The First Amendment is even for those embrace-debate sports shows you see on ESPN and Fox Sports 1. You know the ones. Guys yelling about why this coach should be fired and why that quarterback should be benched and why the Dallas Cowboys are the best (or worst, depending on the last game) team ever.
And while sometimes they say some ridiculous things, it’s good to know that the First Amendment is for them, too.
That was proven this week when a lawsuit by legendary football Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre against Hall of Fame tight end Shannon Sharpe was dismissed.
This all goes back to a rather serious topic: Favre’s alleged involvement in a Mississippi welfare fraud scandal. More than $77 million intended for the poor in Mississippi ended up on a variety of other projects, including a new volleyball facility at the University of Southern Mississippi, where Favre’s daughter was playing at the time. Favre also was involved in other parts of the story, although he has yet to be charged with a crime.
Back when he was on the “Undisputed” show with Skip Bayless on FS1, Sharpe said things such as Favre “stole money from people that really needed that money.”
Favre sued, claiming he didn’t “steal” money from anyone. But a federal judge dismissed the suit, saying Sharpe, who now works at ESPN, was just using “rhetorical hyperbole.”
U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett wrote in his 12-page ruling: “No reasonable person listening to the Broadcast would think that Favre actually went into the homes of poor people and took their money — that he committed the crime of theft/larceny against any particular poor person in Mississippi. Sharpe’s comments were made against the backdrop of longstanding media coverage of Favre’s role in the welfare scandal and the State’s lawsuit against Favre. Listeners would have recognized Sharpe’s statements as rhetorical hyperbole — robust language used to express Sharpe’s strong views about the new information that emerged about Favre’s participation in the welfare scandal.”
Starrett went on to write, “The context in which Sharpe’s remarks were made — including the tenor of the Broadcast as a whole, the format of the program and its audience, and the fact that viewers were told Favre was not charged with a crime — forecloses Favre’s claim that a reasonable viewer would have thought Sharpe was actually accusing him of committing ‘larceny.’ Because Sharpe’s comments are constitutionally protected rhetorical hyperbole using loose, figurative language, they cannot support a defamation claim as a matter of law.”
The ruling could not have been any more dismissive of Favre, doing just about everything shy of calling him a crybaby.
Favre also previously had sued podcaster Pat McAfee. Favre eventually dropped his suit, even though McAfee did not apologize or pay Favre any money.
So this all is good, right? First Amendment victories, yeah?
Well, not so fast, Deadspin’s Julie DiCaro writes. She wrote, “Because in taking on Sharpe, who is thought to be worth around $14 million, Favre took on someone who had the money to fight back against what seemed to be a lawsuit designed to infringe upon free speech. Same with McAfee. Once word got out about Favre suing McAfee and Sharpe, some outlets likely backed way off criticizing Favre, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some even scrapped stories entirely. At least one other reporter was threatened by Favre’s legal team, though not sued, for making similar comments about Favre on Twitter.”
DiCaro asks if Favre (as well as other suits filed by former Major League Baseball pitcher Trevor Bauer over allegations of sexual assault) are even meant to win in the court of law.
“But,” DiCaro wrote, “they are extremely effective in chilling free speech. That means people who might have otherwise negatively reported or commented on Favre and Bauer now refrain from doing so in order to avoid being sued. That’s bad for journalism, and bad for our country, which depends on an informed and educated electorate.”
Continuing with the sports theme today, here are two more items of interest …
World series viewership: worst ever
Game 2 of the World Series was played last Saturday between two teams — the Arizona Diamondbacks and Texas Rangers — that were among the last to even make the playoffs and aren’t exactly marquee franchises in the eyes of most fans. That’s strike one.
Strike two: Game 2 went up against college football.
And, the final score was a blowout — 9-1 for the Diamondbacks. Strike three!
It was a strikeout among fans. The game averaged 8.153 million viewers on Fox and another 225,000 on Fox Deportes. That 8.378 million total made for the least-watched World Series on record.
That comes on the heels of the least-watched Game 1 of a World Series on record. An average of 9.17 million viewers tuned in.
But wait! We’re not done.
Game 2 was the least-watched World Series game until … Monday night’s Game 3. The viewership for that was only 8.126 million watched, meaning that is now the least-watched game. (Game 3 went up against “Monday Night Football,” and that game between the Detroit Lions and Las Vegas Raiders drew 15.2 million viewers, according to Sports TV Ratings.)
Why are the baseball numbers so low?
Well, for starters, Front Office Sports’ Michael McCarthy writes, “TV ratings for the Fall Classic have been falling for years as baseball becomes more of a regional than national TV draw.”
The Athletic’s Richard Deitsch adds, “This series was always going to be viewership challenged — as anyone who studies or writes about sports viewership would have told you prior to the first pitch. The question was how low would the numbers be. These numbers are low. You can’t spin them. Because fans too often personalize this stuff, it’s important to note this isn’t an attack on either team. It’s actually a fascinating baseball matchup. But the Diamondbacks and Rangers are not national draws based on historic television data outside of when they are playing a team with broad appeal or a series going long (which is what Fox has to really hope for with this series).”
The Terminal: sports version
A scene outside Newark Liberty International Airport in Newark, New Jersey. (AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey)
If you follow sports closely, you know the names of reporters such as ESPN’s Adam Schefter and Adrian Wojnarowski, and Shams Charania from The Athletic and Stadium. They make their living, mostly, from breaking stories: trades, firings, signings, and so forth. And it’s a good living. They are paid in the millions.
But is it a good life?
Check out this story. On his podcast, “The Woj Pod,” Wojnarowski, who covers the NBA for ESPN, relayed how he broke the big news early Tuesday that superstar James Harden was being traded from Philadelphia to the Los Angeles Clippers.
Wojnarowski said, “Really got into it Monday night. I was at Newark airport, I was getting ready to fly to LA to go out and be out with our ‘NBA Countdown’ crew this week and ‘NBA Today.’ It was suggested to me to not get on a plane, that you might be — it’s always my worst fear with this job that you’re on a plane and the wireless is spotty and you can’t get to what you need to do — so I sat in Newark airport, watched the place close down and then almost start to reopen again. So from like 5 p.m., they threw me out of the (United) lounge at 10:30 p.m. when it closed and then I just went and sat downstairs until I left about 3:30 in the morning.”
Sitting in the Newark Airport until 3:30 in the morning?
The Big Lead’s Kyle Koster wrote, “That’s dedication. And just a nightmare lifestyle if you really think about it. There are certain moments when the news pops and the television cameras are rolling that the whole enterprise looks glamorous but a sad New Jersey airport growing increasingly deserted is a bleak office for the day. At least the copious aggregator accounts that shared it minutes later presumably have the comforts of home to enjoy while they wait for the action to begin. But hey, like Don Draper said, that’s what the money is for.”
Notable journalism regarding the war between Israel and Hamas
- The Associated Press with “Misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war is flooding social media. Here are the facts.”
- The New York Times’ Katherine Rosman with “How Posters of Kidnapped Israelis Ignited a Firestorm on American Sidewalks.”
- The Washington Post’s Jack Stripling with “Colleges braced for antisemitism and violence. It’s happening.”
- Los Angeles Times columnist Jonah Goldberg with “Will the media get coverage of the crisis in Israel and Gaza right? It all depends on the editors.”
- Mediaite’s Jamie Frevele with “‘We Must All Watch’: MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan Shares Harrowing CNN Visit To Israeli Morgue Showing Hamas’s ‘Brutality.’”
- The Wall Street Journal editorial board with “The Global War on the Jews.”
- Strong interview from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer with an IDF spokesperson.
Media leadership update
The News Leaders Association, an organization of journalism editors formed in 2019 by the merger of the American Society of News Editors and the Associated Press Managing Editors, has recommended to its members they vote to disband the group, according to a memo sent to members Tuesday.
Alison Gerber, NLA board president, said the decision was a difficult one, but necessary to ensure that NLA-run efforts including leadership training, an annual news industry diversity survey, press freedom efforts and journalism awards could continue in the hands of other nonprofits the NLA is selecting.
“From the beginning, the new NLA has faced obstacles, starting with the COVID-19 pandemic combined with the vast challenges facing the news industry and the financial markets,” Gerber said. “These headwinds created a perfect storm, making it difficult for the NLA to expand and flourish.”
Voting will take place in November.
Media tidbits
- Mediaite’s Ken Meyer with “Morning Joe Airs Brutal Montage of Recent Trump Gaffes: Like an ‘Ali G Skit!’”
- Semafor’s Max Tani with “Forbes reporters say sources are concerned about new ownership of magazine.”
- Variety’s Brian Steinberg with “Evening-News Battle: NBC’s ‘Nightly’ Makes Key Gains Against ABC’s ‘World.’”
- Vanity Fair’s Anna Peele with “Inside the ‘Real Housewives’ Reckoning That’s Rocking Bravo.”
Hot type
- Hey, you have to admit, some quick thinking for a story that you know you’re going to read from the headline alone: For Politico, Derek Guy with “3 Expert Shoemakers Say Ron DeSantis Is Probably Wearing Height Boosters.”
- Superb and thoughtful work in the Los Angeles Times from Helen Li, Phi Do and Ada Tseng: “Mental health in Mandarin Chinese: a starter kit for dialogue.”
- Finally, essays in this The Washington Post piece by Betty Chavarria, David Betancourt, Samantha Schmidt, Emmanuel Martinez, Lucio Villa, Maite Fernández Simon, Arelis R. Hernández and Katty Huertas: “Latino voices on family, sports, legacy, music, tradition and language.”
More resources for journalists
- Subscribe to Poynter’s Friday newsletter, Open Tabs with Poynter managing editor Ren LaForme, and get behind-the-scenes stories only available to subscribers.
- Poynter ACES Introductory Certificate in Editing (Online) — Enroll now.
- How to Improve Your Coverage of LGBTQ+ Communities (Webinar) — Start anytime.
- Got a story you’d like to write for Poynter? Email pitch@poynter.org with your idea, approximate timeline and word count.
Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.
The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, sign up here.
