Is it ethical for the media (TMZ) to pay for leaked footage ?
According to Front Office Sports, TMZ paid an estimated $120,000. for the leaked footage of the incident with Draymond Green and Jordan Poole.
The Golden State Warriors have announced that they have launched an investigation to see which one of their employees were responsible for the leak.
On Facebook I posted this screenshot that included my response to a tweet from Lethal Shooter
And me and David Aldridge had a back in forth over my characterization of the media. In the comment section he wrote,
“Just curious: what evidence do you have that "media" pay teams and/or team employees for information?”
Which I replied
“I did lump in TMZ and supermarket tabloid media into the big bucket of media. But they are the media and every media outlet picked up their story on Draymond but to answer your qst, my eyes are the evidence that they have paid team employees etc for info. I first saw that my two years in the league with MJ. It happens quite a bit as it happened here”
To which he replied
“ I can't and won't go back and forth with you on this, but by definition, no one in the "media" as I define that term-and, I think I have some standing here-pays for information. This is part of the problem, when entities like TMZ, Fox News, etc., are just called "media" and people think everyone in my profession does what they do. That's the same BS you'd call out if someone made some blanket statement like "NBA players are bad fathers" – which SI did back in the day, and for which SI was rightly, and roundly, criticized.”
To which I replied
“I would have to respectfully disagree. TMZ, Supermarket Tabloids etc are in fact a part of the media whether you wanna claim them or not. I get why you don’t but they still are. Now, I didn’t say all media I didn’t say most media I said many times the media and that statement is 100% accurate because they (TMZ and those of their ilk) do this all the time. Respectfully, All media isn’t good media. But it is interesting that I haven’t heard any good media condemning TMZ either.”
I have the utmost respect for David Aldridge, his body of work, his ethics, and him as a person. I actually interviewed him for my Fatherhood Book back in 2013
https://a.co/d/3oYaKAD
I had a great debate with him and Marc Spears of ESPN on the Old Media Vs New Media debate.
But on this topic we have differing perspectives. Our Facebook exchange prompted me to reach out to two more men in the media who I have a great deal of respect for to further delve into this topic. Howard Bryant of ESPN and Michael Lee of the Washington Post
Howard Bryant:
Etan: Do you think it’s ethical for TMZ, supermarket tabloids etc as members of the media to pay an employee for pictures or video or leaked footage etc in your opinion
Bryant: So let’s break this down. The word “media” covers a lot of ground. In the current world of social media, podcasts, of athletes executive producing documentaries, etc, media and journalism are not always the same thing. So to address your specific question, is it ethical to pay for material. Well, in traditional journalism, the answer is no. However, is it a practice that is a common practice ? Sure. When Jackie Robinson retired in 1956 he sold his story to Life Magazine for $5,000. Is it ethical for someone to pay for a leaked tape of a racist owner taking about Magic Johnson ? Is it ethical for someone to take a tape of something that doesn’t belong to them which I think is really the question so if you have a tape of the Golden State Warriors practice which is not yours even though they say possession is 9/10ths of the law, to go and take that info and profit off of it. So let’s break down the second piece of this.
Etan: Well, before you go there, I think everyone will agree on that part as far as the employee of the warriors selling the info to TMZ, but I’m not quite asking about from the employee’s standpoint, but more from the media outlet standpoint
Bryant: So from the media outlet standpoint, yes it’s news. And it depends on your polices and that’s the difference between what we would call “reputable” media and “tabloid” media. The tabloid media have always paid for information. If you go back and look at the British tabloids, that’s all they do, that’s why they call them “poporazzi” If you can snap me a picture of X athlete, I got $20 for you. If you can snap me a picture of X athlete and his family, I got $50 for you. If you can snap me a picture of X athlete and his mistress, I got $1,000 for you. They have been doing this forever. But for traditional, reputable, journalism, the answer was always no. We don’t do that period.
Etan: So you’re saying there is absolutely no crossover of this practice into the reputable journalism
Bryant: Well, what we are seeing now especially in the age of documentary, everyone wants to get paid to talk. So the money piece of the journalism is becoming a greater and greater piece of the reputable journalism and this disreputable piece has become even bigger because the celebrity side of it is becoming more and more important.
So if you’re TMZ right now, is it reputable ? Probably not. But on the other hand, as these other sides become more and more powerful, would TMZ be doing the people somewhat of a service ? However they obtained their information ? Is it important for the public to know what happened ? Absolutely
Etan: So you’re saying the ends justify the means
Bryant: I don’t know, I’m saying that is the quandary. Do you feel it’s valuable journalism ? Does the public need to know that Donald Trump said what he said on the Access Hollywood tape ? Is that piece of information valuable to the public ? Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes it’s no. Is it important for us to hear what Donald Sterling said ? That was the smoking gun that led to him being forced to sell the team. It literally changed the history of the NBA. So was it valuable ? Yes. Would I have paid for it ? No I wouldn’t, but was it important ? Sometimes that trash journalism that people have decried for a long time actually produces valuable information.
The question is, how do we sit with that practice. Which i believe is your question. We would like to think that we take the improper obtaining of the information and we do proper things with it ? Or do we just sink deeper into the gutter ?
Etan: Right. So the question then becomes. When does all of those involved become part of this improper or disreputable equation ? And how can you separate TMZ and those of that ilk from the traditional, reputable media, if the traditional media is complacent and find the value in what is produced from the disreputable media ? Does that make sense what I’m saying
Bryant: Makes perfect sense. And that again is the quandary. But let me answer the first part then we’ll get to the 2nd part of your question. It’s tough to just say the media, the media, the media. It drives me crazy when athletes say that, because I’m like y’all are talking about yourselves too
Etan: Of course, but and this is what so many are pushing for the police to do with the so called “bad apples” although I don’t agree with that theory it’s more of a bad system but that’s a whole nother discusion, but who better to criticize and hold the entire entity of the media accountable than someone from within ? I’m a part of the media now.
Bryant: Are you a journalist ?
Etan: Yes I am
Bryant: Then the standards have to apply to you as well right ?
Etan: Definitely, but I also feel that I am in the position where I can criticize from both sides having been a player and seeing a lot of what I don’t like in the media and becoming a part of it, attempting to do things differently and having the journalistic integrity to call out what I see as going against reputable media. So if I see someone like a TMZ and I say I have seen the media do this too often…..
Bryant: I hear you but I would still make a distinction between Tabloid journalism and our reputable journalism because we don’t all operate the same way
Etan: And I get that, but I will say that after TMZ did obtain this info, every media outlet whether reputable or not did report from that information thus becoming part of the equation. So if you are not condemning the practice then the only possible conclusion or connection is that you are complicit, excusing, and/or in support of it right ?
Bryant: I hear you but it’s what you do with the information and how you use it. If you see the information of Ray Rice slugging his girlfriend in an elevator, that information that you obtained from TMZ or whoever, you then apply ethical journalistic standards to following the rest of that information. Your issue, is more of the process of tabloid journalism and not of the media as a whole in and of itself, and I get that, but we have to ask ourselves, is this information important for the public to have, and in many times it is. Not always, but many times it is, and I think that’s the difference. Was it in the public’s interest to know the details of what was in the Pentagon papers ? 100% yes. Is it in the public interest to know what Ime Udoka is doing in his private life ? Not really. I don’t think so. So there’s a thin line. If the people in power are lying to you, the entire dynamic changes. Whether those people are an NBA organization, an administration in the White House, the police, a company, a business, it does change things. So yea it depends.
Etan: Are you at all surprised that you don’t hear some of the reputable media outlets or journalists condemning the TMZ’s of the world or the supermarket tabloids that pay for stories and leaked footage and pictures etc ?
Bryant: No, not at all. But everyone has to understand, this has been going on for 100 years. So I think what it comes down to, that the instructions have decided, and we went through this in journalism school, that there are different layers to doing this job, and we’re going to let the public decide who you trust.
But that’s why this job requires ethics. That’s why this job is really, really important and shouldn’t be taken lightly. The media has the goal of obtaining the truth so you can allow the people who are sitting at home or listening to your podcast or reading your books to give them the chance to understand and make the discussions for themselves. And the other piece of this that we know is the institutions always lie to the people. So sometimes these things provide the counter. It’s not my practice but I can’t lie and say I don’t see the value in some instances of the practice.
Etan: Hmmmmmmm
Bryant: But I do get your point. But let me add this, an even bigger problem is when the reputable guys like us, think that we’re better than everyone else and when we fall down then it provides the opportunity for anyone to say well they’re all the same. When you have a reputable outlet trading access for information or the practice of withholding information from the public so someone can make money off of a book, and you hold all that information across a presidential election, and you know what I’m talking about, that gives us more of a bad name than the TMZ’s and supermarket press although I understand your overall point. But an argument could me made that that’s also unethical and putting yourself ahead of the public. So that’s why it’s up to us to make sure that we are walking the walk.
Etan: That makes sense
Bryant: Listen Etan, i’ve known you for a long time and have read your work for a long time and I appreciate the fact that you are trying to hold the media accountable because the fact of the matter is, if we reputable media start doing unethical things like the tabloid media, then it is all the same and your point holds. So yes, I appreciate you in this space.
Etan: Well, I appreciate you too and that’s why I wanted to reach out to you for this discussion. Very good breakdown, I appreciate you taking the time sir
Bryant: Anytime Etan. This was a great discussion
