years ago and sexual assault is one of the worst things a person can do. But this story has been out there for 20 years and not just overlooked by media outlets, there hasn't been a peep about it. That safe was closed on that subject. And now, it's front page stuff. Why wasn't this a story in 97? Or when she had a settlement? Or when it was in his book? As you said, the media was in Peyton's corner. Now, they're going to feast on his carcass. That's my take away from this week, because my take away about that Manning was accused of sexual assault was over a decade ago. To me, him answering for that shouldn't be different this week as it was last week or 10 years ago or 15 years ago.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 15, 2016 18:16:37 GMT -5
Exactly. I don't hate them for a business move. I hate that so many people take what they say at face value, and pick up their torches at whoever they're directed at today. I think we're all adults with brains and can talk about about these things honestly outside of this regularly scheduled trash fest. Bash Manning all you want, but doing it on ESPN's schedule to me seems silly. You do remember I was bashing Manning before ESPN cared. Jesus Christ, Seth. My post to ICBM wasn't about you. Most of this has been about how the masses react to ESPN reacting.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Feb 15, 2016 18:20:31 GMT -5
Like I said, it is not just this and this has been mentioned, it is this and the HGH accusations as both have the same pattern of a man or his family (through intimidation, smear campaigns, and other means), of people doing whatever they can to save their brand no matter who they have to step on to do so.
It is a Lance Armstrong situation and like Lance Armstrong, that took time to finally completely come to light for the majority.
It's funny how everyone before the Super Bowl was talking how fake Cam Newton's act was and then going after him for being honest about being a sore loser and now we are learning that the other QB (the idolized one) may be worse.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by BRV on Feb 15, 2016 18:23:55 GMT -5
BRV, when I say that Manning is the one being talked about, I mean that as Manning HAS been talked about in ALL KINDS of places outside of the mainstream media about this exact transgression for years and years and years. It's beating a dead horse at this point. This isn't something that was a secret. But this story has been out there for 20 years and not just overlooked by media outlets, there hasn't been a peep about it. That safe was closed on that subject. And now, it's front page stuff. Why wasn't this a story in 97? So what is it? Has the story been covered and beaten to death or has it been overlooked? The way I see it, a handful of people knew about it but more deserved to know about it and now they do. At the Super Bowl party I attended, I made a passing reference to Manning sexually assaulting a trainer in college and the entire party reacted to me like I'd just slandered the Pope or something. I had to pull out my phone and go to Peyton Manning's Wikipedia page to show that I wasn't blowing smoke and making up some grandiose story about Manning's transgressions. But now, the story has the national attention it should have had since day one and now people know the story.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 15, 2016 18:38:00 GMT -5
So what is it? Has the story been covered and beaten to death or has it been overlooked? That's such a BS attempt at making me seem contradictory. It's been beaten to death OUTSIDE of the major media markets. It's literally old news. Old news that was overlooked by ESPN and the like because they weren't done with the golden boy status. The way I see it, a handful of people knew about it but more deserved to know about it and now they do. At the Super Bowl party I attended, I made a passing reference to Manning sexually assaulting a trainer in college and the entire party reacted to me like I'd just slandered the Pope or something. I had to pull out my phone and go to Peyton Manning's Wikipedia page to show that I wasn't blowing smoke and making up some grandiose story about Manning's transgressions. But now, the story has the national attention it should have had since day one and now people know the story. A handful of people?? Seriously? Now I do agree that maybe more people have known about it than I thought after the discussion with Seth about other swept under the rug but widely known about incidents. But a handful is really trying it. If you're saying that more people deserved to know about it, and we're kept in the dark for 20 years by the largest sports network on earth, doesn't that make them almost as skeezy in this situation? ESPN did more to cover this up than Peyton or Archie themselves. When was it EVER mentioned in the last 20 years?
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 15, 2016 18:45:22 GMT -5
BRV, when do you first remember hearing about this? You knew prior to the SB, and I must assume it was well before that.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,929
|
Post by BRV on Feb 15, 2016 19:43:15 GMT -5
A handful of people?? Seriously? Now I do agree that maybe more people have known about it than I thought after the discussion with Seth about other swept under the rug but widely known about incidents. But a handful is really trying it. If you're saying that more people deserved to know about it, and we're kept in the dark for 20 years by the largest sports network on earth, doesn't that make them almost as skeezy in this situation? ESPN did more to cover this up than Peyton or Archie themselves. When was it EVER mentioned in the last 20 years? You'd be amazed at how many people didn't know about this. Hell, the writer of the story that appeared in the New York Daily News freely admitted that he didn't know about it until he received the court documents. I'm assuming for the people who lived in Knoxville or Indianapolis, this was a routinely occurring news story, but for just about everyone outside of those areas, they might have heard about it once or twice in passing and scoffed at it as unsubstantiated myth. As for ESPN sweeping the story under the rug, when would they have felt the need to mention it? There was a confidentiality agreement and a gag order in effect, so they couldn't interview Manning about it. It was touched on in his 2005 SportsCentury documentary and he was summarily sued for breach of settlement. It's not like Chris Berman on NFL PrimeTime would say, "Manning, a long pass to Harrison...he could go all the way! And by the way, Peyton Manning allegedly sexually assaulted a trainer in 1996. Touchdown Colts!" So I don't know how else they could have harped on it. The only reason it's coming to light now is because of a combination of the story that appeared in the Daily News and the Title IX lawsuit against the University of Tennessee. BRV, when do you first remember hearing about this? You knew prior to the SB, and I must assume it was well before that. I want to say I first heard about it in the mid-2000s when a college acquaintance brought it up while we were all watching Sunday football in our dorms.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 15, 2016 20:34:43 GMT -5
A handful of people?? Seriously? Now I do agree that maybe more people have known about it than I thought after the discussion with Seth about other swept under the rug but widely known about incidents. But a handful is really trying it. If you're saying that more people deserved to know about it, and we're kept in the dark for 20 years by the largest sports network on earth, doesn't that make them almost as skeezy in this situation? ESPN did more to cover this up than Peyton or Archie themselves. When was it EVER mentioned in the last 20 years? You'd be amazed at how many people didn't know about this. Hell, the writer of the story that appeared in the New York Daily News freely admitted that he didn't know about it until he received the court documents. I'm assuming for the people who lived in Knoxville or Indianapolis, this was a routinely occurring news story, but for just about everyone outside of those areas, they might have heard about it once or twice in passing and scoffed at it as unsubstantiated myth. As for ESPN sweeping the story under the rug, when would they have felt the need to mention it? There was a confidentiality agreement and a gag order in effect, so they couldn't interview Manning about it. It was touched on in his 2005 SportsCentury documentary and he was summarily sued for breach of settlement. It's not like Chris Berman on NFL PrimeTime would say, "Manning, a long pass to Harrison...he could go all the way! And by the way, Peyton Manning allegedly sexually assaulted a trainer in 1996. Touchdown Colts!" So I don't know how else they could have harped on it. The only reason it's coming to light now is because of a combination of the story that appeared in the Daily News and the Title IX lawsuit against the University of Tennessee. BRV, when do you first remember hearing about this? You knew prior to the SB, and I must assume it was well before that. I want to say I first heard about it in the mid-2000s when a college acquaintance brought it up while we were all watching Sunday football in our dorms. First off, I just don't buy that at all. It's so undeniably naive. How would they have brought it up? How about any number of ways in which they're bringing it up now? They don't have to bring it up in the middle of highlights, which are a rarity on ESPN's programs. They have shows like Outside the Lines which has ran for 26 years reporting on stories just like this. How about how they brought up the Duke rape controversy? There's no shortage of controversies which they willingly brought up and talked about. How about the irony of them going after Joe Paterno for the Sandusky stuff? What was their storyline then? Oh yeah, it was what did he know, when did he know it, and why didn't he use his influence to blow the horn on this? All of which could be applied to ESPN in this story. The timing is just too coincidental between it being after the SB, after maybe Manning's last game that this story is widely covered on an athlete who has been front and center to the media for the entirety of the 20 years since and when this has already resulted in two settlements to this woman. So lawsuits have come and gone without this being brought up in more than passing on ESPN. If you heard about it 10 years ago, I heard about it 16 years ago, there's plenty of others out there who heard about this even if they didn't believe it. This was something that made the rounds, and while I don't object to it reaching a wider audience, I do object to it reaching a wider audience at the hands of the very company that did everything they could to push Manning while constantly covering their ears about this subject. To me, this is the crappy throwing stones at the crappier. Shaun King and the NY news media included.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Feb 15, 2016 22:02:58 GMT -5
In regards to people not knowing about it, I get it. A lot of people didn't know about Bill Cosby, either. Stories like that that happened before the 24 hour news cycle and wall to wall coverage got going are easily lost, and people who weren't neck deep in sports news back then May only hear about it from the page 8 story on USA today or if they happen to come across a random internet commenter. Now, in the social media age, anything like that could trend and make it news again.
As far as ESPN goes, yeah, they're so deeply in the NFL's pockets that I'm sure they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into reporting on this.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Feb 15, 2016 22:28:26 GMT -5
BRV, when do you first remember hearing about this? You knew prior to the SB, and I must assume it was well before that. I read it back in like 98 myself.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 15, 2016 22:40:29 GMT -5
In regards to people not knowing about it, I get it. A lot of people didn't know about Bill Cosby, either. Stories like that that happened before the 24 hour news cycle and wall to wall coverage got going are easily lost, and people who weren't neck deep in sports news back then May only hear about it from the page 8 story on USA today or if they happen to come across a random internet commenter. Now, in the social media age, anything like that could trend and make it news again. As far as ESPN goes, yeah, they're so deeply in the NFL's pockets that I'm sure they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into reporting on this. I think it was BRV who mentioned it was on Peyton's Wikipedia page before the blow-up. That's hardly page 8 on USA Today. ESPN is complicit until it becomes hard to ignore and easy to make money off of. They've got programming content for weeks now, and they didn't have to make any of the hard moves. No real reporting, no gutsy against-the-grain calls.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Feb 15, 2016 22:49:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Feb 15, 2016 23:07:47 GMT -5
I think it was BRV who mentioned it was on Peyton's Wikipedia page before the blow-up. That's hardly page 8 on USA Today. ESPN is complicit until it becomes hard to ignore and easy to make money off of. They've got programming content for weeks now, and they didn't have to make any of the hard moves. No real reporting, no gutsy against-the-grain calls. It's pretty darn close, assuming wikipedia is like most print sources. Having worked in print media, if you don't put something in the headline or very high up, you lose the vast majority of your audience. People who really wanted to know about Peyton Manning's past might have learned about it, I'd wager that most people who went to his page wanted to know some random fact about him and didn't pay too close of attention. So it still stands to reason that a lot of people hearing abut it now that it's in the wall to wall coverage just didn't know. And I do agree with the second part. I mean, obviously they knew about it because they made a documentary about him 10 years ago and he claimed she made the advances towards him way back then. But I think the hard to ignore part is the biggest. The NFL seems to control ESPN's narrative, and only when ESPN can't possibly ignore something without losing most of their audience will they attack Peyton.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 15, 2016 23:12:44 GMT -5
I think it was BRV who mentioned it was on Peyton's Wikipedia page before the blow-up. That's hardly page 8 on USA Today. ESPN is complicit until it becomes hard to ignore and easy to make money off of. They've got programming content for weeks now, and they didn't have to make any of the hard moves. No real reporting, no gutsy against-the-grain calls. It's pretty darn close, assuming wikipedia is like most print sources. Having worked in print media, if you don't put something in the headline or very high up, you lose the vast majority of your audience. People who really wanted to know about Peyton Manning's past might have learned about it, I'd wager that most people who went to his page wanted to know some random fact about him and didn't pay too close of attention. So it still stands to reason that a lot of people hearing abut it now that it's in the wall to wall coverage just didn't know. And I agree on the second part. I mean, they had him on to talk about it in 2005 I know a lot of people are hearing about it now. I just don't think anyone will agree on how many had heard it before. I mean, it was on his Wikipedia page, which is probably his top or 2nd highest result before all this. So even a percentage is still out of a gigantic pool. So I disagree it being comparable to Cosby, which had several cover-ups over decades of transgressions. The difference is they didn't go after him in 05, they are now.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Feb 15, 2016 23:30:33 GMT -5
I know a lot of people are hearing about it now. I just don't think anyone will agree on how many had heard it before. I mean, it was on his Wikipedia page, which is probably his top or 2nd highest result before all this. So even a percentage is still out of a gigantic pool. So I disagree it being comparable to Cosby, which had several cover-ups over decades of transgressions. The difference is they didn't go after him in 05, they are now. Wikipedia pages aren't a great tool for informing the masses, because even if it is his top or 2nd highest result, it still relies on people looking for that info in particular or reading the entire article, rather than looking for anything else. Clicking on a wikipedia article isn't going to make someone read the allegation paragraph in the middle of it, and while Cosby's were better covered up, a mention of his scandal did appear on his wikipedia prior to all this becoming big news again, so at some point it was discussed and added and disseminated. I just don't agree that it appearing in his wiki page is going to be this huge step to informing the public.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Feb 15, 2016 23:47:59 GMT -5
I'm a pretty sports savvy guy in 2016, and this is the first I ever heard about it. Then again, I didn't give a shit about football outside of the Giants until the early-mid 00's. My football fandom began and ended at 15:00 of the first quarter of a Giants game and ended at 0:00 of the 4th quarter (or OT).
I also didn't have the internet and I couldn't stand watching or listening to any sports news back then. The regular news didn't really run it either.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,612
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Feb 15, 2016 23:50:32 GMT -5
I know a lot of people are hearing about it now. I just don't think anyone will agree on how many had heard it before. I mean, it was on his Wikipedia page, which is probably his top or 2nd highest result before all this. So even a percentage is still out of a gigantic pool. So I disagree it being comparable to Cosby, which had several cover-ups over decades of transgressions. The difference is they didn't go after him in 05, they are now. Wikipedia pages aren't a great tool for informing the masses, because even if it is his top or 2nd highest result, it still relies on people looking for that info in particular or reading the entire article, rather than looking for anything else. Clicking on a wikipedia article isn't going to make someone read the allegation paragraph in the middle of it, and while Cosby's were better covered up, a mention of his scandal did appear on his wikipedia prior to all this becoming big news again, so at some point it was discussed and added and disseminated. I just don't agree that it appearing in his wiki page is going to be this huge step to informing the public. I'm not arguing that the general public knew. I'm arguing that many, many people in sports circles and many people who did above the bare minimum of looking into Peyton have probably seen this before. Maybe they didn't believe it or just glanced over it, but it was out there and it was being discussed. I will backtrack on the Cosby comment, as I do think it is comparable. Similar situations, but I think the Manning thing has come up more. Again, I cannot tell you how many times in a discussion of Manning that these jokes about his misconduct have come up. And these are all separate instances from forums to article comments to Facebook to Wikipedia. I don't think that you had to be THAT wired of a sports fan to have heard this once or twice. Like with Jerramy Stevens, it might not have gotten to the casual sports fan. But it was hardly a secret.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Feb 15, 2016 23:52:33 GMT -5
Wikipedia pages aren't a great tool for informing the masses, because even if it is his top or 2nd highest result, it still relies on people looking for that info in particular or reading the entire article, rather than looking for anything else. Clicking on a wikipedia article isn't going to make someone read the allegation paragraph in the middle of it, and while Cosby's were better covered up, a mention of his scandal did appear on his wikipedia prior to all this becoming big news again, so at some point it was discussed and added and disseminated. I just don't agree that it appearing in his wiki page is going to be this huge step to informing the public. I'm not arguing that the general public knew. I'm arguing that many, many people in sports circles and many people who did above the bare minimum of looking into Peyton have probably seen this before. Maybe they didn't believe it or just glanced over it, but it was out there and it was being discussed. I will backtrack on the Cosby comment, as I do think it is comparable. Similar situations, but I think the Manning thing has come up more. Again, I cannot tell you how many times in a discussion of Manning that these jokes about his misconduct have come up. And these are all separate instances from forums to article comments to Facebook to Wikipedia. I don't think that you had to be THAT wired of a sports fan to have heard this once or twice. Like with Jerramy Stevens, it might not have gotten to the casual sports fan. But it was hardly a secret. Oh, well in that case, yeah. I mean, he himself talked abut it to ESPN for a documentary, there's not way many sports journalists didn't know about it.
|
|