The Cleveland Browns’ All-Nickname Team
September 25, 2014Donte Whitner is one of many leaders the Browns need
September 25, 2014ESPN has suspended one of their most prominent employees, Bill Simmons, for three weeks for comments he made on his podcast about Roger Goodell. The Internet — by my anecdotal estimation — is largely up in arms over this. There are columns all over the place to go along with #FreeSimmons hashtags. Like most others I’ve ever talked sports with, I’ve had my issues with ESPN over the years, but I’m confused why anyone’s so shocked or upset by the suspension of Simmons.
I just don’t see how anyone can see how Simmons went about his commentary on Roger Goodell and come to any other conclusion other than it was questionable at best and nearly slander at worst. In my view, it went beyond having an opinion and went to the point of being little more than a profane personal attack. Even if Bill Simmons is right that Roger Goodell is a liar and is specifically lying in this situation, I have no doubt he knows better than to directly, angrily and profanely attack someone as an employee of ESPN and editor-in-chief of Grantland.
So let’s set the table a little bit. Bill Simmons was ranting on his podcast when he said the following. (Audio at Mediaite)
“Goodell, if he didn’t know what was on that tape, he’s a liar,” Simmons said Monday. “I’m just saying it. He is lying. I think that dude is lying. If you put him up on a lie detector test that guy would fail. For all these people to pretend they didn’t know is such f***ing bull***t. It really is — it’s such f***ing bull***t. And for him to go in that press conference and pretend otherwise, I was so insulted. I really was.”
I implore you to listen to the audio for the full feel of how it sounded. Simmons’ job is to have an opinion and be an entertainer, but this wasn’t him going for a bit or a joke or some kind of premise. Listen all the way to the end too, because Simmons just keeps hammering the “liar” message home saying, “I don’t like liars. People you know are lying and they’re lying anyway? Those are the worst people.”
If you’ve been paying attention to ESPN’s reporting on the whole Ray Rice / Roger Goodell topic, it’s easy to see that Simmons’ tone sticks far far out. Keith Olbermann certainly pulled no punches in his on-air blasting of Roger Goodell, but as a news organization – even one covering a mostly entertainment beat like sports – there are minimum levels of standards.
I include the Olbermann clip, because it seems many are confusing ESPN’s punishment of Simmons as a directive to not have a harsh opinion on ESPN’s business partner, the NFL. It’s just not true. This was all about tone and tact, and you need look no further than Olbermann’s rant.
ESPN’s current Ombudsman, Robert Lipsyte, had just finished talking about ESPN’s performance on the topic and also as a business partner of the NFL. In that article, Lipsyte even lauds Simmons along with Olbermann, Jason Whitlock, Dan Van Natta Jr. and many more. The specific Simmons piece that Lipsyte calls out is a mailbag in which Simmons repeatedly types in bolded and capital letters, “HOW THE HELL DOES ROGER GOODELL STILL HAVE A JOB?” Clearly Simmons’ criticism of the NFL and Roger Goodell specifically wasn’t an issue for ESPN, in general.
So the idea that ESPN is uncomfortable with criticism of their business partner is ludicrous. The network is cashing advertising paychecks on the Ray Rice scandal as it fills hours and hours of television and draws more and more Internet eyeballs to ESPN properties. All of their prominent employees are teeing up Roger Goodell left and right with observations and opinions based on ESPN’s own reporting on the case. Criticizing the NFL is almost a separate profit center at ESPN at the moment, so even despite the network’s history with “League of Denial,” it just doesn’t seem applicable here on this issue.
What’s left after all that? ESPN had specific problems with the way Bill Simmons carried himself this time, and I hardly disagree. ESPN has been far from perfect in how they handle themselves, but that’s bound to happen with an octopus of their size with as many producers, writers and commentators they have. It hasn’t been easy for them to straddle that line between being a news organization and an entertainment one, but I think they got this right. There’s a difference between criticism of a person and their performance or abilities and something that shrinks to the lowest levels as a personal attack.
42 Comments
I disagree. Goodell clearly is a liar. I see no problem with someone calling a spade a spade.
I think Simmons threatening ESPN was the impetus behind the suspension, not the attack on Goodell. That whole mailbag was a personal attack on Goodell and there wasn’t any type of retribution. Once Simmons started antagonizing ESPN during the pod by daring someone to say something to him, and if they did he’d ‘go public,’ that’s where he crossed the line. He asked for it, and they gave it to him.
I just love I mean love it’s Simmons, ESPN and the NFL. Nuke ’em from space and lets call it a day!
I’m not sure I’d hold a podcast conversation to the same standard as a heavily produced tv-show. I just don’t think they’re the same thing. Especially when that show states from the outset that it contains mature subject matter.
The Outside the Lines on the Rice Drama was highly critical of the NFL, Goodell, and the Ravens too.
We’re all clearly liars. Saying the Goodell lied about seeing the elevator security tape though is another matter entirely.
I still don’t get the “go public” threat. You’re already public! Or is he suggesting that he has some actual, factual dirt on Goodell. If that’s the case, why not report it right now?
And don’t forget the Ravens. For the first time ever, I wish Art was still a living, breathing NFL owner.
Yeah, I didn’t get that either. I’m not sure what it meant, but it was definitely a threat to his employer.
I didn’t and wouldn’t. I used it as one comparison. I also compared it to the apparently acceptable Simmons mailbag.
Life = mature subject matter!
Did you just call me a “liar?” Take it back, you lying liar of a liar.
I’m not sure how this is a disagreement. Calling Goodell out on his flaws is proven not to be suspension worthy at ESPN. Fanning the flames and challenging your bosses in about as unprofessional manner as it gets is though.
That’s the impression I got from Craig. You can call a spade a spade, but you can’t be a flaming a-hole in the process.
I think the disconnect between the punishment doled out to Stephen A. Smith (when he said that women shouldn’t bait men into hitting them) – a 1 week suspension – vs. the Bill Simmons punishment (a 3 week suspension) is what gives me pause. Stephen A. Smith’s comments were absurd, period. Simmons’ opinion is at least based on what is at this point not an unreasonable assumption (that Goodell saw the tapes prior to mishandling the Ray Rice situation, and is now lying about it in saying that he didn’t).
The standards don’t seem consistent – ESPN certainly didn’t have an issue with labelling Donald Sterling a racist when it was (reasonably) believed he was acting racist, but it seems to demand more nuance when referring to someone who is very likely lying as a liar. The issue couldn’t have been with the profanity, as Grantland frequently uses it.
Saying Goodell saw the tape, which he categorically denies, without evidence is approaching libel.
Saying Sterling was a racist after hearing a tape of him say racist things is not comparable imo. Saying stupid and ridiculous things about women and domestic violence is stupid and ridiculous, but it won’t get you or your employer sued over libel.
It amazes me how unprofessional Simmons can act at times. He clearly knows what he is doing with many things (30for30 series, Grantland, etc.), but he is so amazingly unprofessional (that mailbag is as bad or worse than the lines from the podcast).
I’ve read a handful of things by him. Mostly I find his appeal confusing. But then I read something about Lebron a while back that seemed well thought out and spot on. Seems like he’s much better being a neutral observer than commenting on something he feels passionately about.
The average ESPN reader is just as unprofessional. That’s the key.
Plus as badly as SAS messed up, his reaction after the fact was to try to clarify, apologize, etc. I’m not saying anyone has to accept that or think it’s good enough, but it’s a wholly different attitude and reaction than flippantly defying your bosses pre-emptively.
Given that Simmons already shared his opinion about Goodell in written form in two seperate columns, I personally doubt that they’re particularly concerned with the crux of his opinion (Goodell being a liar). I’m not shocked that he was punished…but, the length of the punishment seems arbitrary to me. That his actions yesterday are the straw that broke the camel’s back, given that it’s the full-flavored version of his original message, smells funny, which shouldn’t be a big surprise being that it’s ESPN.
Skip Bayless on line 1…
Fair point. I guess I’d say that nj0’s point about opening yourself to libel charges is important.
Skip is an expert level troll. He can push people’s buttons without devolving into a series of f bombs and frat-bro-tough-guy challenges.
I’d guess that the role each plays at ESPN plays no small part in the suspension length. Kind of like MLB hitters getting three game suspensions when pitchers get 10. Smith is on TV everyday. A week long suspension is five days off camera. Does Simmons even write an actual column, and not just the dumb mailbags and nfl picks pieces more than every three weeks these days? A three week suspension is only about one longer than he normally gives himself.
Blind squirrel and all that. Part of the whole Simmons thing is that he just says the next thing that pops in his head, like when he accused Lebron of tanking because he saw Cleveland won the lottery.
The Mothership has always been quick to squash their talent because people will tune in and click on their website simply because they’re the mothership. Although, I think those times are starting to change.
ESPN doesn’t need Bill Simmons, but Bill Simmons surely doesn’t need ESPN anymore either.
Despite his creation of Grantland, I dream of Simmons pulling a Jerry McGuire and starting a new shop a long way from Dodge.
You hit it on the head. The “Goodell is a liar” was merely his opinion. Him calling out his employer was ill advised.
can’t stand any of em!!!
I disagree. Simmons certainly needs ESPN. ESPN owns 30for30, Grantland, etc. Simmons may run those franchises, but ESPN funds them and owns their rights.
Imagine Simmons trying to do his podcast and writings from afar without financial backing. He may have some moderate success, but it would be difficult to believe he could continue his current heights.
Simmons on a platform that doesn’t have the amount of sports, especially basketball, is not going to work for him. Especially as he’s no longer concerned with actual writing. As far as NBC, CBS and Fox have increased their brand in the sports markets, they don’t touch Disney. People tune into the mothership because the mothership has the games. Everything else will follow that.
Simmons really thrives off ESPN’s status and platforms, but “need” is an interesting word. I think Simmons would lose some status if he left ESPN, but he’d likely make a TON more money. Imagine how much Simmons would be worth to one of the companies chasing ESPN?
My thought is Simmons’ life is already set. If he’s had it with having to censor himself then he can create columns and podcasts with just his iPad and his own website. That’s an extreme example, but it’s his anti traditional sports writing that got him to where he’s at in the first place.
I’m not sure he’d make any more, and definitely would bet he couldn’t make a “ton” more. Riley is getting $3.4M/year and most people think that Simmons is definitely topping that. No one has more cash than ESPN to pay their talent, and Simmons is right at the top of their payscale.
not only is he at the top of their payscale, but he’s also making executive producer money on the franchises he started, so keeping that going will allow him to semi-retire gracefully when he wants to do it that may not be available other places.
I would actually guess that he makes plenty more than Reilly.
Most likely. Even when I liked his stuff, it never made me read anything else he has written.
The silly part in all of this is that if ESPN just ignored this, it probably would quietly go away. I’m sure Simmons would still squawk about Goodell every now and then, but then he’d go back to saying pointless crap about the NBA. So why really care? Let him be defiant and profane. Hell, you could then point to that as an example of how you’re not carrying water for the NFL. Instead, they went all “hey, look at this controversy!”
The ESPN model is to say controversial things, but not about things outside an approved spectrum of topics.
And good lord – do not actually believe what you say!
Does anyone here really think the boobs on ESPN radio, PTI, etc. really have strong opinions about whatever topic they’re shouting about that day? Now, does anyone doubt that Bill Simmons feels passionately about Roger Goodell?
Basically ESPN is: color the picture with whatever color you want – just be sure to stay within the lines.
It goes along with what mgbode was saying about MLB and steroids. During the heyday of Bonds, McGwire, and Company, nobody said jack about steroids. Then when it was an officially approved issue to hrrmph over, everyone had an opinion and outrage. Now that there’s a policy in place, nobody questions how effective/fair the policy truly is or does any serious investigative journalism into how players may be circumnavigating the rules.
Obviously ESPN doesn’t like it when their toes are stepped on. Bill Simmons has options. If he hates ESPN this much, then he should leave. Of course, if he only cares about his money/overall reach, then that just makes him as bad as ESPN for siding with the NFL. One in the same imo.
Goodell is a public figure. I encourage you to look up the criteria for a public figure to prove “slander” in court. Truth is an affirmative (and absolute) defense to slander. Calling a statement slander does not make it legally so. If it is not slander then it is not “nearly” slander. I don’t even know what that means. If Bill Simmons should be careful with his use of words you should be careful with yours. Also its comical when pundits focus on the profanity. First, it was bleeped out. Second, the statements were made on a podcast. I don’t know that he’s had a podcast where they didn’t bleep out at least one expletive. These podcasts are still available for download. So that is not ESPN’s justification. And boy what a frightening slippery slope when you start censoring for “tone.” One man’s rant is another man’s truth to power.
“Kind of like MLB hitters getting three game suspensions when pitchers get 10.”
Since pitchers only pitch once every five games, this actually makes sense.
With Simmons out of the way, ESPN can return to “reporting” on Michael Sam’s teammates being “cool” with him not showering with them.
#JOURNALISM
Probably meaning he would take his radio “personality” public and cut ties with ESPN? … just a guess
If Simmons were to leave ESPN/ABC, much of the Grantland staff would look to follow him, I think. But Grantland’s contributors fall into two camps, NBA (Simmons, Goldsberry, Lowe) and college football (Anderson, Brown, Conn, Curtis, Hinton, etc.). The only sports media property with TV rights to both sports is ESPN. I can’t see the sports properties of NBC, CBS, or FOX paying Simmons his due. I think Simmons would be more likely to get separate decent contracts from HBO, Turner Sports, and Esquire. But that doesn’t help his staff en masse, which is why none of them are likely to nudge Simmons to fulfill his promise to “go public.” If NBC had NBA TV rights, I think this would be a very different situation.