Introduction
While objectivity is widely regarded as a journalist’s quintessential skill, the quick judgements reporters and editors have to make amidst chaotic situations are equally as important. Throughout history, journalists have been faced with a wide variety of ethical dilemmas, jeopardizing not only their own credibility, but that of the outlet they work for as well. Given the scrutiny that today’s press is under, it is as important now as ever for journalists to be thorough and diligent.
In the past, journalists have faced issues surrounding conflicts of interest and anonymous sources, among others. One of the lesser-talked-about issues, however, is privacy, which is a prominent topic today due to the accessibility of personal information on the internet and social media. Public records and personal information have never been easier to obtain, coming at the expense of private citizens who wish to remain just that.
A fan’s involvement in a 2003 Chicago Cubs playoff game sets the stage for one of the more critical ethical dilemmas a journalist has faced with regard to privacy:
In Game 6 of the National League Championship Series against the Florida Marlins, the Cubs were 5 outs away from advancing to the World Series—something they hadn’t won since 1908.
Wrigley Field had an October buzz to it. Fans from the longest-lasting franchise stood during every pitch, hoping it would bring them closer to ending history’s longest World Series drought.
With one out in the eighth inning, Marlins slugger Luis Castillo popped a ball into shallow left field in foul territory. Cubs left fielder Moises Alou raced over to catch it, but couldn’t because 26-year-old Cubs fan Steve Bartman reached out in an attempt to grab the ball, prolonging Castillo’s at-bat and eventually the game. Bartman was immediately ejected from the stadium, while Cubs fans both yelled and threw things him. The Marlins went on to take both games 6 and 7, advancing to the World Series and extending Chicago’s World Series dry spell.
Cubs fans longed for a championship for nearly a century, only to have it dashed by a fan sitting in the front row. Bartman’s Cubs hat, glasses and headphones personify one of the most infamous sports fans in history.
Would Alou have caught the ball had Bartman not interfered? Would the Cubs have advanced to the World Series had Bartman not interfered?
While the world will never know the answer to either question, any Cubs fan would unequivocally answer yes to both.
The Dilemma
Despite Bartman’s face going viral in nearly every replay of the incident, he remained anonymous until the Chicago Sun-Times revealed his name, age, employer and town he lived. While an athlete or manager usually takes the blame for a loss, Bartman’s case marks one of the only times a fan took the blow. Despite the fact that the Cubs gave up eight runs in that same 8th inning, Bartman was considered the Marlins’ catalyst.
While fans argued over the integrity of the victory, the controversy lies in the Sun-Times’ decision to go public with Bartman’s information was really where the controversy lies.
Bartman’s mailbox was immediately flooded with death threats and hate mail. While not necessarily intentionally, they turned a normal young man into one of the more ridiculed figures in sports history.
There are a lot of reasons why the incident was so important and even warranted the discussion as to whether Bartman’s name should be included in a news article. First, the Cubs are Major League Baseball’s longest lasting franchise, and up to 2003 hadn’t won a World Series since 1908, leaving generations of frustrated Cubs fans anxious. Second, and more importantly, the Cubs ended up losing the series. Had the Cubs won the NLCS, the Steve Bartman incident is either laughed about or forgotten. However, the Cubs’ loss made the incident not just memorable, but scapegoated Bartman in the process.
An avid Cubs fan and youth baseball coach himself, it was clear that Bartman felt tremendous sympathy for what he had done. He issued a written apology days after the incident, stating, “I am so truly sorry from the bottom of this Cub fan’s broken heart...I ask that Cub fans everywhere redirect the negative energy that has been vented towards my family, my friends, and myself into the usual positive support for our beloved team on their way to being National League champs.”
Following the Sun-Times article, the Chicago Tribune immediately ridiculed their competitor’s decision to go public with Bartman’s information. They posed a list of questions that they considered when deciding whether to expose Bartman, and further explained why they decided not to. Their questions are as follows:
Do we publish the name and photo of this person and expose him to harm from irrational fans? What journalistic purpose is served by identifying him? Does it outweigh the potential harm?
In defense of his story, Sun-Times reporter Frank Main explained his decision: “He was at the center of a national news story and there was no legal or moral problem in naming him. We did not think there was a serious possibility of his being assassinated by fans. We decided to go with the story and tell readers what we knew.”
While one of the first things a journalist learns is to seek truth and report it, that comes with a caveat. It is evident from Main’s statement that the Sun-Times underestimated not only the magnitude of the story, but the potential harm placed upon Bartman.
Bob Steele, head of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, offered this critical analysis of the Sun-Times’ article in 2003: “It’s not a matter of simply getting the facts right. Our professionalism demands that we balance legitimate news value against the potentially harmful consequences of our coverage. That’s what good ethical decision-making is all about.”
Steele’s statement articulates the tough decision journalists are forced with making in situations like these. Just as much as it is a journalist’s job to be as accurate and specific as possible, they are equally responsible for making difficult ethical decisions. In this case, the Sun-Times made an ethical decision to reveal Steve Bartman’s identity.
In addition, the contrasting decisions between the Sun-Times and the Tribune shed light on reporting’s inherent subjectivity. While the facts of the story are objective, a reporter or editor’s decision regarding which facts to include is completely subjective.
Former Sun-Times editor-in-chief Michael Cooke defended his paper’s decision, providing an interesting take on why Bartman’s name needed to be in the article. “He’ll probably wind up with a book deal and a Visa ad. Do people really think history owes him anonymity?” Cooke said.
The second sentence of Cooke’s statement is provocative because it begs an interesting question: At what magnitude does a subject’s privacy become irrelevant?
Though Bartman did not rise to prominence intentionally, he became infamous nonetheless. Should journalists not have identified one of the most talked about figures in America? Should his infamy have any effect on whether or not he is identified?
While there are many different arguments for why his identity should or shouldn’t have been revealed, Bartman’s case offers a prime example of journalistic discretion and when private lives should or should not become public.