ESPN has violated its policy against reporting on civil suits involving athletes.
NFL star Marvin Harrison has been sued for allegedly shooting a man in 2008. The civil suit was reported by ESPN.com in a lengthy article by ESPN the Magazine writer Shaun Assael.
This comes one week after ESPN refused to cover a civil suit against the Steelers’ Ben Roethlisberger for nearly two days, citing a policy against reporting on civil suits involving athletes.
ESPN apparently allows for some deviation from this policy. For example, ESPN justified its coverage of a civil suit involving Shannon Brown because a police report was filed in that case (the police “fully investigated” those claims in 24-48 hours, and the D.A. declined to pursue the matter further).
It should be pointed out that the Harrison suit is related to a case last year where Harrison was accused of shooting another man. The man currently suing Harrison — Robert Nixon — alleges that he was caught in the crossfire of that shooting.
The initial shooting did not result in criminal charges “because the case was steeped in conflicting witness accounts.” In particular, Nixon “admitted that he had fabricated many of the details” when talking to police about the incident.
It is unknown whether these new allegations against Harrison will result in the Philadelphia District Attorney “[reconsidering] opening the case.”
With this in mind, what makes the Harrison case different from the Roethlisberger case? Or, more importantly, what makes the Roethlisberger case different from those of Harrison, Brown, or the other athletes who have had their civil cases reported by ESPN?
ESPN’s John Walsh spoke to The Dan Patrick Show last week, and tried to explain ESPN’s policy on civil cases.
What happens here, is that we have had a history of civil lawsuits … where there have been athletes who have been involved and charged in civil lawsuits, and the civil lawsuits have been dropped, and the reputation of the athlete for a period of time has been, to a certain extent, sullied, and so what we’ve done is say that we would like to have more of a position on this where there is a news hook or some acknowledgement — a news event that prompts us to cover it.
There are currently no charges against Harrison. The Philadelphia D.A. previously “left open the possibility that Harrison could face charges, pending the outcome” of a civil suit by the first man Harrison allegedly shot. However, with Harrison not facing any charges, it would not appear as if there is a criminal ‘hook’ to this story.
However, as was shown with Brown, even the smallest police involvement is apparently justification for the story to be reported.
ESPN also says it reports on civil cases when they could affect the performance of the player or team. With Brown, the justification was that he was playing for a Laker team on the verge of the NBA Finals. Such justification does not make sense with Harrison, as he is not only in the middle of his league’s offseason, but is a free agent as well.
Another factor is whether the allegations will harm the player’s reputation, taking into account their previous track record. This was the justification for ESPN reporting on civil suits involving Adam Jones. By contrast, Harrison had a generally spotless reputation before the first shooting incident — which, as mentioned before, has not yet resulted in any charges.
So why cover the Harrison suit, only a week after publicly refusing to cover the Roethlisberger suit? And why cover the Harrison suit in such detail? Not only did ESPN use one of its own reporters to cover the story — as opposed to using an Associated Press report in the Roethlisberger case — but other outlets, including the Associated Press and FOXSports.com, had not even reported on the suit as of Monday night.
Why would ESPN hold back with Roethlisberger and rush to be first with Harrison? With Roethlisberger, ESPN did not report on the civil suit until news broke that there would be “no criminal investigation into the allegations.” Why not wait until the Philadelphia D.A. decides whether or not to launch a criminal investigation?
ESPN appears to have different standards for different athletes. And it begs the question — are some athletes protected? Are other athletes targeted? And why would a news organization have standards so vague that its motives could be easily questioned?
