The subject of his first missive as the Worldwide Leader's Watchdog was ostensibly ("1: in an ostensible manner") about ESPN's foot dragging on the Ben Roethlisberger sexual assault story. And he got there eventually. But first a 1,600-word discourse on the nature of service journalism and why people love to complain.

At this point, you have no need to worry about Ohlmeyer's independence from the ESPN corporate structure since it's obvious that no editor touched this thing. (Although it was published at 5:30 p.m. on a Tuesday night, just before the Brett Favre news conference. Not exactly primetime placement.) He may soon be giving Simmons a run for the ink barrel money. Ohlmeyer then takes another 1,800 words or so to explain what the hell happened, why people are upset—including reprinting several of the actual complaints—and giving one of the suits a chance to explain themselves. The answers aren't any more convincing than they were before.

(The crux of their argument for not reporting the story continues to be that Roethlisberger had not publicly addressed it himself, but most people found out about the case because of his own lawyer. From a news perspective, I don't see much difference.)

Finally, Ohlmeyer gets to the reason he's here—delivering his own experienced, unbiased judgment as to what ESPN probably should have done. (Yes, it's Monday Morning Quarterbacking, but that's the job.) I'll just reprint the meat of his response since he pretty much nailed it:

Even if ESPN judged that it should not report the Roethlisberger suit, not acknowledging a sports story that's blanketing the airways requires an explanation to your viewers, listeners and readers. And in today's world they are owed that explanation right away — to do otherwise is just plain irresponsible. It forces your audience to ask why the story was omitted. It forces them to manufacture a motive. And it ultimately forces them to question your credibility.

It appears that in an attempt to tamp down media criticism, ESPN issued a statement to inquiring news organizations that had questioned its lack of acknowledgment of this story. That doesn't cut it. In a situation like this you need to be proactive, not reactive. If ESPN felt it needed to explain its rationale to the New York Times or the Washington Post, then there is no excuse for not giving the same explanation DIRECTLY to its audience. [Emphasis added]

Bingo. ESPN should have anticipated that their viewers would expect a reaction, and even if they didn't anticipate it, they still sat on the story long past the point when it was proper to do so, and after they were forced to make ridiculous statements explaining their non-statements. Ohlmeyer took a long, circuitous route to get there, but he agrees with me so he is a genius.

Don Ohlmeyer: New ombudsman analyzes ESPN's handling of the Ben Roethlisberger story [ESPN]

Why is that again? Just to be clear, here's a more official statement that ESPN gave to Pro Football Talk:

"At this point, we are not reporting the allegations against Ben Roethlisberger because no criminal complaint has been filed. As far as we know, this is a civil lawsuit that Roethlisberger has yet to address publicly."

The implication is that if there's no criminal action and the athlete himself (or herself) has not publicly commented on it, then ESPN considers it a private matter and not "news." Several readers have already called them on this point, mentioning the Shannon Brown case, the Tony Zendejas case (filed Monday), or the O.J. case, among others. However, in all those instances, ESPN could claim that there was a criminal complaint at least tangentially related to the story. But in all those instances, the story itself was about the civil case. They have also covered many, many purely civil cases like the NFL's current anti-trust fracas, the mess regarding the Dallas Cowboys practice bubble, and—the most glaring of all—the Roberto Alomar "AIDS rumors." It seems pretty clear that they're being selective with their enforcement.

It's also extremely disingenuous to say that Roethlisberger has yet to address the case publicly when an official statement from his lawyer—who is presumably authorized to speak on his behalf—was the very first thing we read about the case. ESPN routinely considers lawyers, agents, and even family members to be valid spokespeople and this is no different.

Athletes, like other celebrities or wealthy individuals, face frivolous lawsuits all the time. So at first glance, a prohibition on covering every complaint that comes down the road would seem reasonable. It doesn't take much, however, for a lawsuit like this to rise above a personal squabble into the realm of real news. Ben Roethlisberger is a national celebrity and a civil lawsuit is a matter of public record. No news organization anywhere would ignore a legitimate story based on the standard ESPN has set for themselves.

Dan Le Batard defended ESPN by saying that it's not being reported by "credible" outlets, which is clearly nonsense. Both of Pittsburgh's major newspapers have covered it. The Associated Press, the wire service that ESPN makes frequent use of, is covering it. Even ABC News, ESPN's parent company, has mentioned it. Roger Goodell, the Commissioner of the damn NFL, has addressed it. If it wasn't a news story before, it is now. There is no journalistic or ethical excuse for ESPN to remain quiet.

So why aren't they covering it? Some have suggested that ESPN is deliberately protecting Roethlisberger to preserve their access—access that could benefit both parties financially. Even if they aren't doing it intentionally, their statement sends a clear signal that as long he personally keeps his mouth shut, this case will never reach the airwaves of the biggest sports network in the world.

Perhaps they know what unleashing the ESPN newshounds would mean—Rachel Nichols doing standups in Lake Tahoe, Ed Werder prowling the streets of Pittsburgh, Chris Mortensen on the phones, Roger Cossack's floating head, Outside The Lines, Sports Reporters, thousands of radio jockeys flooding airwaves—and they aren't prepared to do that yet. It's too bad that not covering a circus just because it's a circus is not an option.

Sooner or later, of course, they won't have any choice. Training camps open soon. What if a reporter asks Ben about it and he says, "No comment." Is that addressing the situation? What if there's a settlement? What if there's no settlement? Would they refuse to cover a civil trial?

ESPN's stance is ultimately untenable and they know it. Caution may have been in order when the story first broke, but we are way past the point when this became newsworthy. They are the only major media outlet not covering it and every minute that goes by where they don't address the issue makes them look increasingly foolish and petty. When they do start reporting on this case, perhaps they can begin by explaining their own silence.

Last word on ESPN's civil lawsuit policy [ProFootballTalk]
Full Complaint against Ben Roethlisberger (Opens in PDF)

To be an ombudsman, after all, is to be the insider and outsider, the scolding wrist-slapper who will never please everyone, the watcher of the watchmen. The job is challenging, intellectually and practically, and it's far from glamorous, but let's not mince words and sympathize too much. As Daniel Okrent, the New York Times' first public editor, wrote in his farewell column: "I wish I hadn't made so much noise, in print and in various interviews, about how hard this job was. Dexter Filkins, in Baghdad, has a hard job; Steven Erlanger, in Jerusalem, has a hard job. By any reasonable standard, public editor is a walk in the park." ESPN doesn't have bureaus in Baghdad or Jerusalem, but the metric holds. And to Ohlmeyer's credit, he wasn't one to bemoan his new gig in his first interview with SI's Richard Deitsch. His job is difficult, true. But there are ways to not only alleviate the burden, but excel as the ESPN ombudsman.

One is tracking the zeitgeist of the sports blogosphere, a little ditty much-revered ombudsman Le Anne Schreiber picked up early in her tenure. Another is to imbibe ESPN in all forms — television, radio, online, and even print — as devotedly as the legions of its crazed consumers. It's an obsession Ohlmeyer's new position will seemingly force him to adopt. There's a difference between being an above-average consumer of ESPN and being someone who knows the ins-and-outs well enough to support an informed opinion. Sometimes, Ohlmeyer will criticize ESPN. Other times, he will buttress the network's practices. The best public editors do both, when necessary. To do so, though, one needs proper perspective, and that comes, at least in part, from fully absorbing and fully understanding all the Worldwide Leader's tentacles.

SI.com: Let's break down how much of ESPN platforms you are reading or watching today. How much of its television programming do you watch?

Ohlmeyer: I am a regular consumer of live event programming on ESPN. I would say I am an above-average consumer. In my normal life, I would watch SportsCenter three or four times a week.

SI.com: How much of ESPN.com do you read?

Ohlmeyer: The dot-com I have not been a big consumer of, although I have used it to seek out information.

SI.com: ESPN the Magazine?

Ohlmeyer: I would classify it as I read the articles occasionally

SI.com: ESPN Radio?

Ohlmeyer: We have it here in Los Angeles and it was one of the things I check out when I get in the car driving. It is one of three or four choices that I have set on the buttons.

Compare that, in turn, with the way Schreiber described her consumption habits.

Q: What is the process for deciding what to write your column about? Are you constantly watching ESPN and reading every columns, gauging emails

Yes, all of the above. It's impossible for one person and her DVR to consume all that ESPN puts out, but I worked out a daily routine of watching, for starts, a SportsCenter, Outside the Lines and PTI to keep on top of basic news, issues, and grist of day's opinion mill. Also reading selected columns and news stories, especially anything marked Report or Source. Also checking mailbag to see what was on fans' minds. Then, depending on topics I was considering for the column, I would add other shows to my viewing - might be a couple weeks of Baseball Tonight, a season of MNF, a run of E:60's or those endless (may they RIP) SportsCenter specials. I always had way more material and notes and solicited information than I could use. Often I would have a column written in my head, then switch topics to address some furor that arose in the mailbag.

It's not fair to directly contrast those two points of view. The interview with Schreiber came after her term; Ohlmeyer's doesn't start for a few weeks, and right now, he's still Googling phrases like "I Love ESPN" and "I Hate ESPN."

So while this isn't news to anyone, Ohlmeyer must continue to learn by better familiarizing himself with ESPN The Magazine and ESPN.com, with Page 2 and Page 3 and Page 8, with ESPN Insider and ESPN Chicago, with the forthcoming ESPN Dallas and ESPN New York and ESPN Los Angeles, with all of ESPN's blog networks and local radio stations, with Bill Simmons and Rick Reilly and Chris Berman and Stuart Scott, with SportsNation and Blog Buzz and and PTI and Around the Horn and Outside The Lines and 30 For 30 and Homecoming, and, you know, everything else. Like SportsCenter.

The Takeaway with Don Ohlmeyer [SI.com]
An interview with ESPN ombudsman Le Anne Schreiber [The Big Lead]
13 Things I Meant To Write But Never Did [New York Times]
The Ombudsman Puzzle [American Journalism Review]
EARLIER: ESPN Ombudsperson Of Significant Interest: Don Ohlmeyer

It's a changing world out there, even in the bastion of redneckness known warmly as the NASCAR circuit. Newspapers can't afford original, on-site race coverage, and meanwhile, Jeremy Mayfield admits to doing meth while circling a racetrack faster than he turned on his mother. The obvious solution: Dole out press passes to bloggers! NASCAR, to its credit, is anything but square.

Which is how we end up with the NASCAR Citizen Journalists Brigade To Save The Future Of Journalism, or whatever it's called today. But don't worry, newspaper reporters, because these bloggers are professionals. Some of them were your former co-workers. They're the ones who aren't wearing Tony Stewart's face.

After a lengthy review process, which included evaluating independent Web sites on professionalism, reporting and commentary, and use of social networking tools, 28 sites were invited to be part of the new media corps.

Members of the corps will have the opportunity to apply for media credentials but like all media, will be expected to abide by the standards of professional conduct (i.e. no autographs, photos with drivers, etc.) They will also have access to other media-driven events and teleconferences and NASCAR's media-only Web site. NASCAR will provide access to the information; it's up to the journalists to tell the story.

And no, we are not one of those 28 storytelling outlets in the NASCAR Amateur B-Loggers To Tout NASCAR's Awesomeness with access to free food on Sunday, provided you pay your way to the racetrack. Helicoptering in only when a methed-out driver calls his mother a gold-digging whore, it turns out, is neither professional nor social networky enough to merit a credential.

Oh, well. It's not like anyone ever needed a press pass to watch a good ol' wreck.

NASCAR Announces Citizen Journalist Media Corps [NASCAR.com]
NASCAR Citizen Journalism Media Corps [SportsJournalists.com]
EARLIER: Jeremy Mayfield Goes To War Against NASCAR

On Friday, the financially struggling Globe reported that three locals with millions in loose change had emerged as potential buyers of Beantown's newspaper of record, which The New York Times is actively trying to sell. (Newspapers, if you haven't heard, aren't doing so well.)

Behind Door No. 1: Stephen Pagliuca, managing partner of the Celtics.

Pagliuca's day job as the managing director of Bain Capital gives him the kind of cash to pay for Kevin Garnett and potentially dole out the loot necessary to purchase a far-less-intriguing commodity. No one really knows what the Globe is worth — estimates range from $1 to much, much more — but if Pagliuca scores the newspaper, you would think he would have to immediately address the obvious conflict of interest in his owning the Globe's sports section, once the best in the country and still a veritable powerhouse, while presiding over one of the local teams.

All it would take is a statement resembling NESN's list of 10 values, of which "Integrity" is No. 7 — behind "Adaptability" and "Teamwork" — and concisely defined as: "We are committed to the highest level of ethics and professional standards." Somewhere, Dennis Eckersley nods in approval.

If Pagliuca does add the Globe to his list of holdings, the only Boston team left out of this ethical quandary would be the Patriots. Bill Belichick declined to comment.

3 men with local roots emerge as potential Globe buyers [The Boston Globe]
What Price For The Boston Globe? [The New York Times]
The Last, Best Sports Staff [Deadspin]

The greatest sports staff ever assembled, argues Kevin Armstrong of Sports Illustrated — despite the many objections from others — consisted of future Hall of Famers and Pulitzer Prize winners: Ray Fitzgerald, Will McDonough, Peter Gammons, Bob Ryan, Dan Shaughnessy, Mike Lupica, Lesley Visser, Bud Collins, Leigh Montville — hell, even John Updike hacked out gamers on deadline. Armstrong's long, lauding tribute to The Globe's erstwhile years is chock full of the type of anecdotes any journalism junkie would devour:

• Visser stealing a piece of discarded paper from Fitzgerald's typewriter.
• Bill Parcells saddling up next to McDonough, who juggled regular calls from Al Davis and Pete Rozelle.
• Lupica talking about himself as a "student manager," not even "junior varsity."
• A nocturnal Updike sipping tea and munching on toast after his Opening Day gamer went to press.
• Gammons and Ryan as college-aged interns, sifting through the phonebook, bitching about whose name would be first on co-bylines, musing about everything but the athletes. "Ryan would write about umpires," said Clif Keane. "Gammons would write about wars and symphonies, and you'd need a third f—-— guy for game talk."

But the profile is disheartening, not because it's nostalgic or because it reads like a eulogy for a long-dismantled staff. This, rather, is a postmortem to high-end, influential newspaper journalism, to the idea that guided The Globe's staff: "Get us space, money and get out of the way." As Armstrong writes, The Globe's staff "is sure never to be duplicated in an industry that today is bleeding talent." It was told to re-invent form, to take risks, to cover games as theater writers review Broadway. The missives now are different: Blog, shoot video, tweet, repeat. And don't forget your furlough.

The irony here is that this story, which depicts the profound effect a newspaper can have on a city and all of its parts, will forever live in cyberspace, never in the form of a printed clip. Instead of running in the magazine, the 4,000 words were this week's installment of The Bonus, SI.com's weekly long-form feature. (Also on SI.com this week: The Twitter Craze!)

In fact, the sports magazine of record still has not sufficiently addressed the changing nature of sports journalism — a topic which could, realistically, fill an entire issue. In a week, baseball will be the only major sport in season, and it might be time for SI to turn inward, free up a stable of the magazine's best writers and let them inform their readers why the magazine they're reading might not be around in 10 years and how it's changed in the last five. SI has shown, on occasion, that it can be a paragon for sports media evaluation — think about the way Steve Rushin, in 1994, explained how sports had gotten where they were, all in 22,000 words. That type of journalism — enterprise, explanatory, investigative, finding and pursuing the subtle stories and knocking the obvious ones over the Monster — is really the best way to honor the glory days of any respectable sports staff.

Glory days of The Boston Globe [SI.com]
The Best Ever? [Bronx Banter Blog]
What's wrong with Sports Illustrated? [Slate]

Parker went back on the offense yesterday, to explain why he no longer works at the News and to stand up for his unique brand of journalism. His resignation was actually a buyout that he asked for, and was granted, and truth be told, he was just getting out while the getting is good. (He's right on that one. The News is in trouble and everyone knows it.)

But when asked about the Rod Marinelli situation—again, he asked the former Lions coach at a press conference if he wished his daughter had married a better defensive coordinator—Rob simply explained that this is the nature of his business. That's the way you report the news, when you do it old school:

"I went to Columbia Journalism School," Parker said. "And I can still remember the day I got called into the office and my professor ... thought I was a good reporter but she wanted more out of me. You know what she told me? And I'll never forget these words. She said. 'Robert, I want you to stick the knife in, turn it and draw blood. That is the way you have to be a reporter. You've got to get the information, you've got to go after it. You can't be soft on it.' And that's my approach, and that's the only way I know how to do that job.

And when that doesn't work, you can always just insult their family.

Rob Parker: Journalists Should 'Stick the Knife in, Turn it and Draw Blood' [Rob Parker]