Question: Should universities restrict student-athletes from using social media?
Far and away the most frustrating aspect of my job as a beat reporter for the ASU football and baseball teams was the distance between myself and the student-athlete. Athletic media relations policy at ASU stipulates (as I’ve been reminded countless times) that reporters cannot contact the athlete outside the purview of media relations. Yes, that means no phone, e-mail and Facebook interaction, on or off the record. Media relations oversee and control virtually all communications between reporter and athlete at ASU.
Perhaps there are exceptions for publications with greater reach and market share. However, for as long as I’ve been with The State Press sports, we’ve submissively abided by this policy, fearing unfavorable treatment and future limitations in access. With media relations peering over almost every interview, it often makes for empty, shallow and trite responses.
As a reporter and columnist, I’ve made mistakes and crossed the line, and some will accuse me of having already done so in this column.
I understand that the written word can be the ultimate weapon of self-destruction, sometimes worse. I understand universities and athletic programs’ desire to protect its players and therefore itself from repute-seeking missiles. Thus, from the perspective of self-preservation and ethical utilitarianism, I “get” the policies.
However, given these institutionalized restrictions on speech, which border on censorship, I’m 100 percent against further limiting an athlete’s first amendment rights, and against any rules that advance and bolster program control.
Yes, Tweet away.
Let’s not forget that social media has helped topple corrupt governments. As we’ve learned over the last couple of years, it’s an incredibly powerful tool to affect positive change.
College athletes are vulnerable to manipulation and abuse from almost every angle, from agents and coaches to proverbial snakes in the grass. How can we argue that the occasional embarrassment overrides the right to self-defense by exposing wrongdoing?
Sure, there are many examples of athletes shaming themselves, their program, and humanity. It’s true, social media has facilitated the vilest form of expression: that which seeks to intimidate and humiliate, leading to tragedy.
As former general counsel to Wikimedia, Mike Godwin once said, “The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech, because no one ever tries to ban the other kind.”
Social media, as a platform for democratized/citizen journalism, is in its “teenager stage,” rebellious, crossing boundaries, and defying mores. Harmless? No, but such is the journey for purpose and identity.
Much as a stern parent’s attempts to quell expression only pushes the teenager to break taboos, denying an athlete of his or her free use of social media produces much the same.
Shut down an athlete’s avenues of expression, as it seems the NCAA and its member institutions are always trying to do, and the result is the same for anyone who’s been repressed — an act of rage, real or metaphorical, is inevitable.
On top of that, social boundaries already exist in the Twitter universe. As they become more pervasive, known and defined, they develop into a natural deterrent against harmful messages.
Besides, a ban or restriction on social media use would surely be ineffectual. There are always ways to circumnavigate the seas of the Internet. Concealing your identity and using “pen names” or avatars can be done with a few key punches.
Heck, an athlete has plausible deniability even when using his/her real identity. Who has the time to prove it wasn’t “the cousin” making the obscene Tweet? Because of that, any rule disallowing or inhibiting the use of social media is inherently futile and unjust. Instead of an iron-fisted approach, schools should implement and build upon already existing classes and programs that teach athletes the consequences of their words. Schools should consult athletes on how to build open and positive relationships with media members, benefitting both parties.
When has abstinence “training” ever produced the desired result?
Athletes are human beings. Some will learn from the mistakes of others and others will repeat them. Void-of-ethics media “outlets” like Deadspin and TMZ will always exist to exploit celebrities, and in a most recent case, a 17-year-old girl, in their weakest moments.
Don’t “we” the media, excuse me, “us,” the more appropriate Internet-age all inclusive term, determine the ultimate fate of the “accidental” tweet?
Of course, this is a power and responsibility lost on many.
My hope is that the websites that capitalize on an athlete’s inappropriate use of social media will serve as a baseline for those beholden to the time-tested journalistic code of ethics. The underhanded tactics of TMZ and Deadspin will create greater demand for smart, honorable, ethical and therefore healthy media consumption.
Some will argue that the Internet has debased the news media as a whole.
But in a sense, the Internet is the ultimate test of speech in democracy, a system I place both my allegiance and faith. While often appreciated, athletes are overworked and targeted by many seeking to benefit from their “nearly free” services. As U.S. citizens, restricting any citizen’s First Amendment rights (under most circumstances), no matter how distasteful we perceive them to be, should offend us at our civil core.
College athletes already feel the chilling effect of media relations eyeing their every move with the “press.” They are one of the last demographics that need further restricting.
Reach the reporter at nick.ruland@asu.edu
