Nov. 20, 2010
What’s your problem?
Deadspin website editor A.J. Daulerio paid an unnamed person an undisclosed amount of money to receive materials connecting Minnesota Vikings quarterback Brett Favre to former New York Jets game day hostess Jenn Sterger. The materials included voicemails allegedly left on Sterger’s cell phone, which Favre has since confirmed, and a picture of male genitalia allegedly sent from Favre to Sterger.
-Sportsjournalism.org
Why not rules?
One of the most basic ethical standards of journalism is to never accept money for a story nor pay money for a story. In fact, at most news organizations, it’s against company policy. This is obviously not the case at Deadspin.
Deadspin is a sports website that is owned by Gawker Media. Its mission statement is to deliver sports “without access, favor or discretion.” The site is satirical and often pokes fun at mainstream sports media coverage. You would not generally see a serious news organization pay for information, but I honestly was not that surprised when I found out that the editor-in-chief of Deadspin did. Even though Deadspin broke the news about the Favre-Sterger scandal, it would probably have been leaked to the press. It was not absolutely necessary to lower ethical standards and pay for the information.
Who wins, who loses?
Daulerio clearly wins. His website breaks one of the biggest scandals of the year and started one of the biggest media storms the NFL has ever seen. He does not see his actions as an ethical loss because he says he has “no regrets” about doing what he did. As a result of Daulerio’s payment for information, Brett Favre and his family obviously lose. His family man reputation is ruined and possibly his marriage and career. In addition, the NFL loses.
The scandal caused a media frenzy and had most people talking about Favre’s cell phone activity rather than what the NFL is about at the most basic level: football. Lastly, football fans, depending on who you ask, could win and/or lose. If you’re a Jets fan, the last thing you want is a quarterback in the middle of a hurricane of rumors and distractions. If you’re not a Jets fan, you might be less concerned about Favre’s extracurricular activities.
All of the aforementioned “winners” and “losers” are part of the aftermath of the scandal, but who really won or lost when Daulerio decided to compromise his journalistic ethics and pay for inside information? Other journalists did. His actions make the entire industry look bad to an already distrusting public.
What’s it worth?
If you’re Daulerio, it’s obviously worth sacrificing your credibility and ethics by paying to get the story. His actions didn’t involve bending ethical standards; they were an outright violation of a journalism no-no.
Journalists are faced with ethical dilemmas almost every day of their career. Those dilemmas often times blur the lines between what you can do and what you should do. Luckily for most journalists, their organization has a code of ethics or company policy they must follow.
I was unable to find a code of ethics on Deadspin’s website and Daulerio has yet to mention that he violated any such code. Since Daulerio violated no set company code, the decision was made based on his own personal code of ethics. The question a journalist in his situation or a similar situation would have to answer is whether or not the story was worth violating not only traditional media ethics, but also personal ethics to obtain.
Who’s whispering in your ear?
Your conscious is whispering in your own ear on this one. Daulerio is the editor-in-chief of Deadspin, so he is pretty much the boss. I believe it’s more of a good angel versus bad angel fight. Your good angel is telling you that paying for information is bad, and your bad angel is telling you to hand over the envelope of cash, because it’s going to quadruple your website traffic and cement your name in sports scandal history.
How’s your decision going to look?
The answer to this question really depends on who you ask. I think it’s fair to say that a good portion of the public probably doesn’t even know that Daulerio paid for the information or that the story even originated on Deadspin. Even if they do, the scandal and its implications might outweigh how the information was obtained. The decision to pay for information for a story might look horrible to other journalists. However, other professionals would argue that Deadspin and its writers are in a different business with different means of serving an audience.
My decision
I don’t think I could ever let myself pay for information for a story, especially not voicemails that linked an NFL quarterback to a hostess. If Sterger was sexually harassed, the information would more than likely make it to the press. This is especially true because Sterger herself was one of Daulerio’s sources.
I do not believe I could absolutely abandon my ethical boundaries just so I could break the story. Deadspin, however, operates largely on stories like Favre’s “sexting” scandal. It is not consider a traditional media organization and does not operate under traditional media practices. Paying for information or not paying for information is somewhat of a cut and dry situation. Journalists sometimes must decide if they are going to lie or bend the truth to obtain a story, which is a blurry area. If you ask a journalist whether or not he or she would pay for a story, you’re more than likely to get a clearer answer.
Originally when I decided to write about this situation I thought I was going to be answering the question of whether or not I would pay for information, but I don’t think that is the most important ethical question here. The more important question: How will traditional media ethics sustain themselves in an emerging digital news age?
— By Lindsey Shelton