Tim Benz: ESPN coverage of Myles Garrett vs. Mason Rudolph was a disgrace

The only thing more maddening than the Myles Garrett-Mason Rudolph situation has been ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” coverage of it.

It was biased, agenda-driven and, at times, vengeful.

Not just toward Rudolph. But toward the Steelers as well.

On Thursday, ESPN released a condensed version of an interview between Mina Kimes and the Cleveland Browns defensive star.

A few days before the interview aired, Garrett had been reinstated by the NFL after a season-ending suspension last year. The discipline was the result of Garrett pulling off Mason Rudolph’s helmet and then swinging it at the Steelers quarterback during a Nov. 14 game.

In the piece, Garrett reiterated his claim that Rudolph called him a racial slur prior to the helmet swing.

“He called me a ‘stupid n-word,’ ” Garrett told Kimes.

It’s a claim Garrett didn’t make until his appeal, days after the incident.

The full version of the interview aired on Saturday morning.

The interview itself wasn’t really the problem.

Although, I’d argue Kimes was lax in pressing Garrett with follow-up questions. And if she did ask the questions, then shame on the producers for allowing them to hit the cutting-room floor.

There should’ve been more follow-ups about Garrett’s insinuation that the league was burying audio of the incident, where Garrett was getting the information, and why more audio wasn’t recorded.

He should’ve been pressed further as to why he waited so long before making this claim, and why he thought his claim against Rudolph would stay private, when it was apparently the crux of his appeal in the first place.

Kimes should’ve asked why Garrett “would apologize” to a player who allegedly called him such a heinous name.

And I don’t know how you let Garrett say, “I didn’t want to make this about race,” when his charge against Rudolph is making the whole thing about race.

Those critiques aside, the much greater sin from ESPN was the “Outside the Lines” panel discussion that followed.

Host Jeremy Schapp asked contributors Michele Steele, Ryan Smith and Ariel Helwani, “If Rudolph said what Myles Garrett says that he said, how should that affect the way that we should think about the incident that took place in November?”

Note the phrasing there. Because at no point was the question framed, “What if Garrett is making this up?”

Meanwhile, watch how the panelists respond. Everyone on the set speaks as if they either know, believe or somehow want to think Garrett’s claims are actually true.

I feel like Garrett has talked this claim into existence with zero proof. But the outright absence of evidence didn’t seem to sway the opinion-makers for ESPN at all.

Steele noted a lack of discipline for Rudolph.

For what? An accusation that couldn’t be corroborated? And, by the way, Rudolph was fined $50,000 for his role in the fight.

Helwani flat-out says he believes Garrett and provides no reason why aside from the fact that Garrett is saying it for a second time. Also, he gave no reason why he doesn’t believe Rudolph.

And Smith tells us why we should believe Garrett, because — to him — he doesn’t seem to be a guy that would make up such a story.

OK. What does he know about Rudolph that would cause him to believe that Rudolph not only would say such a thing, but also would lie about it?

Later in his response, Smith also gave an analogy to his own personal experience with racism in America and leveraged that in a sympathetic way toward Garrett’s side of the argument.

I have no doubt that Smith has unfortunately endured the pain of racial injustice. But, gee, do ya’ think Mike Tomlin has as well? That didn’t stop the Steelers coach from supporting Rudolph.

Something else needs to be mentioned about how the timing of events — up to and including Saturday morning — and the subsequent tone of the discussion.

The Steelers and Rudolph didn’t comment on how Garrett doubled down from the original Feb. 13 post through the airing of the entire feature at 9 a.m. Eastern time Saturday morning. It appears ESPN asked. But they only referred back to their original rebuttals of Garrett’s accusations.

As a viewer, I walked away with the sense that ESPN was ticked off because of that.

So many of their opinions — both in the clip above and in some follow-up comments — seemed to be based around the fact that Garrett was reiterating his accusation, and the Steelers, Rudolph and the league had yet to say anything more.

Why should that matter?

Is this a tit-for-tat thing? Every time Garrett reiterates his claim, do the Steelers, the league, and Rudolph have to respond? And, if they don’t, do we have to assume Garrett is telling the truth?

Watch the clip again. The very premise of much of the opinion of who was right or wrong was centered on Rudolph’s silence compared to Garrett speaking once more.

That’s a joke.

Between the time “OTL” went to commercial at the end of the segment and the end of the program, Tomlin, Rudolph and Rudolph’s lawyer all fervently restated their denials of Garrett’s accusation.

At least those statements were made on the program and the ensuing episode of SportsCenter.

So, I wonder.

Do Steele, Helwani and Smith all have different opinions now? Do things change? I asked that of them on Twitter.

I ask because so many of the opinions you advanced seemed to be put forth based on the notion that Garrett asserted the claim...again. And no one on the PGH end responded. Well, they had previously been on the record. But now that they are...again...does that change your tone? https://t.co/1hIACSoKhK

— Tim Benz (@TimBenzPGH) February 15, 2020

As of Sunday night, I didn’t have a response.

“Outside the Lines” should feel obligated to do a follow-up next Saturday now that Tomlin, Rudolph and the league have spoken.

Again.

And when Rudolph is interviewed, make sure he gets the same soft backlighting as Garrett. Kimes needs to ask all the questions in the same thoughtful, delicate tones. And then Schapp needs to spotlight whatever charity work Rudolph is doing next, just like he did for Garrett when he tagged the end of Kimes’ interview.

Don’t hold your breath.