Don't Shoot The Messenger ...simply because the message was delayed
For the past week, the media has been riled up by news of the sexual abuse allegations against Syracuse University assistant coach Bernie Fine. ESPN, who broke this story on November 17th, has been under the spotlight for its coverage decisions, since the network apparently knew of the matter for quite a while now but kept it under wraps. Bob Davis, the possible victim of sexual abuse in this case, claims he approached ESPN and the Syracuse-Post Standard in 2003 with his story. Having already being shunned by Syracuse police owing to the statute of limitations and Syracuse University due to lack of “corroboration of the allegations,” it is not unusual that he turned to the press. More interestingly, it has come out that he presented ESPN and the Syracuse-Post Standard with a surreptitiously taped conversation he had with Bernie Fine’s wife, Laurie, wherein she admits knowing about the claimed abuse and expresses feelings of anger and remorse. Why did ESPN wait so long to report this story? Why did it take another 10 days for the tape to come out? Should ESPN have gone to the police with their information? These are the questions media critics have been asking for several days now, and ESPN network executives have provided their own defenses against each. However, going beyond an individual television network’s journalistic practices, I think this case warrants a reinvestigation of the press as the ‘Fourth Estate’ altogether. In this game of informational censorship and freedom, we have to ask: Do we see investigative reporting as a tool for justice or just scandal?
The conversation tape, referred to as “damning” by ESPN execs, has definitely been en explosive point in this controversy, held directly responsible for Fine’s firing from his assistant coach position by some. Laurie Fine clearly accepts awareness of Bernie Fine’s potential actions and attraction towards men in it, thus making this tape crucial testament in the case. So, you have to wonder, did Bob Davis make the police or the university aware of this tape before taking it to ESPN? Yes, ESPN could have enforced a lot of impact with the tape had they chosen to release it 8 years ago, but law authorities or university officials could have obviously done much more. Why then is there no evidence that Davis tried to get the people in-charge to hear the tape? Wouldn’t it have provided the “corroboration” that the university claims Davis’ story lacked? Maybe not. Shocking as it was, the conversation fell short of one thing: hard facts. At no point in the tape does Laurie fine claim that she saw any sexual abuse first-hand or that her husband confessed to the behavior that he is being accused of. Moreover, Laurie Fine has herself gone on record to state that only portions of this tape were true. This then clearly elucidates why Davis may have been hesitant in taking the tape to the police or the university. In terms of the law, it may not have been a very reliable source. However, reliability has a different definition in the context of the press, a rather ambiguous one. And we, as the audience, are so accustomed to this that we almost expect the media to pass on all content to us without any filters. Hence the overload of blogs and debates and articles and op-ed pieces that criticize ESPN for keeping the tape from the public, even though ESPN’s only real fault may be that they were overly careful.
But then, we aren’t really into ‘too much care’ anymore are we? We want every story when it is sizzling hot - within hours, minutes, seconds. Background research is too cumbersome a process for a 24-hour news cycle. And waiting for corroboration? Pfff! In the idea that long trials and caution is the work of the judge, the jury and the law, not the media, we forget that the fourth estate is uniquely capable of executing discussion and action in the public sphere, the way the other estates are not. We forget that investigative reporters shoulder a big responsibility - one that places them almost on the pedestal of lawyers or policemen. Considering its power over public opinion, the media must be thoroughly convinced of the credibility of the content it releases. But that takes too much time - the story is stale, the matter is irrelevant.
It is this state of affairs that gives people like Bob Davis the confidence to approach the media with content that they may not necessarily present to the police or other authorities. In the case of genuine victims, this freedom can be seen as a great tool of democracy and aid to the public voice. In other cases, it merely feeds an appetite for scandal. Bob Davis’ tape may have helped bring much-deserved justice to long-time victims or it may have merely tarnished a man’s long-standing respectful career - the jury is still out on that one. In the meanwhile, don’t hang a news organization by the neck just because it didn’t jump on the first opportunity to break a scandalous story. We all love watching conflict, we all love the Big Bad Guy being served a pie of punishment, but let’s not bring down a pillar of democracy in our thirst for immediacy. Some have questioned ESPN’s loyalties, and that’s a whole other issue altogether. You have every right to be for or against the network’s decision. I am just saying that don’t simply base your opinion on the fact that you’re taken aback by an 8-year timeline in our 8-minute news age.