ESPN Refers to Aaron Hernandez as 'Aaron Rodgers,' Packers QB Not Amused
ESPN has been doing a great job covering Aaron Hernandez's arrest and subsequent arraignment for murder. With so much coverage, there are bound to be some mistakes.
Nate Scott of For the Win spotted a peculiar misstep by the network's Jeremy Schaap and the reaction he garnered from one of the league's best quarterbacks.
As you will see in the video, an apparently exhausted Schaap delivers familiar news to anyone who has been near a television or Twitter feed in the last 24 hours.
Schaap states, "There is a lot of evidence, albeit circumstantial implicating 'Aaron Rodgers...'"
Let's just stop you right there, because we now have the name of a completely different person floating into this already stunning news.
This being the age we live in, Rodgers was able to blast off a tweet in response to the obvious gaffe that was corrected rather quickly in the initial report.
Not funny ESPN— Aaron Rodgers (@AaronRodgers12) June 27, 2013
Don't leave just yet, because it seems the natural human instinct is to follow the name "Aaron" with the surname "Rodgers," because Mike Golic got on board the slip-of-the-tongue train.
Awful Announcing has audio of an interesting slice from the Mike & Mike show on ESPN radio.
According to its report, the mistake came during an interview the host was having with ESPN's legal analyst, Roger Cossack. Golic states, "Holy smokes, does it look like they have a whole lot on 'Aaron Rodgers.'"
It's clear that anyone reporting on Hernandez and his murder charges must sidestep the "Rodgers" hurdle, which is apparently a big one.
In all seriousness, reporters and analysts spend an entire year spouting off a great deal about the Packers' star quarterback. Sometimes the mind goes on autopilot, and you get much of what we see here.
Now, if we could all just leave Rodgers out of this, I'm sure he'd appreciate it.
Hit me up on Twitter for more oops moments: Follow @gabezal
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?