Leach, Tech Shanghaied by the Media

My wife and I were sitting at Dallas Love Field airport waiting for our flight back to Lubbock when I read the news on my Blackberry:  Coach Mike Leach had been suspended from the Alamo Bowl while the school investigates complaints from a player and his family about treatment of a player after an injury.  The news was the talk of the plane on the way back to Lubbock. But that was nothing compared to the firestorm after Texas Tech announced in an official statement two days later: “The best course of action for the university and its football program is to terminate its relationship with Head Football Coach Mike Leach with cause.”

While the firing and accusations surrounding it have reflected poorly on all parties involved, the media deserve their share of criticism. Coverage of the Mike Leach affair, particularly by ESPN, has been reprehensible and in the case of ESPN, highly unethical.  Journalism professor Joe Cutbirth’s widely cited article on Mike Leach coverage proclaimed “Leach Incident Shows ESPN Ethics Stink.” Indeed, as my friend and colleague Wayne  Wanta posted: “Is it just me, or are there about a million ethical problems with ESPN’s coverage of the firing of the Texas Tech football coach?”  Maybe not a million, but here are several:

*According to Mike Leach in an interview with the New York Times, Craig James, an ESPN analyst who filed the complaint against Leach for the alleged abusive treatment against his son, had contacted the team numerous times lobbying for more playing time for his son.  If these allegations are true (and they should be easy to verify—although I am not aware that anybody has attempted to verify them), then it would seem like a major violation of journalism ethics for a sports journalist to try to influence how a university runs its football program, particularly when he is doing so on behalf of his son.

*ESPN removed Craig James from its coverage of the Alamo Bowl after the  Leach story broke.  But didn’t ESPN consider it a conflict of interest having James cover his son in the first place?  Most media organizations do not allow people to cover stories in which they have even a hint of vested interest.  This case goes beyond the appearance of conflict of interest.

*While on the topic of conflicts of interest, although the suspension and firing of Mike Leach were legitimate news stories to cover, shouldn’t ESPN be obligated to mention their conflict of interest: This story centers on the son of one of their analysts and it was the analyst’s family that made the allegations against Mike Leach? Note: I am not faulting Craig James and his family for protesting the treatment of their son, but ESPN’s failure to discuss potential conflicts of interest.  As Cutbirth correctly notes: “Craig James has every right to be a pestering football dad, as obnoxious as that may be. However, if he wants to exercise that right, he owes it to his network and the reputations of other reporters who work there to move into a job that doesn’t have these ethical temptations or create the appearance of impropriety. News organizations routinely reassign reporters to avoid even slight impressions of conflict over work their family members do in government, business — even sports. Why was Craig James any different?”

*Why is ESPN stonewalling questions about Craig’s actions through announcements from corporate representatives?

*Why were ESPN broadcasters Mike Patrick and Bob Davie (Craig James’ replacement) allowed to spend so much time at the Alamo Bowl commenting on the firing and the facts of the case?  It seemed at times that the game (and a damn exciting game it was!) got in the way of their Mike Leach coverage. As CollegeFootballNews.com writer Matt Zemek noted: “A lot more will (and should) be written about ESPN’s disgraceful week-long performance, but the short story for now is that Patrick and Davie – in San Antonio to comment on a football GAME – should not have been allowed to say anything about the facts of the case. They had every right to comment on how Ruffin McNeill and the Tech players were affected by the firing of Mike Leach, but their constant and prolonged immersion in a story intimately linked to an ESPN employee was inappropriate by any reasonable measure.”

*If ESPN is going to cover a story  it is intimately involved with, doesn’t it least have an obligation to be fair?  You may disagree with me, but I think the coverage of the event was distinctly anti-Leach and the ESPN broadcasters acted as cheerleaders for their colleague.  For instance, here is a debate on First Take about the Mike Leach interview on ESPN. The debate presents both sides, but  the emotion is clearly on the anti-Mike Leach side.

While I have aimed my vitrol at ESPN, the rest of the media are hardly faultless.

1. Was Mike Leach’s treatment of Adam James an aberration or is Mike Leach a symptom of a much larger problem of coaches’ treatment toward players? I can’t answer this because I haven’t seen any media organization explore this question in depth, although I will give credit to Orlando Sentinel columnist Andrea Adelson for raising this issue.

1. There has been much more he/said, she/said coverage than attempts to unearth the truth in this whole incident. I saw a lot more “If what the University is saying is true” or “If what Mike Leach is saying is true” than any real attempts to find out what IS true.   For instance,  Mike Leach’s attorney released statements from  head trainer Steve Pinnock that allegedly contradicted statements made by player Adam James. Then the university released a signed affidavit from Pinnock that supposedly contradicted Leach.  While some outlets such as the Dallas Morning News (who I think has done the best job of covering the controversy) note the contradictions between the statements, I am still waiting for a story analyzing  the various statements to see whether Pinnock contradicted himself in the two statements and if so why the contradictions?  To what degree did Pinnock’s statements indeed contradict Leach’s or James’ statements?

I could go on, but I will stop here. I want to hear what you think of the coverage. Do you think media coverage of the Leach firing has been fair?  Am I too critical of media coverage?  Has ESPN been unethical in its coverage?  I ask that if you comment on this blog post that you comment on COVERAGE of the Leach firing rather than offer opinions on the firing itself.