Today there was another example of why that is. On their main news page of espn.com, there is an article link entitled: "Rothlisberger: Broken foot may need surgery".
Of course, I'm shocked as a football fan that his foot, injured last year, would require surgery so late in the year before football activities (hopefully) start again.
However, when you actually read the article (and the title of the article itself is Ben Rothlisberger: Surgery an Option"), Big Ben talks about how he's had all this time to rest the foot and it's doing great:
"It's doing really good. It's healed up," he said. "Obviously, it helps when I'm not cutting and planting and doing all of these different activities. It's really come a long way. I haven't had too many problems with it recently."
I've seen this many times before with ESPN's front page. It's misleading, and it's poor journalistic integrity. Of course, an article that says "Rothlisberger's foot doing great; surgery probably not needed" won't get as many hits, and that hurts the writer.
No comments:
Post a Comment