The Ethics of Reporting the Ray Rice Scandal

Sean Neidig
sn033012@ohio.edu

Photo from http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/ray-rice-apologizes-alleged-assault-then-fiancee-article-1.1803771

 By now, most have seen the video of Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice punching his wife (then fiancé), Janay Palmer, in an elevator during an argument that took place in February.  And while the ethics of how people should act in regards to domestic violence are crystal clear, the ethics of reporting on such an issue, especially one with such a large scope, are a little murky.  It’s situations like this where it is important for reporters to ask themselves the questions posed by Bob Steele.

One of the key pieces of information in the Ray Rice case is the issue of whether or not the NFL had seen the surveillance tape of Rice and Palmer in the elevator.  When the NFL handed down their original suspension several weeks ago, several plugged-in journalists reported that the NFL had indeed seen the footage, citing league sources. On Wednesday however, the NFL came out and stated that no one had actually seen the video before it was released by TMZ Monday morning.  This lead to several reporters, who had previously said the league saw the video, backtracking on that fact.

Peter King in particular is the most obvious example of this. On July 29, King wrote the following in his Monday Morning QB column: “There is one other thing I did not write or refer to, and that is the other videotape the NFL and some Ravens officials have seen, from the security camera inside the elevator at the time of the physical altercation between Rice and his fiancée.”  On Monday though, King released the following statement:

“An addendum to the Ray Rice coverage:
Earlier this summer a source I trusted told me he assumed the NFL had seen the damaging video that was released by TMZ on Monday morning of Rice slugging his then-fiancée, Janay Palmer, in an Atlantic City elevator. The source said league officials had to have seen it. This source has been impeccable, and I believed the information. So I wrote that the league had seen the tape. I should have called the NFL for a comment, a lapse in reporting on my part. The league says it has not seen the tape, and I cannot refute that with certainty. No one from the league has ever knocked down my report to me, and so I was surprised to see the claim today that league officials have not seen the tape.
I hope when this story is fully vetted, we all get the truth and nothing but the truth.”

This raises three questions. 

The first question that must be asked is how often a reporter must take a trusted source at their word.  King admits to taking his source at his word and not following up.  How can King justify publishing what may (or may not) have been true without investigating further? There obviously has to be a certain level of trust between a reporter and their source but where does one draw the line? And should King be criticized for not digging deeper or is the blame on the source that burned him?

The second question is whether or not a reporter should divulge the identity of their source in order to serve the public in an effort to find the truth.  If a reporter receives information in good faith that the source will be anonymous, is there a point where the reporter should make those sources public to serve the people?  King may not want to damage the reputation of the source and this is an example of the principle of doing the least amount of harm.   

The third question is who should be the one to investigate who knew what and when.  At the end of his statement, King hopes that the truth will come out once the story is “vetted” but as a NFL reporter, shouldn’t it be his responsibility to vet the story? 

Each of these three questions calls into question whether or not King has a conflict of interest.  King makes his money covering the NFL and is one of the most successful NFL reporters out there, so obviously his relationship with the league is strong.  However, the NFL doesn’t pay his checks, people who buy Sports Illustrated, a news publication, do.  So is it fair to question King for his apparent failure to do real, hardball journalism when that may affect his relationship with the NFL?  Many of the ethics codes we have read seem to say that King should jeopardize his relationship with the league, but that seems like a rather difficult thing to do that sounds better in theory than practice.