CSotD: Lawyer up and laugh!
Skip to comments
Even if you're not into sports, today's Tank McNamara raises an interesting issue: NY Giants defensive end Jason Pierre-Paul blew up his hand in a July 4 firecracker accident last summer and the extent of the damage was not clear until ESPN got hold of his medical records. (Apparently, Pierre-Paul was not simply shutting out the media but was not being forthcoming with his team on the eve of pre-season workouts.)
Pierre-Paul sued the hospital for an obvious violation of patient confidentiality; there was a settlement and the two employees who leaked his records were fired. Now he's going after ESPN for publishing the information in defiance of a Florida state law.
This is a significant issue not because sports matter but because the First Amendment does.
While HIPAA has changed how reporters have to ask questions, it hasn't superceded the Constitution. Its biggest impact has come from institutions that make reporters' jobs hard because they don't know how it works and they have risk-averse lawyers.
Which is to say, "any lawyers at all."
Good taste being another question. This is a case where you may want to hold your nose while defending the principle.
In general, the First Amendment doesn't ask how you got the information. The Pentagon Papers were leaked and, whether or not they should have been classified, they were.
But the Supreme Court (in happier times) defended their publication, though it didn't stop the government from going after Daniel Ellsburg for leaking them. And the Court's opinion was deeply divided and highly nuanced.
Schefter's ethical defense is that Pierre-Paul's physical condition is relevant because he's a professional athlete, but how that translates into actual public need-to-know is a little dubious, and the joke about also releasing his psychologist's records makes for a good punchline.
Daniel Ellsburg's prosecution was called off after disclosure of the White House plumbers' burglary of his psychiatrist's office turned the case into a truckload of tainted fruit.
In my reporting days, I received information I shouldn't have had, though I don't think anything that was illegal except in the sense of borrowed-without-permission.
Some of it I used, some of it I didn't, and the question is generally does the value of the story outweigh the potential, not simply for legal action but for bad future relations with the person or institution involved.
But that goes into every coverage decision of any importance, and only TV anchors go into journalism with a goal of becoming popular.
Schefter probably has more respect than friends, but that's what you want.
Granted, this particular scoop falls less under the category of "public need to know" than of "satisfying the public's curiosity."
That is, while it's more elevated than long-range photos of movie stars on a nude beach, it hardly rises to the level of "How did we get into a war that killed 57,000 of our fellow Americans?"
The question of whether it needed to be reported within four days or whether he might have given Pierre-Paul time to process a stunning, traumatic event is an ethical one, not a legal one. He's a sports reporter, and it was a sports story.
And, not to blame the victim, but when you make millions through public display of your physical skills, you can't expect those skills to be off the record.
I strongly suspect that ESPN will end up paying Pierre-Paul, not because he would win but to minimize the public stink.
Schefter's career will not be damaged, nor will the money come from his pocket.
All of which reminds me …
… of a tie-in to today's Looks Good On Paper, because we had a shopping center go up and stay empty, based largely on the "how quickly can you turn the tanker?" principle of commercial planning.
The tie-in with ESPN and Tank and such is that I was "leaked" the legal papers in which a poor old widow woman was suing the developer for ruining her well water. Those papers were technically public, so it wasn't much of a leak, and I didn't use them because the leaker was a competitor to the new mall and was dumb enough to let the poor old widow woman use his company's attorneys and I hadn't been born the day prior to the filing.
He probably thought I'd go for it because I'd nailed him a few months earlier by publishing leaked blueprints of a project they were building, the difference being that the leaker in that case wasn't trying to enlist me for a mudfight.
Both projects were built and abandoned, not for lack of investors but because they were planned while cross-border shopping was a major economic story in small US towns just south of Montreal, but, by the time they started actually pouring concrete, not only had the exchange rate changed but Canadians had become a little more nationalistic about where they spent their money.
I knew people who didn't like watching big men smash into each other on Sundays but who got a real kick out of watching that display of corporate carnage.
And don't put away your lawyers yet …
Super-Fun-Pak Comix parodies the fruitless attempts to stop people from doing what people do, and, while I'm sure Ruben Bolling and I agree on the overall topics of paying creators for their work and of copyright violation, we certainly agree on the topics of (A) bailing water with a pitchfork and (B) whining.
Surely there is a sane position somewhere between Emily Dickinson, who published nearly nothing, and Banksy, who throws his stuff up on public buildings.
And the very best part of this is that the Doug comic absolutely sucks and it's impossible to imagine anyone wanting to steal it.
Pretty realistic depiction of how assets are allocated and energies expended in such matters.
There seem to be a lot of folks out there who have both belt and suspenders but don't own any pants.
Now, the most anticipated sequel of the theatrical season …
Comments
Comments are closed.