Do not adjust your eyes. This is not some early-morning lapse, brought on by a lack of caffeine. That is really a Ben Roethlisberger story appearing on an ESPN.com page. It wasn’t splashed around, mind you, but it wasn’t exactly buried, either. As of 9:08 a.m., it was the fifth story in the headline stack on the home page. What must have changed to cause ESPN to break nearly two days of silence on the story of civil charges being filed against Roethlisberger, alleging he sexually assaulted a woman in 2008? Well, nothing really.

The reason purportedly offered up by ESPN as to why it wasn’t covering the story in the first place is that it is not the WWL’s policy to report on civil claims. But even if that were true — which many have pointed out is not, based on various inconsistencies — the very story that broke the silence is primarily about the fact that there will be no criminal charges. It’s an AP piece, and here is how it opens:

Law enforcement officials in Nevada have no intention of opening a criminal investigation into allegations Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger raped a woman at a Lake Tahoe hotel-casino a year ago, the sheriff’s department said Wednesday.

Douglas County Sheriff’s Deputy Teresa Duffy said the accuser would have to file a criminal complaint to trigger an investigation into the incident the woman says occurred during a celebrity golf tournament last July while she was working as an executive VIP casino host at Harrah’s Lake Tahoe.

“The victim is the only one who can do that,” Duffy told The Associated Press. “Unless there was a third party that actually witnessed the incident, which according to the civil case, was not the case here.”

The 31-year-old Nevada woman has filed a lawsuit saying the Super Bowl winning quarterback raped her in a hotel penthouse across the street from the golf course, a claim his lawyer vehemently denies.

It’s certainly worthwhile information that advances the story. But it would certainly be an odd entry point for a reader that solely relies on ESPN for his or her sports news. It also clearly illustrates that there was a struggle within the walls at ESPN headquarters about what to do with the overall story. The “why” is purely speculative. It wouldn’t be shocking — thought it would also be disappointing — to find out ESPN was protecting a good source and someone who will be on an affiliated TV program next month. The argument that it wasn’t newsworthy is flimsy. But, that said, it could be something as simple as a bad decision on news judgment, followed by a hastily constructed and poor defense of that decision that only made it worse. If so, we suppose we can accept the appearance of the story now as a mea culpa from ESPN — even if, by (incorrectly) holding off on the story so long, they — inadvertently or not — spared Roethlisberger some collateral damage.

UPDATE: Neil Best at Newsday has more of an explanation from ESPN.

We welcome your thoughts on ESPN’s motives in the comments. Us? We have some packing to do. Have to make sure that Green Bay 4-Ever shirt gets in the suitcase for the Appleton trip. You never know when Favre might sign.

As such, programming note: content should flow decently today. We might even blog during the car ride. Tomorrow will be spottier, though we hope for at least one grand post from tonight’s minor league ballgame.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 am and is filed under Main. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.