Those Guys Have All the Fun - James Andrew Miller [371]
Based on those factors, we did not report the story when it broke, fully understanding that at some point, some of the factors would likely change, which would prompt us to then report the story. And we did assign a reporter to look into the story. There were, of course, assertions in the media that we were protecting Roethlisberger, a prominent NFL quarterback, because we didn’t want to lose access to him in the future. Or because we are an NFL rights holder, and in that role, a business partner of the league. Or because Roethlisberger had recently appeared at the ESPYs. None of these things were factors in the decision. Two days after the story broke, an internal decision was made to report the story. And while I didn’t agree with doing it when we did it, I agreed to comply with that decision. As it turned out, roughly twelve hours later, Roethlisberger held a press conference to address the accusations, an act that would have been the trigger for us to report the story.
PETER BONVENTRE:
Put this on the record: if Mark Shapiro had been there, that thing would have been covered right away. Unless he had a fucking concussion, Mark would have been all over it, and I don’t think he ever would have said, “This is a civil action; we don’t cover civil actions.” What does that mean, “We don’t cover civil actions”? And then another thing happens with the guy and makes you look really, really stupid. You can’t do that. The guy’s got a problem, and they just don’t want to deal with it. It’s nuts.
VINCE DORIA:
While increased media attention was always a factor in our decision of when to report, we have, in the wake of the Roethlisberger story, been more attentive to that coverage, and probably reported on issues like this more quickly. Our justification is that when a certain amount of media attention builds, our intent to avoid damaging a reputation becomes moot. I’m not in love with that justification, but it is a practical one in the current landscape. As to the difficulty in making these calls, we are in a unique position, one that probably differs from any other news organization. On one hand, we are in business with virtually every league, conference, and association, essentially the largest rights holder in sports broadcasting. On the other hand, we have the largest and, I would like to think, the most aggressive news-gathering operation in the area of sports information.
It makes for hard calls, on often critical stories, that may make our business partners unhappy. Yet we do it on a daily basis. And while it creates a challenge that, as noted, is somewhat unique, in many ways it constitutes the real fun in the job. And I don’t say that to suggest there is any joy in reporting bad news. But there is real satisfaction that comes from reporting that makes it clear that we are strongly independent as a news organization and not influenced by our business relationships. While I understand that some people might view that assertion with a certain amount of skepticism, I think we have a lengthy track record of tough stories.
GARY BELSKY:
We’ve never been told not to do a story because we’re partners with a league. Not once. Our bosses really only ask us two things: First, be right. Second, give them warning if we think there could be flack. I probably send a couple of dozen “heads-up” e-mails a year, but even that’s left up to us; it’s us deciding to send word of a story up the ranks just so that they can be prepared for it. So when we published a big NASCAR story about a driver with a drug problem, a guy who raced while on heroin, we let our bosses know. I think we even sent the edited