dc.

By the way... love the tweet dropped in there about Jameis Winston. That's exactly the story I want connected with this - another story about people overlooking and underplaying a serious matter; another example of favoritism towards athletes. That's the guy I want to talk about when I'm talking about the faults of ESPN reporting... (and the quality of institutional self-policing!)

They have admitted SOME mistakes. You always say admitted "their mistakes" as if it's all just out in the open now. They have admitted SOME problems. Here's my bigger issue, which you seem to ignore. The Ravens have only released information on the problems/mistakes of their work AFTER they have been called out or accused. So, that's why I say "conceal"... the fact that something is in the light does not mean everything is in the light. And when the things we know are only known because the team has been virtually forced to cooperate, that's not cooperation and it's not entirely trustworthy.

Don't disagree it's an error - but from ESPN it seems more like error in investigation; they say they didn't have the full texts and convo. But I don't disagree it's a problem. I just don't think the "hush money" line is legit in any fashion.

I've never called anything a fact or proven. Please show me where I did. I'm not trying to lynch anyone. I'm trying to get to the heart of a matter. The team is not especially cooperative at the moment, which doesn't inspire confidence (in a fan). I want info, not cover up. Everything the Ravens have done sounds like cover up. I'm not saying the ESPN article is true. I'm saying they need to address it in a more direct way than Steve standing there and saying, "it's not true" ten times.

Summons got nailed by ESPN.. Three week vacation

Half of this post says, "if you were a real fan you'd stop it," then the last bit is, "I'm defending them on facts not fandom." Pick one. I am quite OK with being critical and being a fan. I think it makes me a better fan. I expect a lot of the people, organizations, etc that I support in all parts of my life. The only facts you have presented are that two errors in the article exist. But there have been few facts from anyone that really clear the organization - even if their errors are less severe than the ESPN article assets. I don't disagree that many other organizations would have made the same mistakes. But that doesn't make them OK and the big cover up to come later still don't sit right. The basic question still hasn't been answered: if Ray was honest in February, then what changed in September? If Ray was not honest in February, why did you say he was? And if he wasn't honest, then tell us what he said that was false and why you didn't know it was false then. By the way - if the Ravens were not lobbying for a light punishment (and Steve says they weren't and he was surprised at the two games) then why did the whole leadership accompany Ray to the Goodell meeting? And if the two games seemed light, why not make a statement as an organization that they care more?

The bottom line is that a company (a private entity) has no responsibility to even care if you are guilty or not. If your appearance hurts them or their brand, they get the last say. Maybe we shouldn't go that far - I don't really like it - but that doesn't change the reality of media relations.

AdHom attacks... always the sign of a clear winner. Stick to your story and your argument. You think the article is a load of bull. That's fine. Others disagree. What's so outrageous about that? It's really outrageous that an organization who concealed their entire organization and has been pretty hard to read on this whole thing... and who changed their mind suddenly when publicity became an issue... is maybe trying to cover its butt? That's the biggest conspiracy story of the year for you?

Little has been corroborated. Little has been disproven either. No, they are allowed. They are saving their own butts. But nothing is preventing KVV from telling us who talked but KVV himself. That's not "not allowed." Meanwhile - if the CONTENT of the texts was accurate and the timing of them was accurate and the team has now verified this... What's inaccurate about it? What's misunderstood? That doesn't "demolish" the report or rip it apart. It's far from great reporting by KVV, but it doesn't make it any less accurate. ESPN admitted that the line about "confirming the texts" was misleading. But the team has since confirmed them. There's no major issue here anymore. If the team denied the texts and their content, we might have more.

Reporting error - I was trying to find this info and couldn't. Because it's from NBC Sports, not PFT. ;) Apparently it's on NBC's version of PFT but not on PFT's own site... double I find this "error" to be less than significant. The Ravens still have not denied the content or timing of the messages. The presentation was less than stellar by KVV - but the accuracy of the info has not changed. I also still see no evidence that KVV reported that this was an attempted "bribe" or "hush money" as some seem to assert - KVV simply says it pissed Rice off.

Additional note... "journalists aren't even allowed to name their sources." False again. Journalists can reveal their sources any time they want. They simply choose not to because if a source requests anonymity and you violate that, no source will ever talk to you again. But a journalist has no requirement to hide the names of sources, even if they want their name hidden. Most journalists try, whenever possible, to name sources. If a source requests not to be named, it is the journalist's discretion but they have a clear motive to avoid naming the source - especially because this kind of "whistleblowing" could get the source to shut up or get them fired, either of which would end any good investigation.

You're missing my point on a few levels. First, I said it DOES NOT have to be Cass to be credible. It could be anyone in the organization that Cass talked to. Such a situation would NOT be hearsay for any of Cass's words and would only be hearsay about others if Cass was directly quoting them. If he was simply saying, "we all decided..." that's still not hearsay but a primary report of an event. Second, I did not say anyone asked good questions. I simply said that you're analogy (or Bisciotti's) that it's not good reporting if it's not allowed in the court of law is complete bunk. It's a false analogy or connection. There is no such burden and we wouldn't want such a burden. I was not defending KVV on his questioning. I was making clear that just because it's not "legal in a courtroom" does not mean it's not good reporting. Add on - even your example at the end is NOT hearsay. If they are a primary witness to an event, their report of that event ("things are getting ugly here") is not hearsay. It is primary testimony of what THEY saw and witnessed. Now, if you were to go to a reporter and tell him, "A guy at ESPN told me that things at ESPN are getting ugly." That is hearsay because you have no primary knowledge. The reporter would/should investigate further to find a primary source on the issue - someone who actually saw ESPN in that state. Lastly - even hearsay, while not admissible as evidence in a courtroom, is incredibly valuable in investigation. "A friend told me that her friend said he killed a guy last night." That is hearsay. It could not be used in court. But it could and would certainly be used by police to investigate further. Here's the point: your definition of hearsay is wrong and your application to this situation is wrong. None of that is meant to say "KVV is right." Only to say that if you are going to "take him down" you should do so more carefully. And when Bisciotti tries to say "hearsay" (which it's not), we not only have to say "You're wrong, Steve" but also have to remember that Steve (like Ray Rice) has a motive behind his words as well. Rather than 100% expose his investigation's practices, he has chosen only to attempt discredit another's.

By the way... who is the "hearsay" quote from? Is that Bisciotti in the interview? There's another problem, if it is. Let's allow the guy being accused of a cover-up decide the rules of what is and isn't "good" information....

Actually, not all second hand info is hearsay. If I was in the room and heard you're words directly, that is not hearsay. If Cass said something to me, anything he says is not hearsay. Now, things Cass says to me in which he is quoting others, "Steve told me...," that is hearsay. So if Cass or anyone is the source, and it's all first person, there is nothing wrong with it. If it's someone told me what Cass said, that's more troubling. In journalism, though, the standard is lower than a court. Because if you can get several sources to confirm independent of each other, you can build more of a case. Courts, for example, don't allow a direct examination to include "leading questions." But police and investigators can use them and then testify about the answers. Do we really want to live in a society where you can't ask a question specific enough to get a good answer? (I know you don't because you were very upset at reporters asking Steve not specific or well founded questions) But sure, all journalists must follow court testimony rules.

I don't disagree with most of that. But you linked to 16 edits as if it were some proof of fraud on the party of the journalist... I was simply pointing out that except for Shipley, the edits were not about story content. You can argue all the other points above as long as you want, and that's fine. But the 16 edits are not evidence of that, which is what you implied.

I totally get it, but do you let a guy play for a year while a trial waits?

I am not 100% sure it was a matter of them not knowing the rule (unless they have said that)... I think this was as much a "miss" on the play. They were probably equally fooled, not paying attention to Manziel, then suddenly he's in the play and you can't throw a flag for NOT seeing where a guy came from.

I never read it as "hush money." That seemed to come out in other articles after the fact - I remember a few BleacherReport headlines that implied that, and then were just summarizing the OTL report. I read the way KVV approached it as, "Rice was confused and pissed off." Which I would be too... how can you go on TV and trash me and then send those messages as if all is kosher. It happens to people all the time. It's not blackmail, but it's also not good practice in any way.

Yeah, precisely. But some people are satisfied with that "well, I just didn't even want to know..." and it files neatly under the "they were thinking the best of Ray!" that we've heard before. That's Steve's best defense, really. But it's not in any way a factual defense - as I said - because it doesn't actually answer "well, what did you do when you KNEW there was a video and you KNEW it was available to you at no charge?"

The league shouldn't have to wait (or rely on a guilty verdict from) the legal system. I understand the concerns, but the reality is that the league is worried about appearances (and should be), so they get to do what they want in regards to what makes them look "cleanest." No different from getting to suspend a guy for cursing on the field... totally not illegal, but all about appearances.

Side note - I have rewatched Steve's Q&A and read the transcript... when exactly did he stump a reporter with a rebuttal? I note two major moments where he really pushes and gets in a tit-for-tat with a reporter: 1. Asks why they didn't release details sooner, Steve says why would we until we were accused, and the reporter DOES push back and says why not release more details of your investigation to justify your response (or lack thereof). Steve's response is that he did answer a lot of questions when the two game suspension came out. My take? That's not a super impressive answer - though I know what Steve was getting at. But if he's implying that he had this level of detail (Darren Brown, etc) about his attempts to investigate, that's a lie. If we had known all that, ESPN wouldn't have a story in the first place. 2. Reporters asks about the Goodell "why is ignorance an excuse now if it isn't for players, etc?" Steve pushes back and eventually gets to saying pretty much, "because we've corrected our behavior... it's all better." My Take: that's bull, because if Sean Payton had said "I have it under control now, Commish" we all know he still gets suspended. Steve also eventually follows up with the most quoted/replayed part of the conference when he says he's really sorry he didn't see the tape sooner. My take: that still doesn't answer much about how it didn't come to be part of the investigation, except he says, it didn't! Oops! That hardly answers any of the accusations about all the chances they had to see it and simply ignored. If I'm missing the moment you think a reporter was "stomped" let me know. But I think those are the best two examples, and in both cases, I don't think Steve comes out looking any better (or worse) than before. I especially think the first is a total dodge - again, I understand what Steve is saying, but it's just not accurate. If the investigation was more transparent... well, first, Ray would have been really punished... but second, ESPN wouldn't have anything to report because half their story would be old news! http://www.chatsports.com/baltimore-ravens/a/Transcripts-Steve-Bisciotti-Press-Conference-1-10443653

Did you read the edits you just linked? With the exception of Shipley (which, by the way they changed simply to say within an hour of the game)... the rest are either stylistic/grammar (in fact at least twice they simply remove the term Casino from the Revel's name) or they are minor items (the value of M&T Bank was off by $5m). That's your "BOOM" moment? KVV did some work here that hasn't been shot down in any meaningful way. And Bisciotti's presser didn't answer anything. It gave us another side, but we've yet to see any definitive evidence - especially from the Ravens.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. "handling the media" implies that you're manipulating them and turning some trick. I don't want them handled. If you have nothing to hide, if you've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to 'handle.' I'm not saying he did poorly. I'm saying that his "handling" of their questions and his "one-upping" of their attempts to "get him" do not prove him innocent. They prove nothing about what happened except that he was able to "handle" what they threw at him without getting at the real matter. Again - not a statement of what is true or not. just a statement that we can't say what's true and not based on a presser.

And here's why we're screwed... http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8q3nmm/burn-noticed?xrs=synd_facebook_092314_tds_60

You know, just generally, some defending Steve keep using words to describe his performance that bother me... Words like, handle the reporter or show them their place ... Those aren't words that until the belief that all is well, just that a sharp tongue is at work. He did fine. But he hardly settled anything.