Sports Media Ethics (or lack thereof)

Bonjour from France. I am teaching an international sports law course in France, so my blogging will be limited during the next several weeks.

But I wanted to mention the panel on sports media ethics that I moderated last week in San Francisco at the Sports Lawyers Association annual conference. The panelists included members of the sports media, Lester Munson (ESPN) and Jon Wertheim (Sports Illustrated), Jane Kirtley (media ethics professor and expert) and Michael Huyghue (commissioner of the newly formed United Football League and former agent of Pacman Jones).

Media ethics codes have been established (in writing) by a variety of news outlets, parent news companies, and trade associations working in different media. These codes provide guidelines for journalists "to seek and report the truth" and "to minimize harm". For example, with respect to accurate reporting, the ethics code established by the Society of Professional Journalists provides that journalists should:

• Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
• Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
• Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
• Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
• Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

It also provides that journalists should:

• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
• Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
• Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
• Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

Sports journalists seem to routinely get away with reporting inaccuracies (e.g. falsely reporting that the Grimsley affidavit contained the names of certain high profile players connected to steroid use) as well as intruding into the private lives of sports participants including players, coaches and front office personnel. I questioned the panelists why there is a more "relaxed" code of media ethics with respect to news reporting in the sports industry as compared with other industries. On the privacy issue, the response was essentially that professional athletes seek attention (e.g. by endorsing products) and thereby "assume the risk" that their private lives will be exposed by the media. I never understood that rationale (legally or otherwise), so when I challenged that proposition, I was told that I was "beyond my years" in a google/myspace era.

In my view, the problem is that the media determines what is "newsworthy," combined with the fact that (1) there is no external mechanism or independent body to enforce their ethics codes (like the state bar enforces ethics codes in the legal profession) and (2) the First Amendment trumps state tort laws in the courts. While the media plays an important role in reporting news, media sources are essentially product and service providers that compete with each other in a free market. The sports media "needs" sports participants in order to provide a quality product -- it needs access to sports participants; it needs cooperation from the participants; and it needs to interview the participants and highlight their views, perspectives and commentary. To put it simply, despite the enforcement and First Amendment hurdles, the participants are not powerless with respect to the media.

I suggest the players unions and the leagues find creative ways to "deal" with the media on terms that are mutually beneficial to both the participants and the media -- in other words, cooperation and access in exchange for accuracy and privacy.

Posted in: