Objectivity is a dying ideal, the public editor writes, and Hill’s criticism of Trump did not serve her or ESPN well.
As public editor, I’ve referenced ESPN’s internal and external battles over politics and cultural coverage many times in the past 10 months. Despite public suggestions by some at ESPN that the issue is overblown, events on the ground constantly belie that claim.
This week’s nuclear example: The Monday tweetstorm by Jemele Hill — co-host of ESPN’s heavily promoted 6 p.m. SportsCenter — about President Donald Trump, with these two tweets drawing the most attention.
Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists.
— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) September 11,2017
Trump is the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime. His rise is a direct result of white supremacy. Period.
— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) September 11,2017
It wasn’t long before Hill’s comments departed the realm of social media and began to catch fire on conservative news sites. Presumably trying to get ahead of the issue, ESPN released this statement on Tuesday afternoon.
ESPN Statement on Jemele Hill: pic.twitter.com/3kfexjx9zQ
— ESPN PR (@ESPNPR) September 12,2017
This statement made almost no one happy. To those who felt Hill should be fired for her comments, it was a mealy-mouthed half-apology with no real-life consequence. To those who supported Hill, it was ESPN caving in to those angered by Hill speaking what her supporters considered indisputable truths about the president. Hill didn’t add anything to the matter, tweeting a few times on Tuesday, but not about the growing controversy. Meanwhile, Hill, as scheduled, hosted Tuesday’s 6 p.m. SportsCenter with co-host Michael Smith.
But if ESPN was hoping the issue would blow over, Wednesday came as an unpleasant surprise. Instead of losing steam, Hill’s comments became a topic in the White House briefing room when, in response to a question from The Washington Post’s David Nakamura, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Hill’s comments were a “fireable offense.” (Putting aside the fact this is a somewhat remarkable statement coming from a White House about a private citizen’s employment status, it also almost surely guarantees Hill’s employment is safe for the time being).
After the White House’s comment, ESPN coordinated another attempt at cleaning up the mess on Wednesday night, suggesting it might have realized it had blundered the first time around.
Hill went first, posting a statement on Twitter: “My comments on Twitter expressed my personal beliefs. My regret is that my comments and the public way I made them painted ESPN in an unfair light. My respect for the company and my colleagues remains unconditional.”
So, to address the elephant in the room … #Facts pic.twitter.com/RTrIDD87ut
— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) September 14,2017
Minutes later, ESPN issued its own statement: “Jemele has a right to her personal opinions, but not to publicly share them on a platform that implies that she was in any way speaking on behalf of ESPN. She has acknowledged that her tweets crossed that line and has apologized for doing so. We accept her apology.”
This second round of statements were an improvement over the tentative, vague Tuesday versions, but it came too late to stop the bleeding. Friday morning, President Trump himself weighed in on — where else? — Twitter.
ESPN is paying a really big price for its politics (and bad programming). People are dumping it in RECORD numbers. Apologize for untruth!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15,2017
Wherever you come out on the issue of Hill’s tweets, it seems most agree on one thing: This controversy is a doozy, featuring a highly combustible mix of race, politics, freedom of speech and corporate policy. And, thus far, no one has come out of it unscathed.
But let’s look at the action that began it all: Hill’s tweets. Let’s dispense with the suspense: I think Hill made an error in judgment in those tweets. And, no, it’s not specifically because of what she said; she is, of course, entitled to her opinions, and Hill’s opinion of President Trump is a mystery to precisely no one who has ever read her Twitter feed. And, no, it’s not because of the truthfulness — or lack thereof — of her statements, since, despite the claims of some, whether President Trump is a white supremacist is not something that can be stated with the same factual certainty as the sky being blue. It’s an opinion.
But even though Hill has a right to her opinion, and even though, as a commentator, she’s allowed to express opinions as part of her job, I still believe she erred by ignoring company guidelines and, as a result, putting her employer in a difficult position. (In recent days, many have suggested that Hill owes ESPN nothing. But having talked to Hill a few times during my tenure about a wide range of topics, I think she’d be the first to say that’s not true).
In the past year, ESPN’s internal and external political issues have been a hot topic, and one I have written about a few times. Yet it remains clear that the network is still publicly struggling to navigate the increasingly complex intersection of sports, politics and culture.
So, yes, Hill is a U. S. citizen who clearly cannot stand the president of her country. She’s far from alone in that view. But she’s also the high-profile host of a high-profile show on a high-profile network that is going through high-profile business and cultural challenges, and none of what’s happened the past few days has accrued or will accrue to ESPN’s benefit. With the salary and prominence ESPN provides Hill comes some responsibility to play by the network’s rules, and, in this case, she crossed the line set by management just five months ago, when ESPN released revised guidelines about political discussions.
Included in those guidelines was the following:
“The topic should be related to a current issue impacting sports. This condition may vary for content appearing on platforms with broader editorial missions — such as The Undefeated, FiveThirtyEight and espnW. Other exceptions must be approved in advance by senior editorial management.”
The tweet that Hill was responding to when she wrote her most noteworthy comments had nothing to do with politics. And for those who say that Hill’s personal Twitter account isn’t ESPN’s business — and I have seen a few suggestions to that effect — ESPN made it clear when I asked back in April that it considers social media accounts of its public-facing talent part of that policy. So although, in theory, Hill could have written a piece for The Undefeated that criticized the president – with editorial oversight — doing it on Twitter without a sports connection violated company guidelines, which also stipulate:
“The presentation should be thoughtful and respectful. We should offer balance or recognize opposing views, as warranted. We should avoid personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric.”
Now whether Hill violated this guideline is a tougher call. As I wrote in April, “What is a ‘personal attack’ and what’s considered ‘inflammatory’? As with many journalistic policy questions, those are subjective.” I stand by that. But while one’s definition of what is inflammatory or a personal attack depends to some extent on your world view, but it’s hard to argue that “white supremacist” isn’t pushing that line.
