Was Outside the Lines Out of Bounds?
6 comments so far
June 18, 2009 by
ESPN did some investigative reporting around Nebraska’s wrestling program. At issue were the two wrestlers who were dismissed from the team after posing nude on a pornographic web site aimed at gay men. You can find much of the piece here. Surely, there are those who think the piece was fair and those who will see it as slanted and seemed to go out of its way to make NU Athletics look bad. I can’t speak to the motivations of those who compiled the story, but there do seem to be some worthwhile points that were omitted.
One clear point of view presented in the story was that the wrestlers believed that the university was more concerned with its image than with discipline or the rights of student-athletes. Again, I won’t attempt to speak to the motives of the Nebraska Athletic Department, but what they failed to address was why it might be worth preserving the image of the athletic department or the university. A university isn’t a set of buildings or some “thing”, first and foremost it’s a collection of people. And people have rights. One of them, I suppose, could be to have nude pictures taken of them and distributed broadly. But what seems overlooked is the right of people who choose to affiliate with a university or an athletic department not to be associated with pornography.
Why should protecting the rights of student-athletes only apply to the two wrestlers who took money to appear in porn? It’s not like the two in question are household names. What they’ve done is associate every wrestler on the team with porn. Don’t believe it? Look back at the articles written about the Nebraska football program in 1995 when a handful of athletes were getting in trouble. The story wasn’t always just about Christian Peter, Lawrence Phillips, or Riley Washington. Instead they portrayed NU football as a lawless win-at-all-costs program. It wasn’t the individuals that were vilified. The whole team was made out to be comprised of thugs and criminals, despite the fact that the offenders in 1995 were far outnumbered by the players honored for outstanding academic performance in the classroom or who were doing good works in the community like Aaron Graham.
Some of the changes in discipline since that time at Nebraska came from the top. Terrell Farley for example was kicked off the team at a critical time during a national championship run in 1996. But some of those changes came from the players. It was the players themselves that decided on a zero-tolerance policy in 1997. That’s because they felt they were better off without the offenders than being associated with them. As it turned out, they may have been right as the team avoided off-the-field problems, continued to excel in the classroom, and won a national championship on the field.
There were other aspects of the Outside the Lines piece that were questionable. For example, they brought up Tom Osborne’s political affiliation when it really didn’t seem relevant. Of course there were the seemingly obligatory mentions of Lawrence Phillips and Christian Peter. But omitting from any discussion the rights of the other wrestlers, other athletes, or other students, who’ve done nothing to deserve being associated with pornography seems to miss an important point.
Did you enjoy this article?
Get Husker news by email
Follow us on Twitter
Related Stories: On Campus
Post a comment
cvldfg Jun 18 09
I did see the piece and thought how one-sided it was, in favor of the two wrestlers. Too bad this is what has become the norm in journalism.
A story doesn't get "attention" unless it is sensationalized to a degree. Granted, it is hard to get people from the University to talk to "reporters", because they're not allowed to without the University's permission. Which can't happen while there is a lawsuit pending.
These two students are just typical, young and naive about the world and the law. A few points:
1) These two, obviously, don't understand that while you are on scholarship, you represent the University and CAN'T DO ANYTHING "deemed" as an extra benefit, (for money or personal profit).
2) In today's era of technology, EVERYTHING surfaces. On a personal note, one of my goals in life is to NEVER be able to be Googled.
3) This "reporter" most likely knew he wasn't going to be able to get a response from anyone from the University, so his story loses validation because it isn't balanced.
To me, this is the biggest problem with journalism today. Most articles are written without balance to create divisiveness and appeal to only one side of the discussion. This is why newspapers and certain networks are hemorrhaging money. BRN doesn't fall into this category. Thanks for trying to give both sides of every story.
4) I wonder what made the one guy change his mind weeks later and "all of a sudden" got amnesia and couldn't recall what he said before? Especially when he seemed so matter-of-fact of the accounts before.
5) I, personally, don't think these kids truly grasped the concept of "consequences for actions". Like the one guy said, "Honestly, I didn't think anyone would find out". Seriously? And finally,
6) I didn't like the fact that they went in the direction of "well if I am going down, then I'm taking everyone else with me", when it wasn't about what others did, it was about what they did!!!
VA Husker Jun 18 09
I can see why some might think the piece seemed one sided. I personally thought it did not help the boy's point at all. The boy who ended up at Purdue, did himself no favors just opeing his mouth. Then the other one, "forgetting" what he said in the previous interview. I don't think it seemed as one sided as was portrayed in this write up. I get your point and it makes sense. I just am taking the character of the boys into account.
Bob in GI Jun 19 09
It was a one-sided hit piece, pure and simple. They took everything these kids said as gospel truth and made no apparent attempt to either corroborate or dispute it. They went out of their way to attack TO, again, for what happened 15 years ago. ESPN seems to have a mandate to attack Nebraska at every opportunity. As usual, they disgusted me.
Matt Jun 21 09
Folks, remember it's in ESPN's best interests to attack Nebraska. Sounds kinda odd, but it's true--ESPN is going for television viewership above all else, and stories like this do two things--one, sell controversy about a heavyweight name in collegiate sports; and two, they help justify (in their own minds) why they don't have to air Nebraska games.
ESPN doesn't want to air Nebraska games in any way, shape, or form as they can consistently get butts in front of TVs with a team from Oklahoma or Texas in their name. ESPN hates having to send and cover teams that are in what they consider BFE (read: not on the coast or south of the Mason/Dixon line) as they don't add to their viewership; in fact, they believe those teams detract from viewership. One only needs to view their MLB coverage this year as a case-in-point: if you aren't on either coast or aren't the Rangers, you don't get coverage on Sportscenter or anywhere else. Hell, even ESPN News has gotten into the game of just casually going over scores and not showing highlights of teams they deam unworthy...though if you're a Royals fan like myself, you've been used to this treatment for years).
People need to face facts and realize that ESPN will no longer incorporate any modicum of journalistic integrity into anything they do; it's not worth it to their bottom line to do so. In fact, any time they can discredit a team that detracts from their bottom line that they may be 'obligated' to cover in the future, they jump at the chance.
The question is, once we accept this reality, how does the University counter these attacks? This is why the formation of a Big XII channel (preferably not located in Dallas, otherwise it will just be the Longwhorn channel) should be the paramount item on the agenda going forward.
The Count Jun 23 09
People need to face facts and realize that ESPN will no longer incorporate any modicum of journalistic integrity into anything they do;
Have they ever had journalistic integrity?
T. O. Bull Mar 13 10
I think that ESPN's problem was more with Coach Osborne than with the University. Let's face it Dr. Tom isn't exactly a great interview, that's just his personality, and the people at ESPN hated the fact that he was the coach of the most dominant college football team for 25 years and they had to keep interviewing him. They wanted to talk to Barry Switzer, Bobby Bowden or Steve Spurrier but Ozzie just kept winning. Never less than nine wins in a season. Always invited to a bowl game. Rarely ranked out of the top 25. An NCAA record number of Accademic All Americans. (Student Athletes and it never gets mentioned.) His last 5 years were incredible, Nebraska played in 4 National Championship games and won 3. The 1995 team was never really tested and destroyed Spurrier's Florida Gators in the '96 Fiesta Bowl. That '95 team is arguably the greatest college football team of all time. The only thing Tom Osborne couldn't do was an entertaining interview.