Ah, yes. The sort of macho-man dickweed that even the umpire’s union president calls out in the piece. I knew you’d be in here somewhere.

Thank you for verbalizing why people hate unions.

I get that, but I mean, changing a somewhat misleading headline that unnecessarily calls out a specific brand is different than “dictating content”, no?

If by “news” you mean “puff piece about a guy losing weight”

Exactly, literally any business that has advertising review would do exactly the same thing. Listen, I’m not ESPN fan, but am I exactly supposed to be outraged over this?

Am I supposed to be upset over this? It sounds to me like ESPN should have been smart enough not to trash one of their sponsors in a headline in the first place.

HEADLINE THAT SAID NOT NOT EAT SPONSOR’S FOOD ADJUSTED AT SPONSOR’S REQUEST

So you only “know” one thing and it turns out it’s wrong. Oh well, better luck next time I guess?

Companies bring in someone like Brett Favre for instant visibility and credibility. Sure, I’m sure they could’ve done more  exhaustive searches, but no, random investor isn’t calling Rob Gronkowski unless they have his number. And we’re at a point with social media and apps that websites aren’t proof of anything. I…

Presenting emotionally charged false information is unfair to everyone. Palpating vaginas, checking the size of labia, and measuring anogenital distance has not been done since at least 2011.

“How dare you not remove a board-member whom we disapprove of because he funded a lawsuit against us after we ousted him for being gay directly against his wishes because we don’t feel like he deserves the right to keep such information from the wealthy middle-eastern people he works with?!