The Jason Pierre-Paul vs. Adam Schefter/ESPN litigation proceedings that took place in the year 2015 provide a crucial case study that can be used to understand the media’s responsibility concerning private information. The case involved Pierre-Paul, a popular NFL player who had suffered an accident that led to the amputation of his index finger. Adam Schefter shared this private medical information although Pierre-Paul intended to keep it private. The court battle that followed between the two parties provides a rich context for examination that can help in understanding the right to privacy, freedom of the press, ethical considerations, and the impact that the act of media sharing private information can have on individuals.
Jason Pierre-Paul’s litigation team argued that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy for their client given that the information in context was medical information and therefore private. According to the team arguing for his case, pointed out that private information includes any information that a person, whether a public figure or not might reasonably expect to keep from the same becoming public knowledge. Additionally, the team pointed out that although Pierre-Paul was a public figure that does not exempt him from intending to keep his medical information private. Furthermore, the team argued that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was violated and therefore Adam Schefter was in the wrong.
Adam Schefter and ESPN media on their part argued that, as a media station, they were exercising their right by sharing Pierre-Paul’s medical information which was a matter of public interest. According to Adam Schefter and ESPN, the information in question regarded a person whose health was an aspect of public interest since it impacted his career as an NFL player, and therefore as a media entity, they had a responsibility of sharing such information. Additionally, the team argued that the media has a reasonability to the athlete’s team to conduct an investigation into private information regarding team members and reveal such information if it had the potential to impact the performance of such individuals.
The Jason Pierre-Paul Adam Schefter/ESPN case presented an ethical dilemma because while journalists have a responsibility to investigate and report on issues about public interest, they still have a responsibility to uphold individual’s privacy rights. The journalistic code of conduct points out that journalists have a responsibility to investigate and report on matters that pertain to public interest even if the information contains private information. However, this privilege is limited to reporting on matters that pertain to; corruption or injustice, crime and anti-social behavior, and neglect or incompetence. In the case study however, the Jason Pierre-Paul Adam Schefter/ESPN case did not fall under the above subsections which means the defendant had overstepped their media reasonability and acted outside of the media jurisdictions. By exposing the medical report of the NFL player, Schefter was not protecting the public interest because the information was not going to hurt the public in any way if the player had kept it private (Books, 2016). The media code of conduct requires that in their reporting, journalists should treat everyone fairly and with respect. Additionally, they should have no personal interest and their motives should be clear. The motif of the media person in this case appeared to be malicious and intended to taint the image of the NFL player by publishing their medical report.
The Jason Pierre-Paul Adam Schefter/ESPN lawsuit presents a critical legal implication concerning media freedom and the protection of individual’s private information. although the case was withdrawn as ESPN agreed to an out-of-court settlement, it still presents a legal dilemma as to where the media limits stand in investigating and reporting on public figures’ personal information. Ideally, ESPN still stood by their argument that they were at no fault because the medical charts that Schefter published on their Twitter/X handle indicated the seriousness of the injury which was inadvertently going to affect the NFL player’s performance. According to ESPN, this information was newsworthy and the conduct was journalistically appropriate (Books, 2016). This however was argued against as the complaint argued that any information about medical information was private and therefore was out of bounds from media plying eyes. The case presents a legal dilemma concerning the amount of information that should be revealed concerning public figures even if the information could affect the interests of the members of the public. Additionally, the lawsuit presents a dilemma regarding the amount of information that persons of public interest could reveal that ultimately could have implications for members of the public if concealed. Critiques point out that if the NFL player had concealed information concerning the amputation of his index finger, his performance could have dwindled which would ultimately affect entities that have an interest in his performance. Questions on whether the player can be sued for concealing such information remain a legal dilemma that the lawsuit brought to life.
Away from the legal implications of the case, the lawsuit brought to attention the human impact of media conduct in investigation and reporting on private information. The use of unauthorized information about medical treatment of any individual be it a public figure or not can have implications on their professional and personal life. Generally, the medical information of any individual is protected by law because revealing such information by an unauthorized person can expose such an individual to harm (CBS Broadcasting Inc., 2015). Additionally, the person revealing such information such as a media house may be doing it out of personal interests which may range from harming the reputation of the said person or gaining media traffic from such information. This unfair treatment of others is against any journalistic ethics and therefore should be condemned by all means. Critics of ESPN reporting can argue that the publishing of Pierre-Paul’s medical information did not serve any purpose of informing members of the public of any news of importance. Rather, the reporting was self-serving and was intended to increase their viewership and generate public sensationalism.
In conclusion, the lawsuit involving Jason Pierre-Paul vs. Adam Schefter and ESPN where the latter was sued for revealing medical report information presents a complex phenomenon on the balance between media freedom and a person’s right to privacy. Through the case study, it is clear that a legal dilemma exists regarding the extent to which journalists should go in investigating and reporting on the private medical information of individuals. On the other hand, journalists have a responsibility to members of the public to investigate and report on information that can be of public interest such as information about public figures or competitive sports participants. On the same note, ethical standards need to be applied while pursuing journalistic objectives. Striking a balance between all these components is critical to ensure journalists maintain their credibility in reporting useful information to the public while also ensuring that they observe the tenets of the law and treat everyone with fairness.
References
CBS Broadcasting Inc. (July 9, 2015). Legal Analyst: Pierre-Paul could consider suing ESPN, Hospital. Retrieved from: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/jason-pierre-paul-hipaa-espn-schefter/
Books Joseph. (July 18, 2016). A Giant Mis-Snap: Jason Pierre-Paul’s July 4th Firework Accident Leads to Privacy Suit Against Adam Schefter and ESPN
write