I'm shocked, absolutely shocked that ESPN hasn't written another article on Marvin Harrison!
ESPN's own version of The Philadelphia Story has thrown a big, fat spotlight on the very dark and seedy state of their journalistic integrity these last nine months. Much of it stems from Sal Paolantonio, a hack of a sports writer who, the older he gets, more and more resembles the Marvel Comics villain Mole Man. You remember that cat, right?
Sal Paolantonio
Photo: blogs.coventrytelegraph.net
Indeed, since the incident outside Marvin Harrison's bar last May, which resulted in a convicted felon named Dwight Dixon getting shot in the hand, we've seen ESPN report all kinds of silliness, ranging from Marvin Harrison involved in a gang hit to Marvin being the guy who shot Dixon in the hand. The problem with all this reporting was there was no evidence that said or even suggested Marvin Harrison shot Dwight Dixon in the hand. The Philadelphia police investigated the incident and stated that Marvin Harrison was not a suspect in the shooting. After months of investigation, the Philly DA Lynne Abraham held a press conference saying the investigation was, essentially, over. The DA's office did not believe there was enough evidence to pursue charges against anyone.
In fact, at the press conference, the DA singled out ESPN's Sal Pal and seemed to make fun of him for his reporting on the incident. "Sorry Sal" were the words she used to start the press conference. The room chuckled. Likely, Sal of the Mole Men didn't. If anything, he probably seethed underneath.
The main reason the Philly DA Abraham would not pursue charges against anyone (including Harrison) was because the witnesses in the case, including Dixon, gave nine or so different variations of the incident. The DA concluded that because everyone was giving conflicting versions of the story, there were no credible witnesses, and no credible witnesses means no case. Thus, no charges. No arrests. No convictions. Nothing. Case is, essentially, closed. We all go home. That was on January 7th.
Then, for no reason whatsoever, ESPN ran a story a few days later highlighting that a second witness had come forward and supposedly corroborated Dixon's story: That Marvin Harrison was the person that shot Dixon in the hand after Dixon was tossed from Harrison's bar after causing a disturbance. The piece was written by Shaun Assael and Peter Keating, but I have my suspicion that Sal Pal of the Mole Men had a hand in it.
The problem with ESPN's "breaking" story is the "new" witness they reference, Robert Nixon, gave false or conflicting information to the police. He admitted he fabricated details to the police in his May 2nd statement. Now, he's saying Harrison's accidentally shot him and intentionally shot Dixon. ESPN has this information in their story:
In her news conference, Abraham cited problems with Nixon's recollection, saying he "admitted that he had fabricated many of the details" of his May 2 statement to police. The law enforcement source who has seen Nixon's second statement said that while elements of his story changed, Nixon's identification of Harrison remained consistent. The source added that Nixon spent two weeks in protective custody after giving police his second statement.
So, based on that, it seems this new, magical witness, Robert Nixon, is not credible. The Philly DA's office thought so, and by just by looking at that paragraph (in black and white and gray) it seems pretty obvious this guy isn't worth a bucket of piss when it comes to offering new or fresh information to a story.
That said, WHY THE F&$K DID THIS STORY RUN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
When the star of your piece, the key element to your assertion (that Dixon is telling the truth and was shot by Harrison) is proven to be a liar, how the hell can you run a piece with the title "Second Witness Points to Harrison" and expect it to be taken seriously? I mean, come on! Tabloids don't even stoop this low. At least they are honest in their bull crap, or at the very least, entertaining.
A few days after their "Second witness" story, Assael and Keating penned a scathing article which painted Harrison as a dark, brooding figure. Again, much of the information Assael and Keating used in their article was taken from accounts given by Dixon and Nixon.
The cherry on top of this sundae (or the egg in ESPN's face, whichever analogy you prefer) is that the supposed "victim" in all this, Dwight Dixon, was found guilty yesterday for... wait for it... lying to the police. After going back and reading all of ESPN's coverage of this silly farce, Harrison is painted as a gun wielding madman who hides his dark side under a veil of quiet dignity while the victim in all this is Dixon. The reality is Marvin Harrison isn't a suspect in any crime and hasn't been charged with anything, let alone convicted. The only person convicted of a crime in this whole dumb affair was Dixon, for lying to the police.
The same Dixon ESPN has painted as the victim.
So, with this new development, I expected that ESPN would do the honorable thing and post article about Dixon's conviction, and what it means for Harrison's reputation, on their website. I mean, with the gust and zeal at which they have reported on this story, you'd think they'd be all over Dixon's conviction for lying to the police (thus, destroying any and all credibility he has as a witness to the incident). I even decided to give it a day, because of the Super Bowl media coverage and all. Sadly, this morning, this was all there was on ESPN's NFL page:
One, tiny little bulletin (fourth from the bottom). And it isn't even a story they wrote. It's just an AP story.
In the end, this incident has really exposed the sad, sorry state of ESPN's journalistic integrity. Recently, ESPN's ombudsman LeAnne Schrieber blasted the network for how they cover stories:
On at least four separate occasions in recent weeks, ESPN reporters, analysts and announcers became part of the stories they were covering, reinforcing the common perception that ESPN often draws more attention to itself than to the sports it covers.
She didn't cite the Harrison coverage in her teacher's scolding of Bristol, but she could have. Underlining the Harrison coverage are the attempts by Sal Pal of the Mole Men, Shaun Assael, and Peter Keating to push this thing even though all their primary sources are proven and convicted liars. In Sal Pal's case, even the Philly DA made fun of him for trying to make himself the story as he pretended he was Bob Woodward circa 1972.
The true victim here has been Marvin Harrison's reputation. Prior to ESPN's hack job, this guy was perceived as a great player who did what many NFL wide receivers don't do: Shut up and let their play do the talking. They took this model player and ran him through their manure factory, using this incident and highlighting silly incidents to add to their claim that Harrison is some quietly dark, dastardly character; like his "assault" of a "ball boy" at the Meadowlands. Turns out this "ball boy" was a 23 year-old-man named Matt Prior. Prior, who handled the footballs at the Meadowlands back in 2003, tossed a football at Harrison. Marvin got angry and accused Prior of acting unprofessional. Prior confronted Harrison back, and then both men acted unprofessional by fighting. While not the highlight of Harrison's career, for a network that celebrates Buddy Ryan slugging a fellow assistant coach on the sidelines during a live game, or Nolan Ryan kicking the crap out of Robin Ventura on the pitcher's mound, Marvin Harrison having an altercation with a some ball handler certainly does not warrant the conclusion that he is a shady character.
This is a network that once employed Michael Irvin as an NFL analyst, a man involved in felony cocaine possession and a slew of assault allegations and arrests. And they have the nerve to paint Marvin Harrison as a "thug?"
Sadly, we will likely not see any formal apology from Sal Pal of the Mole Men, Shaun Assael, Peter Keating, or ESPN in general. The writers' employment won't be terminated. They probably won't even get a reprimand even though these hacks have the journalistic integrity of Baghdad Bob. The only satisfaction we fans can take in this is in the facts:
- Marvin Harrison didn't shoot anyone and has not been charged or convicted of any wrongdoing
- Philly PD do not consider Harrison a suspect in any wrongdoing
- The Philly DA is not pursuing the case because many of the witnesses are lying about what happened
- The only person convicted of any crime here is ESPN's main source of information: Dwight Dixon
It's cold comfort, I know. But, the truth can sometimes be solice enough, even in the face of brutal, cowardly attacks from a mega corporate giant like ESPN. Stuff like this is a major reason why I don't watch ESPN anymore. I get my highlights from YouTube and other sites like NFL.com. I get my news from the net. I don't "need" ESPN, and after witnessing their work on this Harrison story, I don't really want them. They can take their SportsCenter highlights, Stew Scott's glass eye, and Chris Berman's sweaty, bald melon and stick it all right up their collective asses.
After this, the "World Wide Leader" can take a hike, as far as I'm concerned.
0 recs |
22 comments
|
Comments
I think the most under reported part of the case was the shell casings
5 of 6 at the scene were from Marvin’s gun, meaning one wasn’t. Police also found casings inside Dixon’s car. And finally the fist fight two week before was over Dixon bringing a gun into Marvin’s bar.
You can love me or hate me,
I swear it won't make me or break me
-Lil Wayne "Love me or hate me"
by shake n bake on Jan 29, 2009 12:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well not only that
But there was an obvious discrepency in the timeframe being reported. The other case reported that some anonymous caller called the police and said “You need to be looking at Marvin Harrison for this.” and AFTER that the police came out to the scene. They never said how long that was, but it was obviously enough time for someone to go somewhere and call, unless they were chilling right there while Marvin was running around like a maniac with a gun and doing 40 yard dashes at Dixon’s truck, thinking “Hey, I should call the police right now.” And the gun has gone from being turned in, to being found in a bucket, to the police walking up to Marvin sitting randomly on a bench next to a FatHead cutout of himself, to being found in a bucket. I went over it in detail right after they posted the first one, it was a load of garbage.
By the way, on a side note, the Raiders are saying the Tom Cable story isn’t true.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Jan 29, 2009 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN has been trying to bring Harrison down obviously, and at times have been way over dramatic with some of their stories and sources. But to think that Harrison was not involved in any way would be naive on my part. I respect him for everything that he has accomplished as a Colt, but I wouldnt blame other fans or people for them to think that he was involved in the incident or perhaps shot someone (whether in defense or not). If Harrisons situation occurred to a Patriots player, my perspective on the situation would be different. However what ESPN did, they reported and wrote articles that swayed the “truth” in a way to make Harrison the bad guy…when in fact they do not even have a clue on what really occurred.
by ColtsFanNChiTown on Jan 29, 2009 1:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
They fabricated sources
Blatantly. Their “facts” changed not only from one article to the next, but within their own articles. You don’t make stuff up and “report” it as news.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Jan 29, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
I could have rambled on more on their false allegations and their so-called “sources”…
by ColtsFanNChiTown on Jan 29, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN
Other than actually watching a sporting event, I haven’t watched Sportscenter or NFL Countdown in years because of all the garbage they spout that used to piss me off. FU ESPN
IN POLIAN I TRUST
by colt44 on Jan 29, 2009 1:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Motive?
I’m interested to hear what you think it is?
by menms on Jan 29, 2009 2:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I really don't know
The only reason I can think of is they think stories with controversial WRs “sell.” Look at their coverage of TO for an example.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Jan 29, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly
I really think ESPN just love to hate on the Colts whenever they can. Marvin has never done anything but do his job and how much coverage did he for that, not much. The moment Harrison could be encountering troubles off the field they jump all over. The hell with ESPN, I’ll take ESPN The OCHO any day over that garbage.
IN POLIAN I TRUST
by colt44 on Jan 29, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Much as I agree with the general gist of the post, and abhor ESPN’s NFL coverage, there is one pretty glaring error you’ve made.
You say Marvin Harrison didn’t shoot anyone. Now, i don’t know whether he did or not, but there is no evidence to that effect that has been revealed. What you should say is that the Philly DA could not find sufficient credible evidence that Marvin Harrison shot anyone to make gaining a conviction on a charge to that effect sufficiently probable to make a prosectuion worthwhile.
Of course, that could easily be because he didn’t shoot anyone. And it’s admitedly not very snappy for a bullet point…
by eltharion_doa on Jan 29, 2009 2:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
In our society
A person is presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. Thus, by the moral guidelines that govern you, me, and everyone else in the United States of America: Marvin Harrison did not shoot anyone.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Jan 29, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
You see what happens when people are CERTAIN someone did something they were let off for, or not even charged for. I mean, the Ramsey’s killed their daughter up up until 6 months ago. Wonder how they’re going to say sorry to the mother since she ended up dying thinking everyone thought she killed her own kid.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Jan 29, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
6 months ago?
What happened 6 months ago? I must have missed it, did something happen with the case?
by hartley on Jan 29, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
The DNA evidence cleared them.
Jim Sorgi runs a 4.6 40. That's all I've got to say about that.
by monstersbox on Jan 29, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A sad situation, to be sure.
I must admit, I thought they were guilty.
Definitely a lesson there.
And they (he) got an apology letter from the DA. Ridiculous.
"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007
by peytonsthebest on Jan 29, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a problem with the media’s reporting of criminal cases, not a matter of innocent versus guilty.
Most of the media reporting in the Ramsey events were as ridiculously and disgustingly tabloid as ESPN’s coverage of Harrison has been.
There is, unfortunately, no certainty in any criminal case, which is why the standard of proof in a criminal trial is beyond resonable doubt.
by eltharion_doa on Jan 31, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m very aware of the entirely artificial legal construct of innocent until proven guilty.
For example, this morning I jaywalked. I have not been convicted of an offence for jaywalking; that does not make me innocent of the crime. I don’t need to be charged and convicted of the crime of jaywalking to have jaywalked.
Innocent until proven guilty exists entirely in the context of a legal trial. Until an alleged offence arrives at that point, it has absolutely no relevence to whether someone did a particular action or not. For example, Dick Cheney has never been charged or convicted of shooting anybody, yet we all know very well that he did.
I have no idea if Marvin Harrison shot someone or not. I doubt anybody ever will, apart from those who were there at the time when Dixon was shot. But the fact that Dixon has been convicted of lying makes absolutely no difference to the case one way or the other.
by eltharion_doa on Jan 31, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m with most everyone on ESPN’s pursuit of stories but there are a lot of wholes on the defense side of this. How does Marvin’s gun magically get fired 5 times? Likely it was either him firing it or he gave it to someone to fire. Given that he had it in his possession when the police came to question him it would be hard to say it was stolen or taken without his knowledge and then returned. Yeah, the witnesses aren’t going to stand up in court and nothing is going to happen to him but how can a reasonable person not think he was involved in this? Prosecutors have no incentive to try cases that they think they’ll lose. It looks bad on their conviction rate. He admits to fighting with the guy, he admits to being in the area at the time of the incident, you have witnesses saying they saw him with a gun, the ballistics test match, yet he claims he had nothing to do with it. If you were a cop and someone told you that you line of BS you wouldn’t believe them for a second. It sucks to see a great Colt implicated in something like this but I don’t know how anyone can look at the facts presented and think Marv is completely innocent here.
by cleanface on Jan 29, 2009 5:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
the problem is even if Marv was shooting
he was a legit self defense case from the 1 shell casing found on the scene and several in Dixon’s car that weren’t from his gun.
You can love me or hate me,
I swear it won't make me or break me
-Lil Wayne "Love me or hate me"
by shake n bake on Jan 29, 2009 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Alternatively
Someone he knows knew where he kept his gun and retrieved it for the purposes of confronting/threatening/scaring/defending themselves from/shooting/whatever Dixon and Harrison had no knowledge of the events at all.
There are so many different factual scenarios and so many conflicting stories that it’s near impossible that the truth will ever be revealed.
by eltharion_doa on Jan 31, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All you need to know about Sal Pal is...
… that he slammed the Colts’ SB victory as the worst super bowl EVER, invented an interception by Brian Urlacher that never happen, and Peyto throwing Dallas Clark under the bus.
Sal Pal is a hack, an idiot, and the fact ESPN employs him is an embarrassment to humanity.
by Marik on Jan 30, 2009 9:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 





















