The ESPN-Frontline is generating considerable reaction. I thought I would try to provide a sample of what people are saying.

And for what it is worth, I have yet to find a single person who is buying that ESPN pulled out so late in the project because of “branding” reasons. And that includes journalists within ESPN.

From Dave Zirin at Edge of Sports:

I spoke to several of the biggest names in journalism at ESPN this weekend and their thoughts on ESPN’s official comments and reasoning for dropping out of the project ranged from “mystifying” to “deeply depressing” to “palpable bullshit.” No one I spoke to believes that ESPN looked up after 15 months and discovered to their collective shock that they didn’t have final editorial control of the League of Denial.

None of the ESPN journalists with whom I spoke wanted to go on the record, with several describing such an action with the same phrase: “career suicide”, but the fact that they wanted to talk at all tells a story of its own. The collective picture they paint is one of a disheartened newsroom that feels disrespected, dismissed, and demoralized

One leading columnist and television personality at the network said to me, “Generally, ESPN’s business interests will always be at odds with its journalism. It is not a journalism company. It’s an entertainment company. This is the age of journalism we live in, not just at ESPN, but everywhere. Journalism is increasingly more corporate. When you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you start growing your own horns.”

Richard Deitsch at SI.com spoke with Raney Aronson-Rath, the film’s producer:

Aronson-Rath said there was no hint of discord between ESPN and Frontline. The two companies had worked together on multiple projects including a tough story on NFL doctor Elliot Pellman that was posted on ESPN.com on Aug. 18 and given collaboration language at both places. Frontline and ESPN had collaborated on nine different published projects prior to ESPN ending the marriage, according to Aronson.

Staffers at ESPN had let this column know over the past month that they were fearful something like this could happen with the Frontline-ESPN collaboration. They suggested pressure was being exerted by the NFL at levels well above Outside The Lines management. Said one ESPN staffer last week: “I’m hearing of stuff I never thought I’d see at our place.”

“We had collaboration credit in two different places in their broadcast,” Aronson-Rath said of the Pellman story. “My feeling is, and I can’t verify this, it appears to me that it was not their [OTL management’s] decision. Nobody confirmed that for me but clearly [ESPN senior coordinating producer] Dwayne Bray was with us at the press tour a couple of weeks ago. That is as public as you can go with the TV critics announcing this and being asked all these same questions that are emerging right now.”

Rick Morrissey in the Chicago Sun-Times draws a Watergate parallel:

It’s nice when journalists know they have the support of their bosses, the way Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein did with the late Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham during the Watergate scandal. At one point, Bernstein told attorney general John Mitchell he had proof of Mitchell’s involvement in a fund used to obtain information about Democrats.

“Katie Graham’s going to get her [breast] caught in a big, fat wringer if that’s published,’’ Mitchell said.

Graham didn’t budge.

It sounds as if ESPN president John Skipper was concerned something of his was going to get caught in a big, fat wringer.

Viv Bernstein of Jersey Slant writes about her experiences during her short stay at ESPN:

So I have to admit I was a bit surprised when ESPN’s journalistic integrity was questioned last week after it pulled out of a collaboration with PBS’s “Frontline” on a critical look at the NFL’s handling of concussions. Why was there even a question? I thought most people understood that ESPN’s financial connection to sports leagues and dual role of promotion inevitably affected coverage decisions by the network. I even had a conversation about that with an ESPN.com writer. We both agreed that writing for ESPN was not like writing for a newspaper. It was an unspoken truth.

That’s not meant as a criticism of the network, merely an observation. And it’s one I’ve made before about all media outlets that have a financial connection to the sports leagues and athletes they cover. It’s inevitable that the connection will alter the tone of coverage.

Jason McIntyre of Big Lead had a few thoughts:

*So Skipper was cool with 15 months of joint work, but then, as soon as the trailer came out, he got skittish A few images from a trailer were more moving to him than a 15-month body of work?
* How did Lipsyte not ask the ESPN President, “why didn’t you just go to PBS and see if you could work things out?”
* Here’s how bad of a PR disaster this was for ESPN – first, a statement from PR. Then, as the story gets worse, Skipper trots out a weak statement that didn’t mention the NFL. Now, the Ombudsman’s column will have people talking about this again today.

Marc Tracy of New Republic believes it isn’t case of black and white:

It seems hard to believe that ESPN simply decided this was an unacceptable disservice to its partner league and therefore was shutting it down—even speaking of the massive company as a single agent betrays the oversimplified nature of this theory. The Pellman story and the others can still be viewed on ESPN’s website. The Fainuru brothers are still ESPN employees.

But it is equally hard to believe that a media organization with the kind of commitment to no-matter-where-it-goes journalism that ESPN professes to have would let the question of editorial control trip up such a fruitful partnership, particularly when their “brand” (however important that would even be) would be in the hands of “Frontline,” whose unimpeachable credentials ESPN was the first to brag about. The fact that ESPN did not even try (if futilely) to seek some sort of arrangement with “Frontline” in order to protect itself suggests an extreme abundance of caution.

In other words, I do not sense flagrantly foul play. What I sense is more morally benign, but also more practically worrying, because more systemic: A general overcarefulness at the media outlet sports fans depend upon the most.

Kalyn Kahler of the Chicago Sun-Times writes about documentary filmmaker who alleges ESPN also withdrew support for his new film about concussions and football:

ESPN originally supported the film, but Pamphilon said it withdrew support because of pressure from the NFL.

“When they saw the final cut, they wouldn’t endorse it,” Pamphilon said. “They told us they were concerned about what the NFL would say. They didn’t give a [bleep] about what the NFL Players Association said.”