Before Spring Break, my Media Lab class completed an exercise on the limits of free speech, discussing ethics in journalism. One of the exercises discussed whether or not it would be ethical to print incriminating information, based on anything but 100% clear evidence, not simply someone's claim of wrongdoing. Recently there is a perfect example of this in the world of sports journalism, and I think otherwise reputable sources have not chosen the right path. Two San Francisco reporters have written a book supposedly detailing baseball star Barry Bonds' steroid use. The front page of sportsillustraded.com runs the headline "Bonds Exposed." Earlier in the day, CNN.com ran a similar headline. When I saw this, without reading the full article, I thought, "wow, they finally caught him." It was only later in the day I learned the only evidence of Bonds' steroid use was a book. In their next issue, SI will print an excerpt from the book, which, for all they know, could be completely false. To me this seems dangerously close to libel, and I wonder if the media would be jumping all over this story if it concerned a more congenial ball-player, not Bonds.
Hearsay
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://blogs.setonhill.edu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/17364
I don't think that Sports Illustrated, a magazine that I once thought of as highly reputable should be printing the excerpt from the book unless they have some kind of hard evidence. A medical examination or blood analysis that shows evidence of Bonds' alleged steroid use would be much more convincing. I think that they are taking a big risk by printing something like this and it may backfire on them. I agree that it does border on libel as well. Sure, they have the money to fight a defamation of character lawsuit, but do they really want to take that risk on an athlete that they have featured in the magazine several times previously. The media is as fickle as the public when it comes to celebrity news. One day they are your best friend and the next they are writing the worst things imaginable. Scandals make the best news because they are most interesting.
I don't think that Sports Illustrated, a magazine that I once thought of as highly reputable should be printing the excerpt from the book unless they have some kind of hard evidence. A medical examination or blood analysis that shows evidence of Bonds' alleged steroid use would be much more convincing. I think that they are taking a big risk by printing something like this and it may backfire on them. I agree that it does border on libel as well. Sure, they have the money to fight a defamation of character lawsuit, but do they really want to take that risk on an athlete that they have featured in the magazine several times previously. The media is as fickle as the public when it comes to celebrity news. One day they are your best friend and the next they are writing the worst things imaginable. Scandals make the best news because they are most interesting.
Whoops, I meant to say something like "Whether celebrity news is really 'news' is debateable."
Yes, I agree that the story you blogged about is newsworthy, as part of the ongoing story about major league steroid use.
I think this is more than just celebrity news, considering that steroid use in Major League Baseball has been addressed by Congress.
Celebrity news is scandal-driven. No doubt about that. Whether it's really "news" is debateable.