ESPN Ombudsman Responds to James-Leach Saga and Eviscerates Mike Patrick

↵↵ESPN does not have to police itself, but in order to remain a credible source of news and information, the company has chosen – as many other credible news outlets do – to prominently feature a report from its Ombudsman. This isn’t a small link on the side of Page 2 – it’s front-page of ESPN.com, above the scroll and in the rotator. Serious stuff.↵

↵↵As it should be. But the fact that ESPN isn’t hiding from its own internal critique doesn’t mean some of its employees are going to like it. More specifically, I wouldn’t expect Don Ohlmeyer to get invited out for drinks next time Mike Patrick or Craig James are in town.↵

↵↵Ohlmeyer spends most of his lengthy column focusing on the situation involving James, his son Adam, and former Texas Tech head football coach Mike Leach. James and Patrick were slated to call the Alamo Bowl this season and when Texas Tech was selected to play in the game, ESPN kept the crew on the assignment, despite the fact that James’s son played for one of the two teams. Ohlmeyer first took issue with that.↵

↵↵⇥In a work of fiction the audience is asked to suspend its disbelief. In a live sportscast, the audience shouldn’t be asked to suspend its expectation of objectivity. Transparent or not, intentional or not, it seems psychologically impossible for a father in that situation to be totally unbiased. It sounds like a clever conceit, but it’s not honest to the fans, especially those rooting for the opposing team.↵↵Now, we all know the rest of the story: Adam James was put in a closet (or shed or interview room) because of (or in spite of) the fact that he had a concussion and his father eventually got involved to the point where it led to the ouster of Leach. ESPN did the right thing to get James off the Alamo Bowl call. But they left Patrick, James’s partner during the season, on the game. Ohlmeyer took issue with that as well. ↵↵⇥After the Leach controversy boiled over with his suspension the last week in December, ESPN took James off the telecast -- but not Patrick. ESPN’s rationale was that Patrick is a professional and his season-long work with James did not represent a conflict. Patrick’s professionalism notwithstanding, ESPN’s decision put him in an untenable position. In media, perception is reality, and it was clear the relationship between the two commentators could -- perhaps should -- raise questions for the audience. Word choices, phrases, even inflections are subjective. Everything Patrick said could be filtered through the subtext of “Would he have said that if he hadn’t been James’ partner throughout the past season?”↵⇥↵⇥The circumstances surrounding Leach dictated that Patrick would have to discuss a controversy that had sparked heated emotions among many in the audience. And he fueled the flames late in the first quarter when, after ESPN showed graphics with statements from the university on the firing and a snippet of a Leach interview on why he believed he was dismissed, Patrick said of the reserve receiver, “There is Adam James, who is the young man who was actually punished for having a concussion.”↵⇥

↵⇥↵⇥Clearly, there were various versions of what happened between coach and player, but Patrick’s statement offered no nuance. Opinion was stated as fact. James was “actually punished for having a concussion.”↵⇥

↵↵

While Patrick has worked with James, the two are far from exclusive, as both the play-by-play man and the analyst work with a host of other partners over the course of the year, especially considering how many sports Patrick covers for the network. You’d think a professional like Patrick would be able to separate his personal feelings for the situation, and those involved, with his ability to discuss a story while calling the game. Clearly, that’s what ESPN was thinking by leaving Patrick on the game and pairing him with Bob Davie. Clearly, Ohlemeyer thinks that decision may have blown up in the WWL’s face a bit.↵↵Ohlmeyer went on to question the motives of some of ESPN’s coverage of the situation, both in game and as a news story.↵

↵↵⇥A basic flaw in ESPN’s presentation was the premise that Adam James was an innocent bystander. One ESPN decision-maker reflected this point of view when he told me that questioning Adam’s actions and character would have been the equivalent of allowing a lawyer to defend a rapist by saying the victim dressed provocatively. Another flaw was the portrayal of Craig James, in the main, as someone who “courageously” reported Leach’s misdeeds to school officials.↵⇥↵⇥Were ESPN’s choices well-intentioned but naive? Or were they influenced by James’ role with the network? It’s difficult to ascribe motive; that requires gazing into hearts, minds and souls.↵⇥

↵↵Ohlmeyer also crushes the job Patrick and Davie did balancing the conversation regarding Leach and James with the actual game in front of them. It’s one thing to talk about a topic with a certain skew, but it’s another, entirely, to do so in lieu of calling the game on the field. ↵↵⇥Even for professionals, rambling extemporaneously presents opportunities for mistakes, poor word choices and misimpressions. Sentence construction and thought dynamics are tough enough without trying to concentrate on two things simultaneously. Which might explain why this telecast was Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.↵⇥↵⇥When the production crew focused on the game, the broadcast was fine -- engaging pictures, excellent graphics, relevant replays, and interesting information and insights rendered by the broadcasters. However, when the telecast was bifurcated with the video from the field and announcers commenting on the dispute and covering the game at the same time, the result was dreadful.↵⇥

↵⇥↵⇥The announcers talked off-game over plays, replays, the referees’ penalty calls and even each other. They had to interrupt what amounted to a sports radio talk show about Leach to pick up, in progress, several big plays, including a touchdown. They misidentified players and were late recognizing a fake field goal attempt. At one point, they went nine plays without verbalizing down and distance.↵⇥

↵⇥↵⇥So, again, the key question: Was the telecast balanced? ESPN thinks it was -- and for me, that is the most troubling aspect of this whole affair.↵⇥

↵↵Not a ringing endorsement for the way that game, and the situation, was handled. The bottom line is that ESPN is just too big. There are far too many people who have far too many personal interests that, at times, conflict with the greater purpose of providing unbiased news and information. Its one thing to sprinkle in biased opinion on a show that is formatted for that purpose, but when, as Ohlmeyer is accusing, personal feelings get in the way of a fair and balanced portrayal of the facts, it’s not good. And while putting the Ombudsman column front and center shows that ESPN is serious about policing itself, it’s a wonder how many of those eight million viewers who watched the Alamo Bowl will take the time to read his thoughts. We know one thing ... the ESPNers who were the focus of his ire this month sure will. And they won’t like it one bit.↵