View Full Version : Rape Case Race Card

07-24-2009, 12:48 AM
soooo...i'm currently on ESPN.com talking about Steeler junk like always and somebody started a thread on the message boards asking a rather serious question, yet a pretty stupid question if you ask me.

somebody asked, "is the lack of Big Ben coverage because of his race?" granted, it's a pretty blunt and really stupid question to ask. but as i read on, a big point was made. when Kobe Bryant was accused of his rape case, the media coverage was EVERYWHERE! it was about as covered as the death of Michael Jackson. it sucks that it happened, but you get sick of hearing about it after awhile. you know?

well, the point is, the Kobe case got crazy coverage and was the topic of coversation for basically the entire year in sports. and yet, even though it's still a little fresh in the news, the Ben Roethlisberger case hasn't reall been mentioned on any news channels or much on ESPN at all. i've seen more of the perfect game thrown by Buerhle than Ben's case. amazing news, but not interesting enough to watch over and over again to keep up to date on it.

so, someone basically had the balls to ask if the difference in the news coverage between the Kobe case and the Ben case is solely based on their race? "the Isiah Thomas civil case was covered throughly, yet ESPN seems to have swept Ben's under the rug." says a poster on ESPN.com.

then i asked myself, "is that REALLY that important!?" i mean, does anyone really think it's a racial thing? that thought never even crossed my mind at any point, yet somebody on the ESPN boards threw it out there and it caused an uproar. i replied with, "it's 2009 guys. grow up. you may think racism is still a prominent issue in America. but it's because of people like you who make it that way. this is NOT a well thought out thread, but more or less someone being a pot stirring and wanting to cause a ruckus. grow up and talk sports."

what do you guys think about that? i like to think i know a lot of you guys and girls on this board pretty well and i've only been posting for a little under a year now and not once has an issue of race come up. so, i would like to know your thoughts on this situation?

07-24-2009, 07:03 AM
From a coverage standpoint, no. Kobe being married really hurt his case...because it added a whole other dimension. I think the way that the Kobe case developed set the tone for the lack of coverage on the Big Ben case. It was over exposed, over hyped and over done.

It would have been the same the otherway around (if Ben was the first guy...and the overexposure happened with him)...and somebody would have brought up race if the situation was reversed. Some people are just looking to play the race card.

07-24-2009, 07:50 AM
I think the most important factor in Ben's coverage is that, even before this really got started there just wasn't very much hard evidence or fact involved. There's juts not much here...

07-24-2009, 10:13 AM
Kobe's case involved a criminal complaint, that was the big thing. Face it, no one cares if he was married or not, does anyone really think that professional athletes are faithful? Hell something like 50% of regular people aren't faithful. The big thing about Ben's case is that teh crazy chic never so much as filed a criminal complaint. She still can, I presume. The statute of limitations in CA on rape isn't just a year. The police even said we can't initiate an investigation without her starting it. All she has to do is walk to the police station and throw a copy of the civil suit on the desk and say this is what happened.

The apparent lack of evidence and credibility is the biggest reason Ben is getting less coverage.

07-24-2009, 11:13 AM
Thats what I was thinking. It wouldve been the Duke scandal all over again.

07-25-2009, 06:36 PM
I agree with all of the above. I think maybe his race has something to do with it a little... but it's really the lack of evidence that I think is the reason for the lack of coverage.

Didn;t something similar happen to Bettis a few years back? I don't remember it being covered much at all as well.

07-25-2009, 07:44 PM
these are just people regurgitating jason whitlocks garbage ... has whitlock ever wrote anything that he didn't bring race into ?


Why was Beisner unworthy of sympathy? Her privacy was violated. It couldn't be because she committed the felony of Befriending a Black Man While White and Attractive?

For two days ESPN ignored the Ben Roethlisberger sexual-assault lawsuit. There has been no official explanation why the civil suit filed against Big (White) Ben is being treated differently from Shannon Brown's or Isiah Thomas' much-discussed sexual-harassment lawsuit or countless other he-said-she-saids.

ESPN plays favorites for a wide variety of reasons. It's unfair.

Invasion of privacy for profit is what we all do to some degree in this day and age of Internet, camera-phone journalism. We're in desperate pursuit of clicks and ratings. There was a time when athletes could visit nightclubs and whatnot without fear of being photographed or videotaped.

We respected their right to a private life even while in public. We judged and analyzed them by what they did on the field. We don't do that now, and the change has little to do with improved journalism. It's all about improved ratings and hits.

I'm just as guilty. The difference is I want us all to play by the same rules, regardless of color, willingness to befriend certain bloggers or business relationships. If we're willing to exploit athletes and their private lives for profit, let's not complain when we are exploited. Again, I just want the exploitation to be equal opportunity.

It's not right now.

The Pacman Jones stripclub video served no journalistic purpose. It was aired on ESPN and everywhere else solely to titillate and entertain. The raw footage didn't help us understand the crime. There was no interaction between Jones, his entourage and the club's bouncers.

There were black asses shaking and black entertainers demonstrating how fools depart from their money. It was a reality version of Spike Lee's underrated movie Bamboozled.

America couldn't get enough of the Pacman video until Erin Andrews was caught dropping it like it was hot in front of a hotel mirror.

ESPN won't cover that story. It's climbed up on some high horse and is passing judgment on the New York Post for running pictures of ESPN's sideline Barbie.

How do you think the world-wide leader in hypocrisy would handle it if Serena Williams, Anna Kournikova or Candace Parker had been videotaped? I bet the network would throw together a two-hour documentary on how the video was made. And Leitch and Daulerio would drop the profoundly-disturbed-and-remorseful act.

07-27-2009, 08:09 AM
Pacman was completely different...apples and oranges. He was "making it rain" by showering strippers with 81,000 in cash. If it was just some random black man, sure it served no purpose, but Pacman is a high profile NFL player trying to break back into the game and change his character perception, and the video pretty much confirmed what we all know about him. If he was a white man with a long history of thuggery and suspensions, we'd have seen JUST as much coverage.

Ben's case is on the DL because there IS NO case...