Speculation a natural result of department silence on issue

Friday, October 3, 1997

Speculation a natural result of department silence on issue

COLUMN: Officials’ complaints about media actions are
ridiculous

By Mark Shapiro

Daily Bruin Staff

It was beginning to look like mutually exclusive battle lines
had been drawn. It seemed like both the media and the UCLA Athletic
Department had retreated behind their respective policies in how
best to handle the controversy surrounding the basketball team.

Now, however, a UCLA official has taken to chastising the media
for speculating upon and researching the rumors being circulated
about the players’ infractions.

This official went on the record saying, "We won’t comment on
any speculation in any of the media. The two young men have a right
to their privacy. And it’s unfortunate that some people feel the
need to speculate on the reasons for the suspensions."

The first parts of the statement are nothing less that what
should be expected from the university in its efforts to protect
its students and student-athletes.

It is the last part that is problematic, because now UCLA is
trying to have its cake and eat it too.

What is really unfortunate in this sordid episode is that this
official felt that it was appropriate to lash out at the media and
the public who are trying to determine the truth in light of UCLA’s
reluctance to reveal it.

Seriously, what did the Athletic Department expect to happen
when they stuck to their policy of nondisclosure?

There is no way that they could be naive enough to expect one of
the largest media markets in the country to simply drop the
subject.

There is no way that they could expect a student body that
invests a tremendous amount of money and energy in the basketball
team to simply sit back and not puzzle over the possibilities.

There is no way that making a decision of silence and then
complaining when stories are investigated in an attempt to fill the
void is appropriate.

So there lies the rub, because otherwise, both the Athletic
Department and the media are acting well within their rights.

The first matter at hand is UCLA’s decision to keep the player’s
infractions under wraps. So, you may ask, are they justified in
doing this?

Absolutely. The right to privacy of athletes, and students as a
whole, is something that UCLA does a fine job of protecting, and
well they should. At such a high-profile institution, student
transgressions will always be a subject of scrutiny. When it comes
to athletes violating the law or university policy, it is likely
going to be national news.

Putting aside the fact that the player’s right to privacy is
protected by the Constitution of the United States, the Athletic
Department is under no obligation to relate the specifics of the
suspension. In fact, they are expressly forbidden by university
policy and privacy laws from doing so.

Now we move to the media’s role in this affair and the
generation of the rumor mill cranking in Westwood.

By leaving a factual vacuum on the day the suspension was
announced, the athletic department opened up a Pandora’s Box of
theories. Thus, you have a plethora of rumors being circulated by
different newspapers, all with their own sources, and all thinking
that they are correct.

So now, with various stories floating around, every newspaper,
including The Bruin, is going to the best that it can to confirm
its stories. Whether the stories being pursued are related to the
suspension is impossible to tell but they must be pursued.

No matter how specious, the media has a right to go with a story
that they have a source documenting. In doing this, the media
outlet must stand behind its story should any of it be inaccurate
or libelous.

Not only is it important for the media to look for corroboration
on its stories, it should be expected by the public so that large
institutions cannot make administrative decisions without being
taken to task for them.

It’s also important to realize that there is nothing wrong with
a rumor mill, because a free exchange of ideas is constitutionally
protected.

So now we have two sides of an issue and both are completely
correct in their chosen course of action. While there has been no
criticism of UCLA’s policy of silence by the media, the Athletic
Department has seen fit to attack the media and the public’s sphere
of influence.

By doing that, nothing has been done to defuse the issue;
instead, another subplot has been added to this ridiculous soap
opera.