Enttertaining
gEndorse
ementsinSportsJo
ournalism
m
DaneePyee&ScottR. Stroud
UniversityofTexasattAustin
Although
hitisgenerrallyrareforrjournalistsstoaccepteendorsemen
ntdeals,theerealmof
televised
dsportsjournalismapp
pearstobeanexceptioon.ErinAnd
drews,asideelinereportter
forthe2
2011RoseB
BowlandasspokeswomanforReeb
bok,causedastirintheesportsworrld
andreneewedconcernsregardin
ngjournalisstsendorsin
ngproductssforpay.Du
uringher
coverageeoftheRoseBowl,And
drewsreporrtedthattheeplayersfromoneteam
mwere
performingpoorlyb
becausetheenewNikeZ
ZoomAlphaaTaloncleattstheywerewearingw
were
causingtthemtoslip
ponthefield
d.Herremaarksremain
neduncontroversialunttiltwoweek
ks
later,wh
henReebokannounced
dthatAndreewswouldb
be“thefirstfemalefeatturedin
Reebok'ssZigTechcaampaign,”endorsingashoeindireectcompetitionwithth
heNikecleaat.
ItisuncllearwhetheerAndrewshadstruckadealwith Reebokpriiortoherco
ommentsab
bout
theNikeeshoe,butth
hecommen
ntsledsomeetoquestion
nhercredib
bility.KellyMcBride,a
journalissmprofesso
oratthePoy
ynterInstitu
utestates:““Journalistscanreview
wproducts.B
But
theycan
n’ttakemon
neyfromacompanytoendorsetheem.Thattottallyruinsttheircredib
bility...
Ifthoserreportersw
weregettingpaidtoend
dorsemp3p
playersorch
holesterold
drugs,noon
nein
theaudiencewould
dtrusttheirjudgment,b
becausetheeirindepend
dencewould
dbe
mised.”Onttheotherhaand,ESPN,tthenewsou
utletAndrew
wsworksfo
or,notesthaatit
comprom
isunlikeelythatshew
wouldhaveemanyoppo
ortunitiestoodiscussth
heshoesinh
hersideline
reportin
ngrole.Even
nifshedoess,theyargueethataslon
ngasshedissclosesherrelationship
p
withReeebokitshou
uldnotbean
nissue.
ournalisticeendorsemen
ntscanbep
problematicincertain
Whilemostwouldaagreethatjo
contextss,itisnotcleearwhetherrtelevisedssportscastin
ngshouldb
beanexcepttion.Todd
Rosenstiiel,directorofPew’sPrrojectforExxcellenceinJournalism
m,saysthatd
disclosureiss
“themin
nimumstand
dard,”buth
hecomparesssportsrep
portingtopo
oliticalrepo
orting.Inthee
politicalcontext,jou
urnalistscan
nnotaccepttmoneyfrom
mpartiesorinterestgrroups.Otheers,
nebetweenhardjournaalismandth
hetypeofreeportingAn
ndrewsengaages
howeverr,drawalin
inwhilecoveringsp
portingeven
nts,likeningghermorettoanenterttainerthanaajournalistt.
Inresponsetosuchconcerns,E
ESPNinstitu
utedanewp
policyprohiibitingrepo
orterslike
ptingendorrsementdeaals.Howeveer,thepolicyyisspecifictoreporterrs—
Andrewssfromaccep
notanaly
ysts.Accord
dingtothep
policy,“...inassessingaapparel,foo
otwearandeequipment,
ministratorrswhoareeengagedas
exceptio
onswillbeg
grantedtoplayers,coacchesandadm
analystsandforwh
homsuchen
ndorsementsareparto fthesportsscoverage/rreporting
landscap
pe.”
www.spo
ortsandmed
dia.org
1of2
on:
FurtherrInformatio
TheBigLead
T
d,“ErinAndrewshasAn
notherConttroversy:Sn
neakers.”Avvailableat:
http://thebig
glead.com/index.php/2
2011/01/27/erin‐andrews‐has‐an
nother‐
co
ontroversy‐‐sneakers/
KatieThoma
K
as,“Andrew
wsfacesQuestionsabou
utaDealwitthReebok.”NewYorkT
Times,
Jaanuary29,2
2011.Availaableat:
http://www
w.nytimes.co
om/2011/01
1/30/sportts/30espn.h
html
AllanBrettm
A
man,“ESPNrrevisesEndo
orsementP
Policy;ErinA
Andrewsalllowedtokeeep
ReebokDeal
R
through20
011.”Availaableat:
http://blog.o
oregonlive.ccom/playbo
ooksandprofits/2011/0
04/espn_revvises_endorrsem
ent_polic.htm
ml
DiscussiionQuestio
ons:
D
sdoanythin
ngwrong?W
Whyorwhyynot?
1. DidAndrews
2. Woulditmat
W
tterifshehadsignedth
heReebokd
dealbeforemakingtheecomments
ab
bouttheNik
keshoes?
Ncovertheccontroversy
ysurroundin
3. ShouldESPN
ngAndrewss?Whymigghtonesaytthey
sh
houldn’t?Iftheydocov
verit,whatw
wouldbeth
heethicallybestwayto
odoso?
4. Doendorsem
D
mentshurttthecredibiliityofsportssreportersaandanalystts?Isitharm
mful
enoughforo
organization
nslikeESPN
Ntoforbid?
www.spo
ortsandmed
dia.org
2of2