Have we really reached the point where it's OK to leak an athlete's medical chart?

So you'd have no problem with Schefter leaking your medical records? Because the public has about as much right to know the results of the procedure to remove the stick out of your ass as it does to know he got a finger chopped off.

 

That's classic Poynter. Sidestep the legit ethical issue by introducing a "context" issue that's just laughable bullshit.

 

I think that smiley face is supposed to mean you're being funny. But by the rest of the post I can't tell.

 

Oscars Animated GIF

 

Can't think of an instance where they should actually be published in full. Reporting on it is another matter, IMO.

 

I sure hope you're joking or just haven't thought that through.

Think of corporate cases, land deals, etc. etc.

 

I don't deal with that kind of stuff, so I don't know the answer. In such cases are the actual documents published in this manner? Or does the reporter just use the pertinent information in the story? As I said, I suppose it's not ethically a whole lot different. And is the privacy of corporate land deals protected by federal law?

 

News organizations publish private documents all the time.

 

I see no reason not to report the fact that an NFL player had a finger amputated. Not like it's going to remain a secret.

I would not publish the chart, though.

 

OK, I'm not thinking all that clearly on this, but I would bet those documents aren't federally protected or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I guess I missed making the distinction.

 

Fair enough. But it is possible. It's more likely whoever did it will just lose their job if they can track it down.

From the Poynter link:

But if a health care worker leaked the medical information to Schefter, that person almost certainly violated the law. If identified, the person could lose his or her job and face jail time and fines.

 

Yeah, I don't really know exactly what you mean by never publishing a non-public document, but I'm sure you can find some even at your own paper.

Regarding this, though -- it's a pretty clear principle. The giving organization is on the hook ethically (and sometimes legally). The news organization has First Amendment protections out the wazoo and can publish just about whatever it wants; the only problem would be if it obtained the material illegally. But, again, someone giving Schefter the records doesn't mean Schefter acted illegally.

I'm with Whitman, though -- I think it's JPP's team that is releasing the info. I also don't know why they would do that, though.