Note to NFL: Don’t hire Gwen Ifill as a replacement referee.

Poor Brian Stropolo was only behaving like a respected national journalist on the political scene; why didn’t it work?

Stropolo, on the crew of NFL replacement refs (that’s scab refs, if you belong to the NFL refs union, which is currecly locked out) was assigned to yesterday’s New Orleans Saints-Carolina game. He was suddenly pulled from the assignment by the league on  Sunday morning, when it came to the NFL’s attention that he had represented himself on his Facebook page as an enthusiastic Saints fan, even appearing on his page in a Saints uniform.

Imagine if Stropolo had made a controversial game-changing call that handed the game to his beloved Saints!  But then, it was up to Stropolo and the league  to imagine it long before any inappropriate game assignment was made. For Stropolo not to notify the league of his web-wide admission of pro-Saints bias when he was assigned to referee a Saints game shows a complete absence of ethics training, instincts and sensitivity. How could this not occur to him? How could the NFL not have a vetting process for refs that would discover team allegiances? Where is the Code of Conduct to remind clueless referees about the “appearance of impropriety,”and the importance of preserving the NFL’s integrity by avoiding any suspicion that referees are tilting games in the direction of teams they root for in their off days?

Admittedly, there is a disturbing amount of disinformation in the culture striving to make people, including replacement NFL refs, stupid about ethics in general and the appearance of impropriety in particular.In 2008, for example, PBS reporter Gwen Ifill agreed to moderate the Vice-Presidential debates without informing anyone that she was in the process of authoring a laudatory book about Barack Obama. When her planned book became public shortly before the debate, she, the news media and the Debate Commission  shrugged of her lack of prior disclosure and potential as inconsequential. Ifill airily said before  the debate,  “The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I’ve done my job.” My response to this, after the debate, was this:

“Wrong. The proof isn’t “in the pudding.” If you learn your pudding chef has a possible motivation to poison the pudding, do you say, “Well, let’s wait and see if anyone who eats it gets sick?” When a supposedly impartial judge has a conflict that calls into question that impartiality, the response isn’t, “he’s a professional,” or “let’s see how he rules.” The proper response is, “This situation calls into question the fairness of the proceedings and an appearance of potential bias. Let’s find a new judge who doesn’t raise these suspicions!” That is Conflicts of Interest 101. Is Ifill’s book a pro-Obama book? Sure sounds like it, based on the title. Is that book likely to have much better sales if Obama wins? Of course. Will that result enhance Ifill’s income and reputation? Is there any question? So is she a truly disinterested, impartial participant in an event that will play a part in deciding the election? No. And that means that she has an irresolvable conflict that is not addressed by her reputation or past history of fairness. It is this fact that the various defenders missed, raising the suspicion that they wouldn’t recognize a conflict of interest if it laid an egg on their heads. Ifill “did a great job” moderating a previous debate, said one member of the debate Commission. And how does that address the special conflict she faces in this debate, may we ask? It doesn’t. Nobody, including Ifill, could say how her upcoming book would affect her performance. It may have caused her to pull her punches, and not ask as tough questions of Obama’s running mate. Or, aware of how the book raised suspicions of her impartiality, the conflict may have caused Ifill to be tougher on Senator Biden that she ordinarily would have been. Neither result would have been fair. And we will never know how she would have performed if the conflict hadn’t existed. That’s the problem with appearances of bias. It erodes belief and trust.”

Yes, and that’s the problem with national exhibitions of unapologetic unethical conduct by the news media and others: it makes people like Brian Stropolo think they are being ethical too. ““The proof is in the pudding,” Stropolo may have thought. “They can watch the Saints game  and make their own decisions about whether or not I’ve done my job.” After all, Ifill is still a “respected journalist.” She got to referee a historic debate. Her Obama book did quite well, thank-you. Surely a debate that helps determine a national election is more important than a football game. I can see how Stropolo may have been rendered ethically inept by this willful and glaring denial of an appearance of impropriety.

At least the NFL acted responsibly, if tardily. Pro football’s integrity, after all, is really important.

_________________________________

Pointer: CNN

Facts: ESPN

Graphic: Charlie Rose

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at  jamproethics@verizon.net.