'How Sports Illustrated Botched the Michael Sam Story'

Well, so you say.

 

Well, considering I'm not a plaintiff's attorney, nor do I work in the personal injury field at all, yeah, I feel pretty comfortable saying that, yes.

 

If the contention here is that news is news, don't you break the story the second it's confirmed?

I don't agree with that, but at least it's consistent with the argument.

 

But that's not the contention. I understand that you don't out someone. I abide by that. I totally get it.

But he's about to out himself to your competitor. That changes the calculus.

 

Yes, while operating under the completely ridiculous assumption, like you said, that you are absolutely certain he won't change his mind.

Breaking "news" like this makes you no better than Caleb Hannan. I hope you understand this.

You're playing the arbiter in when and how someone can make their private life public. You have ZERO right to do that.

 

Dick, you need to re-watch the "Call Ben Bradlee and tell him fuck you" scene of All The President's Men.

 

I get that, and if I'm SI, I'm not happy about that, but given all the factors involved, I think I still sit back.

He hired a PR firm. If SI jumps the gun and breaks the story, what's to prevent the firm from alleging that SI violated an OTR agreement or outed Sam before he was ready? I realize that's not the truth, but I could see serious backlash coming as a result of that. "He was going to come out, but he wanted to tell certain people himself before the interview aired... SI prevented that from happening..."

 

All right, all right.

You and Creosote, in particular, among others (not Riptide), have convinced me.

I wouldn't have gone with it.

But holy fuck, would I not have liked it, and I still might have played chicken with him over it.

 

Wasn't the Jason Collins announcement a collaboration between a PR firm and SI?

It's not like it's against their journalistic being to participate in a rollout.

 

Yeah, I don't think it would be. But that doesn't mean they should necessarily concede to one, when it's benefiting someone else.

 

Whether on this or any other issue -- book excerpts come to mind -- I think their long-term interests in playing ball outweigh whatever momentary (and non-financial) gain they would get from winning this race.

 

Hey, no one said you had to like it.

I don't know a reporter worth his or her salt who wouldn't be bothered or conflicted by it.

But, right is right.