Update: ESPN just released a new statement this morning:

“The decision to remove our branding was not a result of concerns about our separate business relationship with the NFL. As we have in the past including as recently as Sunday, we will continue to cover the concussion story aggressively through our own reporting.”

However, as I say below, all of ESPN’s spinning won’t change the perception issue.

*******

If it indeed went down this way, ESPN just gave itself a severe blow to its journalistic integrity.

Here are the details from James Andrews Miller’s story that was posted this morning in the New York Times.

He writes:

Pressure from the National Football League led to ESPN’s decision on Thursday to pull out of an investigative project with “Frontline” regarding head injuries in the N.F.L., according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation.

Miller wrote the league turned up the heat on ESPN after a trailer of the film ran in early August.

Last week, several high-ranking officials convened a lunch meeting at Patroon, near the league’s Midtown Manhattan headquarters, according to the two people, who requested anonymity because they were prohibited by their superiors from discussing the matter publicly. It was a table for four: Roger Goodell, commissioner of the N.F.L.; Steve Bornstein, president of the NFL Network; ESPN’s president, John Skipper; and John Wildhack, ESPN’s executive vice president for production.

At the combative meeting, the people said, league officials conveyed their displeasure with the direction of the documentary, which is expected to describe a narrative that has been captured in various news reports over the past decade: the league turning a blind eye to evidence that players were sustaining brain trauma on the field that could lead to profound, long-term cognitive disability.

Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the N.F.L., said the league had no involvement in ESPN’s decision.

Chris LaPlaca, an ESPN spokesman, said Thursday that ESPN’s decision was not based on any concerns about hurting its contractual relationship with the N.F.L. Rather, the network said in a statement, it was ending its official association with “Frontline” because it did not have editorial control of what appeared on the public television public affairs series.

However, as the story points out, and as everyone else is pointing out, ESPN knew of the conditions for a long, long time.

“We’re obviously disappointed because the partnership has been a phenomenal one and we don’t totally understand what happened,” Fainaru-Wada said. Referring to ESPN, he added, “Nothing we’ve been told by anybody suggests that they’re backing off on the journalism.”

Aronson-Rath said that until last Friday, there had been no hint of trouble between “Frontline” and ESPN. She said that “Frontline” had worked “in lock step” with Vince Doria, ESPN’s senior vice president and director of news, and Dwayne Bray, senior coordinating producer in ESPN’s news-gathering unit.

But in conversations last Friday and Monday with Doria and Bray, she was first told that ESPN did not want its logo to be connected to the films.

“It didn’t appear that it was their decision,” she said.

This morning, the ESPN PR crew continues to maintain it was a “branding issue” and not an editorial decision due to pressure from the NFL.

Here is the statement from last night.

Because ESPN is neither producing nor exercising editorial control over the Frontline documentaries, there will be no co-branding involving ESPN on the documentaries or their marketing materials. The use of ESPN’s marks could incorrectly imply that we have editorial control. As we have in the past, we will continue to cover the concussion story through our own reporting.

The PR staff continues to maintain, “in hindsight, we should have reached this conclusion much sooner.”

The PR staff also has compiled a list of its coverage of the concussion issue. Outside The Lines did another report last Sunday. This occurred after Skipper’s meeting with Goodell.

“As far back as 2006, ESPN has taken a leading role in reporting on the effects of concussions on athletes.”

However, ESPN can spin all it wants. It won’t wash away the perception that ESPN caved in to the NFL. Miller is the author of the bestselling book about ESPN, and his story appeared in the New York Times. Both carry considerable weight in the credibility department.

Also, the fact that Skipper recently had lunch with Goodell is a smoking gun, so to speak. I don’t care if they were talking about Goodell’s flower garden. The timing of ESPN’s withdrawal makes it seem like it was tied to that lunch.

And to compound matters, the film’s producer and the Fainaru brothers seem confused about what happened. It appeared as if everything was proceeding on track.

You can reach the logical step that ESPN concocted “the branding issue” as an escape route to pull out of the film. And let’s for a minute believe that branding was indeed the real motivation here. What a colossal mistake coming to that decision so late in such an important game.

Yes, ESPN can spin all its wants, and it will. This so-called “branding issue” will result in the perception that the network has compromised its journalistic integrity in the name of avoiding a fracture in its relationship with the NFL.

I’m sure this is not a good day for the many fine journalists who work at ESPN.