Danny Cox is: The PRospective Employee

In the time immediately following initial reports that Ben Roethlisberger, quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers was facing a civil suit alleging sexual misconduct, the self-proclaimed World Leader in Sports, ESPN, had no mention of the incident.

I would like to start this post off by acknowledging and proclaiming that I have been a public voice against Ben Roethlisberger since he came into the NFL 5 years ago. Why? Three main reasons:

1) He plays for the Steelers. As a lifelong Cleveland Browns fan, and the son of at least 4 generations of Clevelanders who can trace his family tree (albeit in a quasi-complicated manner) to the legendary Bernie Kosar, it’s in my blood to feel queasy at the sight of a black and yellow jersey.

2) He went to Miami University. As you can see from my car, I take my school spirit seriously. (This is when I first got the car, I have since secured the license plate “OU OH YEA”. I know, it’s awesome.) As Miami is my alma mater’s rival, I was bound by honor to dislike this guy BEFORE he went to play for the Squealers.

3) This one is less about me, and more out of principle that is amplified by the other two. My older brother, Matt, went to the University of Findlay for his university days. Findlay, Ohio, located in the northwest quadrant of the state, had for many years been a Browns-supporting town. That changed during Matt’s sophomore year, however, when hometown hero Big Ben was drafted by the Steelers, turning this once classy town into a cess pool. (I don’t mean that, Findlay is still lovely.)

Having aired my prior feelings, I would like to assure you that this post has nothing to do with my personal feelings toward Mr. Roethlisberger. Rather, it has to do with my still-in-my-young-idealistic-phase-of-journalism’s sense of ethical integrity.

For those of you who don’t follow sports news at all, according to AP reports on July 21st, Roethlisberger was served papers regarding a civil suit alleging sexual assault on one Andrea McNulty.

Now, this post is not about the event itself. There have been reports that the civil suit is not likely to find Roethlisberger in any misconduct. To me, that’s not relevant.

What is relevant is ESPN’s lack of coverage. Not because they failed to hear about the story, but rather the network made a concious and decided effort to not report the story, going so far as to place a network-wide ‘do not report’ status on the story.

The defense from the network came in the form of citing company policy precedent that it does not report on civil suits of athletes. As Sports Media Watch reported, this is, at best, an inconsistent policy. ESPN went as far as to report on a woman’s intent to sue NBA player, Shannon Brown, for sexual misconduct earlier this year.

So why was the same attention not given to Roethlisberger? There have been a number of speculations, ranging from ESPN trying to protect its interest in Roethlisberger to charges of selective coverage based on race.

Now, while I am usually one to try and debunk any playing of the race card, as I feel it has become a little bit of a cop-out (not that I am so naive that I don’t understand that there are still many inherently unfair institutions that further racial disparity), there are some strange trends in ESPN’s inconsistent policy.

The case of the intended litigation against Brown: what are the main differences between Brown and Roethlisberger? Both are on defending championship professional sports teams (Brown for the Lakers, and Roethlisberger obviously for the Steelers). Both are accused of sexual misconduct in the realm of civil court. Granted, Roethlisberger is more of a household name and a general public figure, but doesn’t that make stories involving him more newsworthy? There’s one more difference between these guys, but I can’t seem to put my finger on it. Oh right, I remember, Brown is black, while Roethlisberger is a very definitive shade of white.

If we examine the examples in the Sports Media Watch report, Marvin Harrison, Michael Vick, Randy Moss, and of course Brown- what is the trend? You guessed it: each is black. Which leads me to the other example given in that report.

What is the incident that ESPN cites as its precedent for self-censorship? The (eventually proven untrue) allegations that Brett Favre revealed secrets of the Green Bay offense to opponents last year. The network cited its reason for not reporting the story was that sources knew it to be untrue. But I think you can notice a difference between Favre and the rest.

Now, am I saying that ESPN has, whether it intends to or not, shown racial bias in its story selection? No. It could very well be matters of coincidence and circumstance.

However, as a journalism student at what many consider to be a fairly reputable journalism school, I don’t think ESPN’s decision to not cover a newsworthy event of a public figure when it has done so in nearly identical cases in the past, within the month no less!, would pass a test in JOUR 412, Ethics of Communication.

What does surprise me is that there hasn’t been more discussion of this across Twitter and the social media sphere. It’s been covered pretty well by sports bloggers, and maybe I’m just not following the right people, but if the rest of the general population really catches wind of the story, I can’t help but feel that ESPN will be forced to give a little better explanation than they’ve provided thus far.

I feel they already owe their audience and explanation, but I’m not planning on holding my breath waiting for it.

Let me know your thoughts. Do you think ESPN acted justly in trying to defend Big Ben’s reputation? Or did they break some ethical boundaries by having an inconsistent policy?