Doug Gottlieb deserves credit for admitting his error.
I want to make that very clear up front because I’m going to spend a good chunk of this column being fairly critical of something Gottlieb did. It’s something that Gottlieb has already taken a good deal of flak for, and I’m not writing about this column to pile on, but because there’s a bigger point to be made here not about Gottlieb specifically but about sports media in general.
There’s a whole lot of people who are using the language of news reporting without knowing what actually goes into the practice of reporting the news or understanding the implications of reporting the news. And if you start talking like a reporter without having the chops of a reporter, it leaves you vulnerable to getting pantsed in public like Gottlieb just did. Personally, I thought it was funny, but to be very candid that’s because I’m petty and I don’t personally care for Gottlieb’s perspective or his work. That’s my personal opinion, though, and I’m focused on the professional aspect here because there’s a larger point to be made. But to do that, we need to backtrack to June just after Freddie Freeman returned to Atlanta with the Los Angeles Dodgers. Buster Olney of ESPN reported about the emotional fallout from Freeman’s free-agent departure from Atlanta. Olney reported Freeman had fired Excel Sports Management, the agency that handled the negotiations first with the Braves and later with the Dodgers.
Enter Gottlieb. After Olney’s report, Gottlieb tweeted a more specific allegation about a specific agent at Excel: “Casey Close never told Freddie Freeman about the Braves final offer, that is why Freeman fired him. He found out in Atlanta this weekend. It isn’t that rare to have happen in MLB, but it happened – Close knew Freddie would have taken the ATL deal.”
This is not presented as Gottlieb’s opinion, but rather stated as a fact. It is essentially an allegation of professional malpractice, an agent failing to provide his client with all the information necessary for an informed decision. In this case, Gottlieb stated that Freeman was prevented from acting on an offer he would have accepted because his agent didn’t tell him.
Let’s pause the story right here before we get to Close’s reaction to the report. Gottlieb has every right to report hard news. There’s no class you must pass to become verified as a reporter, no certificate you must earn. You don’t even need to have studied journalism in college to practice the profession. But there are expectations that this language creates for those who read it. He is stating not what he thought happened or what he’s heard might have happened. Gottlieb stated this is what happened, and a good reporter must not only know this is exactly what happened but be able to demonstrate why he knows this is exactly what happened for reasons we’re about to see.
Close contested Gottlieb’s account. Then Close sued Gottlieb for libel in a New York district court, releasing the following statement: “Although we gave Mr. Gottlieb an opportunity to retract his false statement, he failed to do so. The Complaint sets the record straight as to what occurred during the negotiations with the Atlanta Braves.”
I considered writing a column on this after Close filed the suit because I wanted to explore the risks that a host runs when they go from offering opinions – which is what most of us do – to reporting news. I even sought sources with expertise in defamation law, and heard back from Nicholas Creel, an assistant professor in business law at Georgia College and State University, and David Reischer, a New York attorney and CEO of LegalAdvice.com. Both agreed that the main issue probably was not money.
Creel: “For Close, the value of this lawsuit isn’t necessarily in winning at trial. As an agent, he’s got a reputation to defend, filing this lawsuit and showing that he’s willing to fight a damning accusation likely helps him mitigate that reputational hit he’s suffered.”
Reischer: “Such a lawsuit would be expensive and likely lead to limited monetary damages, unless the Twitter post was gross and reckless in regards to the truth. More likely the plaintiff would need to settle for injunctive relief merely to get the offending online review removed.”
Now at the risk of boring you, I need to get wonky with some legalese that’s important in defamation cases starting with vocabulary. Libel is a defamatory statement that is written or published as opposed to slander, which is a defamatory statement that is said out loud. Because the issue here was a Tweet, it was a libel claim. In both instances, the defamatory statement must be shown to be demonstrably false. Truth is an absolute defense against any claim of libel or slander. It can’t be legally considered defamatory unless it’s false.
Second, there is a different legal standard for public figures when it comes to defamation as opposed to private individuals. A public figure must prove “actual malice” – meaning the person who made the defamatory statement wanted to harm the complainant. A private person must prove only that the person making the defamatory story was negligent and that a reasonable person would have or should have known the defamatory statement was false. As for what constitutes a public figure, well, lawyers make an awful lot of money arguing that one out in court, but the basic premise is that a public figure is a household name while a private person is someone who has not sought the public spotlight nor had it shined on them involuntarily.
This differentiation is important because Close filed his case as a private individual however Gottlieb could have disputed that if the case had gone to court.
Creel: “One thing to keep in mind that definitely cuts against the chances Close will be held to be a private individual is that the law recognizes that people can be public figures for a ‘limited purpose.’ Given that MLB is a major national pastime and the politics of players negotiating has an entire media ecosystem built on it, it’s pretty likely that they court will be accepting of the idea that Close fits at least this narrow category of public figure.”
That would have had huge implications for the case.
Reischer: “It makes sense that Close is coming out of the gate contending he isn’t a public figure, as he’s hoping to preemptively rebut the inevitable contention that he is one. If the court does find him to be a public figure, his case will be near unwinnable.”
I came away believing that Gottlieb had pretty limited vulnerability in the case. It might be uncomfortable to hear Close call him a liar in court, but proving Gottlieb not only lied, but did so with the intent of harming Close, is hard to imagine. I was surprised last week when Gottlieb released a statement retracting his report. He deleted the Tweet from June.
“I prematurely reported on these events and simply got it wrong. Upon further vetting of my sources, a review of the lawsuit filed against me in this matter, a direct conversation with Casey himself, I have learned that the conduct I alleged did not occur and there is no credible basis for stating that it did.”
A cynical characterization is the apology was made only at the point of a knife, but I want to take Gottlieb at his word. He’s being accountable and stating unequivocally he was wrong. That’s honorable.
What’s left unsaid is how Gottlieb came to make what he now characterizes as a mistake, though. The implication is that he received inaccurate information from his “sources” but that’s about all the insight we get into his reporting process. Did he contact Close or Freeman before publishing his tweet? That’s standard practice for a reporter especially in a case like this where Close and Freeman are the only two people certain to have direct knowledge of whether Freeman was informed of Atlanta’s final offer. In fact, Gottlieb’s initial tweet didn’t reference any source.
Reporting is a trade, a profession, and while the premise of the job is simply to tell the truth, we all know how complicated the very idea of the truth has become. The practices that reporters are taught to follow do not solve this challenge, but they do provide some safeguards aimed to prevent a reporter from putting too much stock in any one person with a specific agenda or limited knowledge of the situation.
It’s why attribution is important and the use of anonymous sources is generally discouraged. When it’s deemed necessary to use an anonymous source, the newspapers I’ve worked for required the reporter to disclose the source to his or her editor.
If you’re not going to follow basic standards like this or don’t deign to reach out to people with direct knowledge of a situation you’re reporting on, I would advise you not frame your work as a news report. In fact, there’s an easy fix: Start your statement with, “I think …” If Gottlieb had done that in his initial Tweet there would have been no problem. The issue was that he presented it as a fact, something he knew definitively. Turns out he was wrong about that.
Danny O’Neil is a sports media columnist for BSM. He has previously hosted morning and afternoon drive for 710 ESPN Seattle, and served as a reporter for the Seattle Times. He can be reached on Twitter @DannyOneil or by email at Danny@DannyOneil.com.
