When I was interviewing for this job last October, my editor
presented me with a judgment call. During a Gilroy High girls’
water polo match, a member of the opponents’ team had, after
getting ejected by the official, screamed at one of the Mustang
players,
”
I’m gonna kill you!
”
When I was interviewing for this job last October, my editor presented me with a judgment call. During a Gilroy High girls’ water polo match, a member of the opponents’ team had, after getting ejected by the official, screamed at one of the Mustang players, “I’m gonna kill you!”
What my editor wanted to know was whether I would a) have mentioned the incident in the story about the game, and b) if so, would I have named the individual who made the threat.
My instinct was to say yes to a) and no to b).
I obviously got the job, but I’m not sure if that was the answer he wanted.
The question is, at what age and under what circumstances do we start calling athletes out by name in the paper for their mistakes in public? Clearly, we’re not going to print the name of six-year-old Johnny when he throws a tantrum during T-ball. Just as clearly, we are going to print the name of … oh, I don’t know … 31-year-old Terrell Owens when he acts like an arrogant jerk in public for the umpteenth time.
It’s a pretty easy call to say that six-year-olds don’t deserve to be shamed in the press, while 31-year-olds ought to be held accountable for their words and deeds.
But when does the six-year-old athlete become the 31-year-old in terms of public accountability? At 18, the age of legal adulthood? When he or she first puts on a high school uniform? Maybe when he or she first puts on a varsity uniform?
Do the circumstances of the offense matter? Should a kid have her name printed in the paper when she’s declared academically ineligible to play sports? How about for getting caught violating the school’s drug policy? How about for burning down the school?
Actually, the law prevents newspapers from running the names of kids arrested for and even convicted of crimes without the juvenile’s consent to have their name published. So while we could run the name of the kid who got bad grades or shouted, “I’m gonna kill you!”, we couldn’t run the name of the kid who actually did kill someone.
Isn’t there something odd about that?
So far, I’ve asked a lot of questions. Before I get to some more, let me admit my own biases in this matter – one’s 5 and the other’s 4. As a father, I hold my boys accountable for their actions in the home. Outside the house, it’s different. I’ll take the heat for them when they mess up in public – that’s a parent’s job.
Taking the heat is part of a coach’s job, too. Nine times out of 10, when an athlete at the high school level messes up, the purpose of addressing the mess-up in the paper is served by taking the coach to task.
Another bias I have is that I grew up in a big city. At my high school, athletes had the responsibility of representing their school. Here in Gilroy, athletes have the additional responsibility of representing an entire community. So by accepting a Gilroy High uniform, the athletes in this town do accept a greater degree of responsibility for their actions then athletes did where I grew up.
If you accept greater responsibility, you accept greater scrutiny of your actions.
Speaking of responsibility, a newspaper’s responsibility isn’t just to report news. It’s also to act as a public watchdog – and yes, to threaten public shame for those who act stupidly, cruelly or selfishly in the public square.
Don’t want to be branded in the paper as an abusive hothead? Don’t scream, “I’m gonna kill you!” at a water polo match.
Still, if Nathaniel Hawthorne taught us anything, it’s that pinning scarlet letters on people is a dangerous game – particularly when we’re pinning them on the weakest amongst us.
Or the youngest.
I’ve been going around in circles on this for a while, so here’s my final take. I don’t think high school kids who get kicked off teams for grades ought to be named in the paper under any circumstances. I think high school athletes who make threats at games, scream obscenities or otherwise show dismal sportsmanship ought to be named in some circumstances but not all.
Final question: What do you think?
