ESPN Explains Syracuse Coverage | Syracusefan.com

ESPN Explains Syracuse Coverage

Upstate

Co 2020 Cali Winner, Rcd/Rcpts/TD Rcpts (5)/TFL
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
7,710
Like
5,216
http://frontrow.espn.go.com/2011/11/espns-doria-on-syracuse-coverage/

ESPN Senior Vice President & Director of News Vince Doria discusses ESPN’s reporting on the Bernie Fine allegations.

FR: What led you to initially report the Fine allegations earlier this month?

Doria: For the first time we had a second alleged victim come forward to talk on the record about what he claimed had happened between he and Bernie Fine. Along with that, we had a source who indicated to us that the Syracuse Police and the University Police were discussing re-opening this investigation – which the Syracuse Police did do prior to our running the story. Those two pieces of information, coupled with what we already had from Bobby Davis and the tape we had, convinced us there was credibility to these allegations and so we went ahead and reported them.

FR: What makes this story particularly challenging journalistically?

Doria: This was originally brought to our attention in 2003. Bobby Davis was a young man who had a story involving a respected high profile assistant coach at Syracuse. A man with no previous track record of this kind of behavior. It was one man’s story. He offered us three people who, Davis said, could either corroborate his story or assert that they in fact had also been sexually assaulted by Bernie Fine. Those sources either told us that was not the case or would not talk with us.

Bobby Davis also supplied us with a tape recording he made. He made this tape recording without our involvement, we were not present when the tape was made. The tape purported to be a phone conversation between Bobby Davis and Laurie Fine, Bernie’s wife. On that tape, Laurie Fine talked in disparaging terms about her husband, Bernie Fine, and as prompted by Bobby’s conversations, discussed her beliefs and her suspicions that her husband had been involved in sexual episodes with young boys.

It was clearly a damning tape in terms of her characterization of her husband but much of it was her thinking and beliefs. She never directly acknowledged to have witnessed any of these actions first-hand. So based on that tape which we had not generated; which we had no real knowledge of how it was made and Bobby Davis’s story – which was one person with no corroboration – we felt in 2003 that the material we had did not meet the standards for reporting the story. This is consistent with how we have viewed these types of stories in the past.

FR: What was the basis for introducing the Bobby Davis/Laurie Fine audio tape 10 days after your initial report on the Fine allegations?

Doria: When we had the audio in the past we had never been able to confirm that it was Laurie Fine. Part of it was we had no independent video of her and her voice – something we could look at and say, “Yes, that’s her and yes, that appears to be her voice.” This time around when we re-engaged on the story we did in fact have a video we found on-line of her serving a meal to Bernie and a number of young men who may or may not have been Syracuse players. In this video you could clearly see her and hear her. This allowed us to submit the audio to a voice recognition expert, which we did last week.

At the same time we felt we really wanted to go to the Fines and present this evidence to them and give them the opportunity to respond in order to be as fair as possible. We tried on several occasions to contact Fine’s lawyer and the communications representative for the law firm got back to us and listened to our request where we told him we had some new information that we wanted to present to the Fines to get their side of the story and he promised to get back to us but never did. We were preparing to likely report this on Tuesday, November 29. We were going to give the Fines and their lawyer until the beginning of this week to respond. When the Syracuse Post-Standard story broke over the weekend of a third alleged victim, a victim whose sworn affidavit had reportedly triggered the house search that had taken place by federal investigators earlier last week, we felt the story had now risen to the level where we were comfortable putting the tape out. In discussions, we believed that we had given Fine’s lawyers enough time to respond and they had not done so.

FR: What is the role of a journalist relative to an investigation like this and involvement with authorities?

Doria: From a professional standpoint our role as a journalist is to seek out information and vet that information and when we’re satisfied with the credibility of that information to report it to the public. It’s what journalists do. It’s not necessarily the journalist’s role to go to the police with potential evidence that at the time we didn’t believe was strong enough to report ourselves.
We also were aware at that time that Bobby Davis had gone to the Syracuse Police in 2002 and told them about these allegations and he had been told by them that the statute of limitations had expired. So we were fully under the impression that the police had been made aware of the story and had decided not to pursue it.

All journalists could be asking themselves this very same question: What role should journalists play in providing information that may or may not have been reported? It’s complex and something we must continue to evaluate.
 
This time around when we re-engaged on the story we did in fact have a video we found on-line of her serving a meal to Bernie and a number of young men who may or may not have been Syracuse players. In this video you could clearly see her and hear her. This allowed us to submit the audio to a voice recognition expert, which we did last week.

This is freakin' insane. Laurie Fine done-in by a youtube video of dinner with the team.
 
That all seems reasonable and plausible to me.
 
Doria: From a professional standpoint our role as a journalist is to seek out information and vet that information and when we’re satisfied with the credibility of that information to report it to the public. It’s what journalists do. It’s not necessarily the journalist’s role to go to the police with potential evidence that at the time we didn’t believe was strong enough to report ourselves.
We also were aware at that time that Bobby Davis had gone to the Syracuse Police in 2002 and told them about these allegations and he had been told by them that the statute of limitations had expired. So we were fully under the impression that the police had been made aware of the story and had decided not to pursue it.

I think this is pretty weak. Basically she is saying since the SPD reportedly passed, they were under no obligation to pursue that avenue. However, based on the testimony provided by the accuser, this was a cross jurisdictional matter that should have been brought to the attention of federal authorities, particularly given the nature of the allegations and the existence of the tape. I know the Penn State situation is a major driving force behind their decision to air all of this now, but by waiting and withholding information they potentially put more children at risk.

I also like her statement "it's what journalists do". Essentially she is saying ESPN decided they would break the story and try it in the court of public opinion.
 
The interesting thing is that ESPN is now a big enough part of the story, that they need to answer some criticism. I really think this is the real reason there was so much debate about it - it wasn't so much that they didn't have enough - it was that they had people saying "You mean that tape we stuck in a desk drawer for eight years was legit?!?!? !"
 
Sh@# Every time ESPN gets defensive SU takes a hit.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk
 
I do not understand how ESPN or any credible news organization can withhold this type of information fromn legal authorities. Very disturbing that they feel it is not necesarily their job to do so. It is not their JOB, it is their RESPONSIBILTY. They acted cowardly and set the WORST example of journalistic integrity I ever recall seeing or hearing. Sorry, I have no personal gripe with ESP,' love the programming and wish them success.

They really screwed the pooch with this and I strongly contend are as responsible as Joe Paterno and his gang at Penn State for hiding the truth about Jerry Sandusky. I feel those responsible should be held accountable and terminated, their names dragtged through the mud so future employers get an advance look at their character and their critical thinking skills.
 
Doria: When we had the audio in the past we had never been able to confirm that it was Laurie Fine. Part of it was we had no independent video of her and her voice – something we could look at and say, “Yes, that’s her and yes, that appears to be her voice.”

KIDS ARE POSSIBLY BEING MOLESTED! Figure it out! Put a hidden mic on a girl scout selling cookies. What a pathetic excuse.
 
In the back of my mind I keep thinking that ESPN may have intentionally baited Boeheim into making a public statement that he would later regret. Those who have followed JB's career know that he is always going to fiercely defend his guys; there are enough SU guys at ESPN that you can bet they had anticipated that kind of response (I know that I sure did). I wonder if holding out on releasing the tape was as much to give the story a longer lifetime as it was to authenticate the tape?
 
I do not understand how ESPN or any credible news organization can withhold this type of information fromn legal authorities. Very disturbing that they feel it is not necesarily their job to do so. It is not their JOB, it is their RESPONSIBILTY. They acted cowardly and set the WORST example of journalistic integrity I ever recall seeing or hearing. Sorry, I have no personal gripe with ESP,' love the programming and wish them success.

They really screwed the pooch with this and I strongly contend are as responsible as Joe Paterno and his gang at Penn State for hiding the truth about Jerry Sandusky. I feel those responsible should be held accountable and terminated, their names dragtged through the mud so future employers get an advance look at their character and their critical thinking skills.
I think other reports have said that the SPD were provided the audio tape back in 2003, but that didn't change their ruling that the SOL had run out.

What I want ESPN to answer is why did they not turn the tape over to SU? Did they want to keep their exclusive in case the story broke later?
That's the part that makes them look morally bankrupt. If you're not sure, don't report it, but if you have any idea someone is a child abuser WHO WORKS WITH KIDS, why wouldn't you tell his employer?
 
Just think about this answer --

"It’s not necessarily the journalist’s role to go to the police with potential evidence that at the time we didn’t believe was strong enough to report ourselves. We also were aware at that time that Bobby Davis had gone to the Syracuse Police in 2002 and told them about these allegations and he had been told by them that the statute of limitations had expired. So we were fully under the impression that the police had been made aware of the story and had decided not to pursue it."
1. So the standard for reporting a story to the public is the same as the standard for privately alerting the police of potential molestation of children? Is that really what ESPN expects us to believe?!? Any journalism experts care to weigh in here? That fails the common sense and morality test quite miserably.

2. Bobby Davis has been very clear in his concern / belief that Fine was "still hurting people." And ESPN has been very clear in its belief in Bobby Davis. But now ESPN wants us to believe they did not provide the tape to the police because the police had decided not to pursue it, before the creation of this tape??

The real reason, it would appear, is not wanting to blow their headline grabbing story when it reached the point where they were ok to air it. In other words, until we air it, no one see it, consequences be damned.

Maybe ESPN controls the world enough that the microscope never turns squarely on this but I continue to be unable to avoid any conclusion other than this inaction was unconscionable.




2
 
This is alot of double-speak, IMO.
JoePa gets canned for not doing enough with the McQuery info, & ESPN was at the head of the class to crucify him.
Remember- "What about other victims that might've been spared had he contacted authorities- he shoulda done more"!!?
Yet, these ba$turds were sitting on this tape, & their only excuse is lack of voice recognition? Really?
 
The fact that they are now trying to defend their mishandling of this story speaks volumes. Spin spin spin.
 
The YouTube video that ESPN matched Mrs. Fine's voice with, the video of the players eating at the Fine's house, has been taken down.
 
I don't know. It sounds reasonable. The first thing you have to verify in a story like this is the witness's credibility and BD had some issues there. Then they had to verify that it was actually Laurie Fine, which they couldn't do. Couple that with the fact that the authorities themselves said the case was beyond the statute of limitations and I think ESPN essentially looked into a story, found they didn't have enough to go on and moved on. I think the bigger question is why BD didn't go to SU and/or the authorities with the tape or push ESPN to do so (if they had more power)?

I also think the idea that ESPN would sit on a tape for 8 or 9 years b/c they wanted to break a bomb shell is misrepresenting what they did. They moved on and basically decided there wasn't much there with what they had to go on. Then PSU happens, a second accuser -- for whatever reason or motivation -- decides to come forward and everything changes.
 
I don't know. It sounds reasonable. The first thing you have to verify in a story like this is the witness's credibility and BD had some issues there. Then they had to verify that it was actually Laurie Fine, which they couldn't do. Couple that with the fact that the authorities themselves said the case was beyond the statute of limitations and I think ESPN essentially looked into a story, found they didn't have enough to go on and moved on. I think the bigger question is why BD didn't go to SU and/or the authorities with the tape or push ESPN to do so (if they had more power)?

I also think the idea that ESPN would sit on a tape for 8 or 9 years b/c they wanted to break a bomb shell is misrepresenting what they did. They moved on and basically decided there wasn't much there with what they had to go on. Then PSU happens, a second accuser -- for whatever reason or motivation -- decides to come forward and everything changes.

But the thing is, it's ESPN deciding they didn't have enough to go on for the story but it's not their call as to whether it's enough to start a criminal investigation.
 
But there already had been a criminal investigation AND they were told the statute of limitations had passed. And I haven't seen anywhere that ESPN was aware they had something the authorities did not possess. In fact someone in this thread says the SPD had the tape in 2003.
 
When did she co-host that morning show that someone linked?
 
When did she co-host that morning show that someone linked?

Almost two year ago. She was talking about AO getting injured against Georgetown.
 
The fact that ESPN has even been having to defend itself lately (this story, ESPN's role in the way the college football landscape is changing) is pretty good evidence that the sports news company may be involving itself too much in its own stories.
 
ESPN is garbage. Two direct quotes:

1. "Those two pieces of information, coupled with what we already had from Bobby Davis and the tape we had, convinced us there was credibility to these allegations and so we went ahead and reported them.

Here is the problem: ESPN did not report that they had the tape initially, but instead went with initial accusations that were so weak Davis's character was immediately questioned along with Fine. They did a huge disservice to Davis, the guy they believed in. The only one this helped was them and their ratings. There is a reason most people with this type of testimony are put in a darken room. Is there any reason the initial ESPN report could have said we have more evidence that we are waiting to release with a tape, but we are waiting to get the other side of the story?

2. We were preparing to likely report this on Tuesday, November 29. We were going to give the Fines and their lawyer until the beginning of this week to respond. When the Syracuse Post-Standard story broke over the weekend....

They seem to now be admitting they came out with the tape before the timeline they gave the Fines lawyer to respond. I'll be curious if the Fine's lawyer says no problem. This second quote sounds more like a media's race to release information to beat the Post Standard to the punch rather than an objective and reasoned release of news content that is sensitive to both the Fines and Davis.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,638
Messages
4,902,396
Members
6,005
Latest member
CuseCanuck

Online statistics

Members online
262
Guests online
2,372
Total visitors
2,634


...
Top Bottom