COMM 431, Mass Media Ethics
Case study: The Cubs baseball fan

Many of you who follow professional baseball are aware of the controversy over actions of a Chicago Cubs baseball fan who during the World Series playoffs (2003) leaned over the railing to catch a foul ball that likely would have been caught by a Cubs player. This critical play, some people believe, allowed the Cub's opponents, the Marlins, to get a chance to score, and win the game. Losing the next game, the Cubs were eliminated from World Series competition. Cubs fans were enraged, and the ball-catching fan was escorted from the stadium by police for his own safety.

The next day, the Chicago Sun-Times reported the fan's name, address, telephone number, place of work, and even university education.

Ethical question: Should the media have disclosed this information, or should they have maintained the fan's confidentiality?

Below are a series of comments from "journet," a journalism Listserv, giving differing perspectives on the case.

Well, the Cubbies may have failed fans once again, but in doing so have presented us with a great little discussion on ethics. My students actually broached the subject first Wednesday of the Sun-Times' decision to disclose
the name, address, workplace, etc. of the fan who interfered with a play in Tuesday's game. For those of you who aren't baseball fans, this young man is quite possibly the most hated person in Chicago currently, and he had to be
escorted out under security from Wrigley Field to protect him. My students wanted to know why the newspaper named him, should they have done it, etc. I guess it's a situation they can relate to.

Here is a link to the Editor & Publisher article on the Sun-Times' decision:
http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vn
u_content_id=2003692

--Jane Gibson Natt
Assistant Professor
Department of Communication
Purdue University

In my less rational moments, Tuesday evening, while I was screaming like a banshee at my TV screen during that fateful 8th inning, I wanted the name of that man and his address. Mob mentality is a powerful thing. Would I, as an editor and rational human being, have protected that fan's identity? I sure like to think so. A day later, I have nothing but fear for that man's safety.

COULD I as an editor, pressured by the momentum and competition from other media outlets all rushing to name names, have resisted? I just do not know. If the publisher calls and says he wants that name and face above the fold on the front page, all bets are off.

--Gita Smith
Instructor
Auburn University

Was there any genuine sign that his name could have been (or would have been) held in secrecy had the newspaper not published it? Those who are wringing their hands and being dramatic about this aren't applying any real world test to the situation. Everyone in Chicago who wanted to know would have known in a matter of hours if not a day or two. Perhaps we should schedule seminars on this. Scholars might want to present position papers. Some bona fide political correctness zealots might want to figure out ways to work this kind of journalism into the journalists "do not list."

-- Ronald C. Roat, Associate Professor/Coordinator
Online/Print Journalism
University of Southern Indiana

Bill, How does attempting to catch a foul ball at a baseball game count as "thrusting yourself to the forefront of a particular public controversy to influence a resolution of the issues involved."

Ron,
Sorry, I dont think this is a very good joke. Telling reporters not to report some kinds of names it is the logical outcome of bedrock ethical concerns. Victims of crime and witnesses to crimes simply should not be exposed to publicity. And there are other things on that long list, like not informing immediate relatives of deaths in the family. So I hate to hear legitimate concern for private people miscast as zealotry. I'm sure you would agree.

But let's be clear about this. The recently famous Steve Bartman is not a victim, he's a public figure, even though he may not want to be. In Gertz v Welch you find: "... Those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved... They
invite attention and comment." So if Bartman voluntarily thrust himself to the forefront and influenced the resolution of a public issue, he is a public figure.

--Bill Kovarik

He didn't just "catch a foul ball," he potentially altered the outcome of the game. He shifted from being a spectator to being a participant. That makes him news.

--Barry Hollander
Grady College of Journalism
and Mass Communication
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602

I'm sorry, Bill, but I continue to see the humorous side of this. It's humorous enough to be tragic. I've consistently argued on the side of printing things and believe--oh, here comes the ugly stuff--that when we indulge in long discussions about keeping material out of the newspaper that we should close up shop and go into public relations instead. The burden of proof ought to be in the laps of those who want things withheld, and there should be good reasons to do so. In this case, we have a fan who made a decision to try to catch the ball. He became news instantly.
 
--Ronald C. Roat, Associate Professor/Coordinator
Online/Print Journalism
University of Southern Indiana

If you look at the photo at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/cubfan1.html you'll see he is leaning forward with his hands over the rail. It seems like a rather perfect example of "thrusting yourself to the forefront" and becoming a public figure as the Gertz case defined it.
Thanks.

--Bill Kovarik

I agree that he's news. He's a public figure. No question.

I disagree with the idea that there is nothing that should be kept out of a newspaper. It's not public relations to protect the identities of rape victims. Its sensible to withhold the identities of people until their next of kin can be notified by the police. Those people need help to get through the immediate shock of grief. Its common sense, not public relations, to avoid reporting the names of witnesses to crimes when those people stand to be killed by the criminals who are out on bail.

Sure, as you say, the burden is on the courts and law enforcement to keep names withheld. But lets face it, we deal with many police officers who are just dumber than bags of hammers. Seriously. Our college educated students should have some regard for the impact of their work, especially when police make mistakes and release victim and witness names out of just simple stupidity. (The Kobe Bryant case is an example). Then sometimes, as in rape trials or incident reports, the names of the victims are there for anyone on the police beat or in the courtroom to hear.
Cox v. Cohn and Smith v. Daily Mail are cases where state laws against media disclosures have been struck down. But my point is that this places a heavy ethical burden on reporters to make these decisions for themselves.
Ethical reporters should know where the public interest stops and how to avoid hurting private people.

One final point: the SPJ ethics code has a section entitled "minimize harm."
Among other things, it says journalists should:
-- Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage.
-- Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
-- Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
-- Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

So do you think we need to reconsider this? Anyway, Ive indulged in my long discussion long enough. Ron, thanks for giving me a chance to preach to the choir.
--Bill Kovarik

Bill, I said nothing about rape victims. I didn't mention the host of exceptions you so clearly offer, though we would still disagree over half of them. They were not the issue here. What I see, however, is a knee-jerk reaction to issues like the baseball fan. In 2003 we automatically fall into the sensitivity mode and agonize whether someone's feelings will get hurt. The initial reaction on this list was something like, "Oh, golly gosh, I certainly wouldn't want to print his name in MY newspaper because his feelings would get hurt and mean people might be able to find him." It was an automatic response for them. Frankly, news executives whose default decision is to keep something out of the newspaper ought to move swiftly into public relations where the money is better, the hours are great, and containment of news content is the mission, not a dramatic catastrophe. I admit I took this issue to an intro to two mass communication classes in the last couple of hours. Seemed like a good opportunity for a real discussion. I presented the sensitive side first and asked for a reaction. I got it; everyone seems to have an opinion on this. The students pretty much agreed with the initial respondents this morning.

They said things like it was "insensitive" or "mean" to put him in the paper. Then I presented my point of view and got another reaction. You're right. If left to the public, these people would withhold the fan's name. In fact, they wouldn't put a lot of things into the paper if it was their decision. In general they believe no one's name should be in the paper for any reason without their permission. That's the next step, you know. I'm glad most of them are business, education, public relations, or advertising students.

--Ronald C. Roat, Associate Professor/Coordinator, Online/Print Journalism
University of Southern Indiana