I could teach a conflicts of interest course based on lessons spewing out from the recently-canned NFL reporter’s certitude that she did nothing wrong despite being caught canoodling with one of the sports figures she was charged with covering….objectively, independently. You know. Like all the other journalists do. <cough!>
Dianna Russini was the senior NFL reporter for The Athletic, which serves as the New York Times’ sports pages. She resigned last week after photographs “surfaced” of her hand-holding with and embracing Mike Vrabel, the head coach of the New England Patriots.
“While I can’t share the details of our investigation into Dianna’s conduct,” Steven Ginsberg, executive editor of The Athletic wrote to his staff, “I want to emphasize that the leadership of The Athletic has taken this matter seriously from the moment we learned about it.”
The publication’s editorial guidelines demand that its journalists avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of a conflict. This is standard stuff, even though such prohibitions are too often weakly enforced, if at all. Remember Nina Totenberg reporting on Supreme Court decisions while she socialized with her pal, Justice Ginsberg? That violated NPR’s ethics code. Naturally, the brass ignored the breach.
I have a backlog of significant and interesting ethics developments so I’ll be posting a multi-issue collection a bit later today. This latest example of the disgusting bias of the news media as it tries to rig the mid-terms against Republicans so the Democrats can “stand up to Trump”—meaning obstruct his performance of his job with multiple impeachments in the House—is worthy of a solo call-out.
The obvious inference a reader is supposed to take from that headline is that all those people in Nepal were killed because of Evil Donald Trump. This reflects back to the Axis theme when DOGE started cutting funds that had nothing to do with the USA: “People will die!” It was a stupid appeal to emotion even to the extent that it was true: The United States isn’t responsible for the lives of everyone in the world. Incredibly, the same progressives who want the U.S. to pay to save lives everywhere in the world (you can’t get much more remote than Nepal) also are trying to make the National Debt a Democratic issue. The two positions are completely incompatible, but never mind. The party thinks the public is stupid, and issues messages accordingly. Or Democrats are stupid. Or both.
An ethically clueless woman asked the New York Times advice columnist “The Ethicist,” aka. NYU’s Kwame Anthony Appiah, a philosophy prof, an even more ethically clueless question than his usual inquirers.
She said that a friend of her teenage daughter obviously has a serious drinking problem, passing out, falling down and urinating on herself. Should Mom alert the girl’s parents?
“…Her parents, however, are known to be very strict, and the girls fear that telling them will result in severe punishment rather than support, or that it will ruin their friend’s trust completely.As a parent, my instinct is clear: If this were my daughter, I would want to know so I could intervene before something catastrophic happens. But I worry about blowing up this girl’s home life or driving her behavior further underground if her parents react punitively rather than therapeutically. Do I have a moral obligation to inform her parents, even if it might mean harsh consequences for her? Or does my duty lie in guiding the teenagers on how to handle this among themselves?”
What a moron.
Oh no, clearly your duty is to wait until this girl dies, or lets untreated alcoholism ruin her life, because you wouldn’t want her to stop trusting her friends like your daughter! Not only that, but we all know that the ascendant Left doesn’t believe in harsh consequences for anything, not even murdering one’s children. By all means, leave the girl’s fate in the hands of a bunch of teenage girls! They are renowned for solving complex problems with impeccable judgment. Look at this from the drunk girl’s perspective, ideally after about four shots of bourbon.
The woman actually employs the Golden Rule, which is ideally suited for ethics issues like this, then tries to talk herself out of the right response because of toxic empathy. Buried in The Ethicist’s typically wordy response (he has a column to fill, after all) is this definitive point:
“It’s hard to see how she can get the assistance she requires without her parents knowing.”
Things are not as simple as the Babylon Bee would have us think. Ethics Alarms already posted two essays on this case, here and here. The latter, a Comment of the Day by Tim Levier, concluded by describing the protesters and demonstrators thusly:
The Protestors / Defenders / Supporters – Providing financial and material support to someone with whom they have no prior connection.
These people are deranged and one has to question where they came from and who has time to commit to such folly at a time when everyone and their mother is complaining about the cost of things. Why would anyone protest due process? She’s making her case in a court of law and the fair process will play out resulting in a judgment. This isn’t an area for “opinions” and to influence an outcome. Its meddlesome and the act of a narcissist that believes in one’s own “greatness” or “importance” over that of an impartial judicial institution.
Clancy’s trial, presumably the first of two (at least), ended in a mistrial yesterday due to a hung jury. A single juror, widely believed to be one of the three men on the 12 juror panel, was apparently refusing to budge from his unshakable belief that the woman who has confessed to murdering her three children is guilty of murder. I dunno, that seems like a defensible verdict to me, but I wasn’t in the courtroom during the trial.
But I digress. Here are recent ethics-related developments and observations:
Baseball has been doing a bang-up job lately validating my baseball ethics posts. My conviction is that the game is and has always been a cultural ethics microcosm, revealing and clarifying ethical dilemmas and conflicts with applications far removed from the game itself. Yesterday there was another example.
Behold…
During the sixth inning of the St. Louis Cardinals’ 7-6 victory over the Colorado Rockies last night, Cardinals rookie reliever Hancel Rincon, making his first appearance in a big league came, wore his cap rakishly askew. Rincon was pitching to Rockies batter Cole Carrigg when home-plate umpire Doug Eddings decided to react to the query of the previous Rockies batter, who had asked Eddings, “Hey, can he wear his hat like that?”
Batters since the dawn of baseball time have tried to find ways to wage psychological warfare against pitchers; EA had an earlier example this season, here. This one worked: the comment inspired Eddings to join the fashion police. Eddings halted the game, motioned to Cardinals catcher Leo Bernal, and told Rincon to fix his cap, punctuating the request with “Grow the fuck up!” Rincon complied. Three pitchers later, Carrigg hit an inside-the-park home run and Rincon exited the game shortly thereafter.
Later in the inning, Cardinals manager Oli Marmol was ejected from the game by Eddings. Marmol explained: “We have a kid making his debut, and in between an at-bat, he tells him that he needs to fix his hat and, ‘The kid’s not going to wear his hat like that on my field.’ Last I checked, this is Coors Field, so I took issue with it.” Not only did Eddings eject Marmol, but he also called a pitch-clock violation that gave Rockies designated hitter Troy Johnston a 1-0 count to start his at-bat against the new Cardinal pitcher. That was not a valid use of the rule, but umpires think they are God sometimes. It’s tradition!
“And then the pitch violation while I’m out there having a discussion, that’s also stupid, in my opinion,” Marmol said later. “So there’s a lot of moving parts to that one. At the end of the day, I thought they handled it poorly, and I’d like an explanation at some point.”
I like Ryan Reynolds. Terrible Green Lantern, lousy in the remake of “The Amityville Horror,” but he radiates likability and good humor, and that’s a gift. I especially liked his performance in “Woman in Gold.” But Ryan, who has a new movie out, is being roasted on conservative media and by social media Maga-ites, because of his recent statement about the 1980s.
“Mayday” is Reynolds’ first major movie since “Deadpool & Wolverine” (a disappointment, from my perspective) over two years ago. It’s set as the Cold War was ending thanks to Ronald Reagan, and Reynolds stars as a U.S. Navy pilot who, trapped behind enemy lines, forms a friendship with an eccentric ex-KGB agent (Kenneth Branagh) who loves ’80s American culture. Reynolds told an interviewer that the warm nostalgia surrounding the decade, embodied in shows like “Stranger Things,” misrepresents the turbulent nature of the era:
“When you get far enough away from a time period that’s quite distinct, there’s always a lovely feeling associated with it, almost like you pave over all the trauma with puppy dogs and ice cream. The 80s was a brutal, brutal time for people. It was a fucking mess and people forget that…It was a tremendous strife. Socio political tensions everywhere. We were still pretty fresh off a Cuban missile crisis, which was only 15-20 years before. It’s a tumultuous period, but you look back at it now and you’re like, ‘Oh, yeah. ‘Top Gun.’ Cocaine!’ Like, ‘No!’ It was really scary.”
The mockery has been flying thick and fast. Much of it is unfair and deliberately misrepresents what Reynolds said. Here’s “Not the Bee”:
Playoff creep has made the regular season almost irrelevant in the NHL and the NBA, and Major League Baseball has been struggling with how to avoid a similar fate ever since it stopped automatically sending the two teams with the best records in the American League and the National League directly to the World Series. That last happened in 1968 when there were just ten teams in each league: now there are 15, with six divisions. The champs of each get into post-season play-offs, with three Wild Card teams, mandatory because otherwise random luck can have a mediocre and inferior team making the play-offs by winning a weak division while teams with a better records are left at home watching the games on TV, just because they happened to be competing with stronger teams in their division.
Fairness and perception are the issues at hand, as well as maintaining the quality of the World Series. Last year’s edition, with the L.A. Dodgers squeaking out an extra-inning, deciding game victory over an evenly matched Toronto team, gave the sport a boost that carried into this season. Pairing the Dodger with a mediocre team is a recipe for embarrassment on baseball’s biggest stage. No team with a losing record has ever represented its league, but this season that situation could indeed occur. That highlights a flaw in the system. Now what?
In “How to keep losing teams out of MLB playoffs,” ESPN’s Bradford Doolittle does an excellent job explaining the problem and analyzing potential fixes. Right now, there are just five teams (out of 15) in the American League with winning records: the leaders in the three divisions, and two more teams (including the Red Sox) in the Eastern Division. Those two teams, Boston and the Yankees, seem to have wrapped up the first two Wild Card slots, but six teams, all with losing records, are in contention for the third Wild Card, and a single losing streak by the leaders in the Central and Western divisions could give those losing champions as well. If the American League playoffs started today, the top three records in the league would all reside on one half of the bracket, with the Tampa Bay Rays awaiting the winner of a wild-card series between the Yankees and Red Sox. On the other side of the bracket, the leaders in the Central Division, the Chicago White Sox ,would receive a bye to face the winner between the Astros (72-69), winners in the West, and the Cleveland Guardians (70-70), the third Wild Card.
FanGraphs projects Chicago to win the Central with 84 wins, with Cleveland taking final wild card with 82 wins and Houston winning the West with only 82 wins. Those would be three of the six worst records to ever qualify for the postseason in a full season, yet one of those teams would be guaranteed to play for the AL Championship in the ALCS.
Here are Doolittle’s candidates for remedies going forward. This season, of course, all baseball fans can do is cross their fingers. Doolittle’s commentary will be in quotes:
I resist the temptation to emulate the less labor- (and thought) intensive blog formats of Instapundit and, much of the time, Althouse, which consist of posting a link and a brief comment, along with a substantial quote, followed by “Read it all.”
However, this is one of those weeks when I doubt my life choices that emphasized creativity and windmill-jousting over financial gain, because boy it would be great if I could devote full time to Ethics Alarms without ending up living in a cardboard box…
So while, as usual, the ethics issues battled out here on the Friday Forum are up to you, here are some links to content that might inspire you:
1. This op ed in the Times made my head explode, and it was so dishonest and partisan that an ethical newspaper would be obligated to reject. But this is the New York Times. Typical quote: “As Mr. Trump has pushed for partisan gerrymanders and a voter-suppression law like the SAVE America Act, we’ve seen strong voter turnout in races across the country.” Right. Trump’s at fault for the “partisan gerrymanders.” And partisan hacks like the author regard suppressing illegal voters as “voter-suppression”…
2. Former Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who resigned in April, was not just engaging in inappropriate conduct with her staff (and one male member of her security detail in particular), but such flagrant violations of policy, rules and ethics that one has to question her mental stability. I wrote one post referencing her at the time, but the Axis news media soft-pedaled the story, probably because the scumbag in question was a Hispanic female. Three of the women appointed to Trump’s Cabinet had to resign in disgrace. The Inspector General’s report came out yesterday [Gift Link] Yikes. Typical quote from the Times piece:
“During a personal trip to Oregon, the report said, Ms. Chavez-DeRemer asked her driver to take her and the agent to a strip club. She also had the driver go inside with them and asked him to drop money from her purse onto a partially naked performer. When the driver hesitated, the senior agent told him to follow the secretary’s instructions; later, he told the driver not to tell anybody about the incident.”
Read it all.
3. The End is Near for the American Bar Association, writes conservative law professor Josh Blackman. Anyone who watched the disgraceful performance of the ABA’s DEI president being eviscerated by Rep. Gill for her evasive and disingenuous answers while testifying before Congress in July shouldn’t doubt Blackman’s analysis for a second. His article reports that the group is in full ideological capture by the Mad Left, and, as a result, is about to be stripped of its ability to confer accreditation on law schools.
Now do the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers….
Well, I’ll say this for my Trump Deranged Facebook Friends: they are useful for keeping up on that group’s rapidly progressing mental illness, which exhibits symptoms manifesting constant fury over trivia, obsessive behavior, presumptions of certitude, and loss of all perspective. Oh, and hypocrisy! Mustn’t forget hypocrisy.
My friend the Trump Deranged professor posted this today with favor:
“Today, a permanent artistic gift—Joel Shapiro’s “Blue”—was taken from the nation because Donald Trump didn’t like it.
“September 18, join Hands Off the Arts to raise your voice and make sure Trump pays the political price for his vandalism of John F. Kennedy’s memorial and our nation’s cultural center.”
I’m marking my calendar right now!
The alleged vandalism was Trump’s ordered removal of the ugly thing above, which, since I started personally boycotting the monument to one of our most unethical Presidents and his corrupt family dynasty that included a U.S. Senator who left a young woman to die in a submerged car, I had never seen before. Huh. Is the outrage over Trump getting rid of that piece of blue crap more contrived than the fury over the 250th Commemorative coin, or less?
In a risible report, the New York Times informs us that “Blue” is a “towering artwork.” And it fit so well with the neo-Classical style of the Edward Durrell Stone white marble box-shaped Center, too!
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts removed a major outdoor sculpture from the center’s grounds on Wednesday. The work, installed in 2019, was targeted for elimination after President Trump’s takeover of the center, according to internal documents obtained by The New York Times.
The Kennedy Center made no advance announcement of its plans to remove the towering, vivid blue metal sculpture of a stick-like human figure, called “Blue.”
On Wednesday morning, the limbs and torso of the figure were wrapped in protective material; an arm was the first to be removed.
The Kennedy Center confirmed in a statement on Tuesday that the sculpture was being deinstalled and that a foundation dedicated to the artist would determine its next location. It did not say the reason for the removal but noted that the deinstallation of artworks that had been donated or lent was common practice for conservation or preservation purposes.
A news release from around the debut of “Blue” describes it as a permanent sculpture for the grounds.
“We are deeply grateful to Joel Shapiro for the years ‘Blue’ has spent animating our campus and connecting visitors to his vision,” the statement said. “We are honored to have been stewards of his vibrant work and a part of his enduring legacy.”
Mr. Shapiro died in 2025. His daughter, Ivy Shapiro, who is president of his foundation, said in an interview that she thought her father would have been “alarmed” that the sculpture was being taken down from its intended location.
“In Joel’s mind, it was one of his greatest site-specific commissions, which celebrated joy, freedom and creativity,” she said.
Hear! Hear! I know I’ve always seen giant metal stick figures as celebrations of joy, freedom and creativity. Not as much as those inflated wiggly-men, of course, but still.
If there is one thing I do not care to hear knee-jerk progressives bleat about in their ravings, it is President Trump removing a single ugly artwork from the grounds of a public building because “he didn’t like it.” In this case the President showed exquisite taste (for a change) but even if the thing weren’t a big blue metal stick figure, the reason “It stinks!” is still a brilliantly-reasoned critique compared to the Axis and Friends removing over 160 statues from public grounds …
…because a black lifetime petty thug died after an accidental use of excessive force by a Minnesota police officer while he was resisting arrest and over-dosing on drugs.
The hypocrisy—and willful blindness to it—exhibited in this latest episode of “Everything Trump Does Is Terrible And Justifies Impeachment If Not Death!” is…I need a new adjective for “beyond belief.” Let’s see…it looks like I use all of them, and the Thesaurus list doesn’t even include “gobsmacking,” “head-exploding” or the phase that keeps jumping into my mind right now, “so fucking stupid it makes my pancreas whimper.” I guess I’ll go with the Cambridge Dictionary’s more dignified and restrained “impossible to comprehend.”
Gloria Steinem, the feminist icon, died yesterday at 92. She was undeniably an important historical and cultural figure whose impact on American society was significant and predominantly positive. I’ll leave it to others to discuss that.
However, she was also critical to my understanding of how people drift into unethical habits and conduct, as well as my epiphany regarding the rareness of integrity among public figures, activists and celebrities.
Before Bill Clinton was President, Gloria preached the doctrine of inequality of power in the workplace. A woman could not meaningfully consent to social, intimate or sexual relations with a male boss, because he had so much power over her career and welfare. Sexual relations between male superiors and women who report to them was, she said, without exception, illicit, improper, abusive, and constituted sexual misconduct by the man.
Then came Monica. Feminists considered Bill Clinton an ally: I remember the scene in the Oval office where Bill signed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994, handing out pens to jubilant leaders of the feminist movement. When it was beyond denying that Bill had sexually exploited a young female intern; however, Gloria suddenly dreamed up rationalizations to let Clinton, who was and probably still is a serial sexual predator, off the sexual harassment hook.
She did so with gusto, too, in a New York Times op-ed, stunning in its denial of her previous positions. True, she said, there was an apparent imbalance of power between a young White House intern and THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, but “Whatever it was, her relationship with President Clinton has never been called unwelcome, coerced or other than something she sought. The power imbalance between them increased the index of suspicion, but there is no evidence to suggest that Ms. Lewinsky’s will was violated; quite the contrary.”
That was literally the opposite of what she had insisted was the standard before Clinton was useful to her movement. It was also the exact moment that I began thinking about how an objective ethical perspective was missing in our national discourse.
And the last time I cared what Gloria Steinem said or wrote about anything.
Ethics Alarms 