Biscut's presser

[TBird]

ILMAO @ THIS;

 

 

_______________________

My God ESPN is f-ing this up. They have now removed the ombudsman piece from the site as well. You can see the link to it on the front page but it doesn't work anymore. Probably because it praises Simmons.

_________________________.

 

Another meltdown. After getting caught with 16 edits/errors they shut down. .

[TBird]

And this from the WBAL interview:

 

 

Assuming Dick Cass isn’t his sources, he is admitting that he heard about this conversation through a second-hand source, meaning its total hearsay. Courts don’t allow this kind of testimony for a reason, but ESPN evidently thinks its good journalism.

Bottom line this was very sloppy reporting.

[TBird]

I am sure in aerotech when he was making his busienss he took info from people he liked and never verified that it was accurate. I am sure the billions just rolled in being so trusting of everyone around him.

 

LOL - Yea, people like his cousin, Gary Davis, who started the business with him. They had a business plan

and stuck to it and grew. The info had to be accurate to become billionaires. ILMAO

[TBird]

Like I said, ESPN has its head up its ass and now PFT calls them out on the text messages Bisc sent to Rice

after he was cut. I posted above the quote from ESPN about the mis-hap they said was wrong. PFT says this:

 

 

 

While the contents were consistent, the clear and obvious error in the presentation invites fair questions regarding whether other aspects of the story are incorrect, especially in light of the strong (albeit belated) written response the Ravens provided to 15 different aspects of the report.

This specific flaw also carries with it some irony. At a time when the Ravens fairly have been hammered for failing to ask for the notorious elevator video, ESPN didn’t ask the Ravens to confirm the precise contents of the text messages sent by Bisciotti. Instead, ESPN asked only if Bisciotti sent two text messages to Rice.

The story from ESPN doesn’t disclose that ESPN asked the Ravens only to confirm that Bisciotti sent two text messages and not to confirm the contents of the text messages. But the words selected by the authors invite a perception that the Ravens were informed of the alleged language of the text messages: “Asked about the text messages Friday, the team did not deny Bisciotti had sent them: ‘His text messages to Ray reflect his belief that everyone is capable of redemption and that others, including players, can learn from Ray’s experience.'”

[dc.]

 

Man, you're mind is so closed on the subject.

 

He just went on WBAL today and said the Shipley mistake was an editor's mistake. That's a major admission of error right there and getting

shot down. He owes Biscotti an apology for that alone. LOL. Yea, he's supposed to read the final copy and correct the editor

and how would the editor know to put Shipley's name in there unless he was told. It's not like Shipley is a house hold name. I had no idea Denver picked him up. They must have been desperate but he got Joe killed last year.

 

Another fact they've been unable to prove is Bisciotti playing golf in Atlanta with Goodell and meeting with him. Bisc denied it at the

presser and he hasn't been corrected.

 

Anyway, he even said on BAL that he could understand Ravens getting upset about the text messaging comments.

 

This is bad journalism from the writer and the editor and why ESPN is ducking for cover but some minds can't see it for their prejudice vs

Bisciotti.

 

You also missed the reporter who couldn't even re-phrase his OWN question when asked. I saw that during the presser. Bisc said what are you asking me and the guy got flustered and took a long time answering. Everyone was laughing.

 

Guys like Skip Bayless who always zaps the Ravens and his partner said Bisc did fine and will be OK but some minds here still don't get it.

 

Geesh.

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.

[dc.]

And this from the WBAL interview:

 

 

Assuming Dick Cass isnt his sources, he is admitting that he heard about this conversation through a second-hand source, meaning its total hearsay. Courts dont allow this kind of testimony for a reason, but ESPN evidently thinks its good journalism.

 

Bottom line this was very sloppy reporting.

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.

[dc.]

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....

[TBird]

The guy accused of the coverup already admitted his mistakes including the biggest one

of not ordering the tape and forwarding it to Goody. That is what makes him so credible as

Skip Bayless and other plundets have said. He also denied meeting with Goody in Atlanta

and no one has proved it. That is bad reporting by ESPN. When Nixon was accused the

WASH POST had evidence leaked by Felt and Nixon was forced to resign in the greatest

reporting job in the history of newspapers.

 

 

There is nothing wrong if Cass is the source. We don't know who the source is but it's unlikely Cass who would be making the boss look bad and cutting his own throat. Bisc would know who it is. So anything other like Shipley who has a grudge or Ray's camp who have a grudge is hearsay which isn't allowed in court for a reason.

 

Journalists arent even allowed to name their sources but they still have a high standard to be

right. If they're constantly wrong they will be discredited as ESPN has in this piece as PFT

pointed out. The term yellow journalism came from the Hearst school of sensationalism and

playing on fears and public opinion.

 

And who said KVV asked good questions? The PFT quote called out some of their

flaws in the stories and problems with it and more than one. The entire story is slanted vs

Bisciotti.

 

Someone with a contact at espn said things are getting ugly there. This is what that source

said which is hearsay to us. We can't rely on it but here it is. It's all he said, she said ......

 

_____________________________________

Ugly in terms of the executives in charge being pissed. On the TV side whenever Keith Olbermann is working for them there are going to be issues. He's a real dick and constantly causing problems. Some executives like the controversy because they feel it gets them talked about and others hate it. Usually the number that hate it increases and they fire Keith or he leaves and then a couple of years later new executives want to bring him back. He said he's heard it's like that with Simmons. Simmons has this cult around him but most can't stand him. Those who don't like him are going to use this to try and get him out of there. Simmons is the real polarizing guy. The others are barely blips. He never mentioned anything about new stuff with the Ravens or NFL.

[dc.]

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.

[dc.]

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.

[dc.]

Like I said, ESPN has its head up its ass and now PFT calls them out on the text messages Bisc sent to Rice

after he was cut. I posted above the quote from ESPN about the mis-hap they said was wrong. PFT says this:

 

 

 

While the contents were consistent, the clear and obvious error in the presentation invites fair questions regarding whether other aspects of the story are incorrect, especially in light of the strong (albeit belated) written response the Ravens provided to 15 different aspects of the report.

This specific flaw also carries with it some irony. At a time when the Ravens fairly have been hammered for failing to ask for the notorious elevator video, ESPN didn’t ask the Ravens to confirm the precise contents of the text messages sent by Bisciotti. Instead, ESPN asked only if Bisciotti sent two text messages to Rice.

The story from ESPN doesn’t disclose that ESPN asked the Ravens only to confirm that Bisciotti sent two text messages and not to confirm the contents of the text messages. But the words selected by the authors invite a perception that the Ravens were informed of the alleged language of the text messages: “Asked about the text messages Friday, the team did not deny Bisciotti had sent them: ‘His text messages to Ray reflect his belief that everyone is capable of redemption and that others, including players, can learn from Ray’s experience.'”

 

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.

[TBird]

Of course you find it less than significant just like Smurf said the Shipley error was no big deal.

My quote couple of pages back from espn says they can understand how it would be confusing

but not to you-lol.

 

Another fact that hasn't been proven is that it's never been proven

that HARBs said he wanted to cut Rice in Feb as the story says.

 

So we have two major accusations that haven't been proven - Bisc meeting Goody in Atlanta

and HARBs wanting to cut Rice.

 

The espn story does say that Rice believes he was offered a bribe with a future position

with the team. That was a direct accusation.

 

LOL - Then they're not allowed to reveal the sources. The law lets them but not the Journalism code. When Mark Viviano met with Nest 1 I asked if he could reveal the names of his sources when he broke said the Browns were coming here. He said maybe in 80 yrs if we're still alive and the sources are dead.

[papasmurfbell]

And this from the WBAL interview:

 

 

Assuming Dick Cass isn’t his sources, he is admitting that he heard about this conversation through a second-hand source, meaning its total hearsay. Courts don’t allow this kind of testimony for a reason, but ESPN evidently thinks its good journalism.

 

Bottom line this was very sloppy reporting.

You realize that a 2nd hand sources info can be corroborated?

 

When you try to hold off a report you pick at small inconsistencies and condemn the whole thing. This has been done in politics forever.

[TBird]

Um, nothing has been corraborated, just torn apart by PFT and Deadspin. ILMAO.

 

We pointed out some major inaccuracies that other news outlets agree with but not you.

 

Do you work for ESPN? Just wondering.

[papasmurfbell]

I would not say torn apart.

Yeah I commute from bmore to Stamford CT everyday.

[TBird]

Of course you wouldn't say torn apart just like you said Shipley error was no big deal.

 

Are you KVV's son?

[papasmurfbell]

It isn't a big deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/corrections/
Check out the NYT. Every single day they put corrections to past articles.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/arts/television/star-wars-rebels-emulates-the-trilogy-of-old.html?ref=corrections

 

 

An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of a creature in the “Star Wars” universe. It is a wookiee, not a wookie.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/fashion/paris-fashion-week-jean-paul-gaultier-fashion-shows-clothes-heritage-legacy.html?ref=corrections

 

 

Becasue of an editing error an earlier version of this article misstated the designer’s given name. He is Jean, not John.

 

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/with-china-set-to-open-stock-trading-investors-lay-groundwork/?ref=corrections

 

 

An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the program that will connect the two exchanges. It is called Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect, not Shanghai-Hong Kong Connect.

 

 

This is a few of the many artcles they correct every single day.

So are you intentionally obtuse or can you not control it?

[dc.]

Of course you find it less than significant just like Smurf said the Shipley error was no big deal.

My quote couple of pages back from espn says they can understand how it would be confusing

but not to you-lol.

 

Another fact that hasn't been proven is that it's never been proven

that HARBs said he wanted to cut Rice in Feb as the story says.

 

So we have two major accusations that haven't been proven - Bisc meeting Goody in Atlanta

and HARBs wanting to cut Rice.

 

The espn story does say that Rice believes he was offered a bribe with a future position

with the team. That was a direct accusation.

 

LOL - Then they're not allowed to reveal the sources. The law lets them but not the Journalism code. When Mark Viviano met with Nest 1 I asked if he could reveal the names of his sources when he broke said the Browns were coming here. He said maybe in 80 yrs if we're still alive and the sources are dead.

 

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.

[dc.]

Of course you wouldn't say torn apart just like you said Shipley error was no big deal.

 

Are you KVV's son?

 

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?

[papasmurfbell]

 

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?

I think the outrage is fear. Fear that this could be true. Not wanting to admit that something you have dedicated so much time and passion to is crooked.

[TBird]

What's outrageous is when the errors have been proven and certain people say they're

insignificant and they're not. The Shipley error alone has ESPN running and you won't

admit that. Other media sites posted above have called them out as pointed out above and certain people say they're not significant.

 

That is out-rageous. I just asked a question if someone was employed or related to the

parties. I never used any names like trolls etc.

 

The only thing proven are the mistakes Ravens admitted to. The main attacks pointed out

above have not been proven.

 

What's really out-rageous if you really think the organization concealed all that and are

covering their butts when they just admitted to mistakes, mistakes any organization would

make under those conditions, well, you should root for another team.

 

I doubt the Ravens want you. I've presented sound arguments defending them while you

keep saying the errors are insignficant. In fact, you've done exactly what the Squeelers fans

are doing. When one saw me he couldn't wait to hit the Ravens with the ESPN story.

 

You're attacking the Ravens more than they are. In fact, most Ravens fans on two boards

are saying Bisciotti should sue ESPN for defamation of character after all the errors have

been pointed out.

 

I'm not defending the Ravens as a fan but because the thruth is on their side and Bisc

admitted to his mistakes and took things like a man.

[papasmurfbell]

Have you even read the link you provided? They have 2 things that could be issues. 1 was the txts which were correct but did not have context. That would be on Rays people. 2 is the Shipley thing. That could have been via a miscommunication. I am sure you played telephone as a child. Those 2 instances in no way discount the totality of the whole article. Your pointing at that and saying that there are no questions left says more about a desired outcome than a desire for fact. When the first tape came out I read some of the most pie in the sky explanations for how she was knocked out. The glorious imaginings of the most complex situation since the magic bullet. It turned out it was the easiest and most basic reason why she had to be dragged out of the elevator.

[dc.]

What's outrageous is when the errors have been proven and certain people say they're

insignificant and they're not. The Shipley error alone has ESPN running and you won't

admit that. Other media sites posted above have called them out as pointed out above and certain people say they're not significant.

 

That is out-rageous. I just asked a question if someone was employed or related to the

parties. I never used any names like trolls etc.

 

The only thing proven are the mistakes Ravens admitted to. The main attacks pointed out

above have not been proven.

 

What's really out-rageous if you really think the organization concealed all that and are

covering their butts when they just admitted to mistakes, mistakes any organization would

make under those conditions, well, you should root for another team.

 

I doubt the Ravens want you. I've presented sound arguments defending them while you

keep saying the errors are insignficant. In fact, you've done exactly what the Squeelers fans

are doing. When one saw me he couldn't wait to hit the Ravens with the ESPN story.

 

You're attacking the Ravens more than they are. In fact, most Ravens fans on two boards

are saying Bisciotti should sue ESPN for defamation of character after all the errors have

been pointed out.

 

I'm not defending the Ravens as a fan but because the thruth is on their side and Bisc

admitted to his mistakes and took things like a man.

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?

[TBird]

Have you even read the link you provided? They have 2 things that could be issues. 1 was the txts which were correct but did not have context. That would be on Rays people. 2 is the Shipley thing. That could have been via a miscommunication. I am sure you played telephone as a child. Those 2 instances in no way discount the totality of the whole article. Your pointing at that and saying that there are no questions left says more about a desired outcome than a desire for fact. When the first tape came out I read some of the most pie in the sky explanations for how she was knocked out. The glorious imaginings of the most complex situation since the magic bullet. It turned out it was the easiest and most basic reason why she had to be dragged out of the elevator.

 

1. That could be or might be issues. They haven't been proven yet. Nothing has.

2. LOL - If the texts didn't have context, they weren't correct. We have a saying on the other board,

context is everything. Things are often taken out of context when reporting.

3. Again, you downyplay Shipley. Even KVV said it was an editor's mistake but he's supposed to read

the edits. If he disagrees he has to say so.

4. The editor doesn't know Shipley's name. It had to be given to him. KVV would know it.

5. ESPN made 16 changes to the original story after it was published and they're ducking for cover now.

[TBird]

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?

1. You haven't proven any facts other than the mistakes admitted to. That is the problem. You're like the rest

of the cybor lynch mob. There's nothing wrong with calling them out when they are wrong but nothing has been

proven wrong so your part of the lynch mob. You keep saying the facts I've proven are insignificant. That's

why I wondered if you were related.

 

2. Deadspin presented enough facts to sink them alone.

 

3. It hasn't been proven that Bisc met with Goodell in Atlanta or Harbs wanted to cut Rice.

 

4. The sources really seem to be from people who had grudges with the Ravens like Shipley and Rice

and if the Ravens tried to offer him a job in the future, he burned that bridge by releasing the texts.

This also came out after Rice was cut and then suspended by the NFL. No team will want him

now.

 

5. Like I said, this has never happened before and Ravens made mistakes as other teams would

have in the same situation but Minn has learned from the mistakes. They cut AD right away w/o

a trial. At least the Ravens waited for the trial before cutting him and that didn't come out til

the 2d video.