Case Study Evaluation on the Pete Rose-Jim Gray Incident

In the case study, “Playing Hardball: The Pete Rose-Jim Gray Controversy,” award-winning NBC news reporter Jim Gray interviewed Pete Rose during the 1999 World Series. Rose, a legendary baseball player, was banned from the Hall of Fame for betting on games while serving as manager for the Cincinnati Reds. During the live television interview, Gray asked the retired athlete if he was willing to offer an apology for denying that he ever gambled. Instead of making that his moment of public redemption, he opted to lie and save face instead.

Jim Gray interviews Cincinnati Reds Manager Pete Rose

In evaluating this case, I’ll be using the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics, which operates on four major principles: seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable. This Code of Ethics is very helpful in evaluating the case because it actually involves a journalist reporter and the choices that were made.

According to the first (and arguably) most important principle, Jim Gray fulfilled his journalistic duty. It was no secret that Pete Rose had been accused and reprimanded by Major League Baseball for betting on games. Gray was bold and brave enough to seek the truth straight from the horse’s mouth on live television.

Many viewers complained about Gray’s interview approach, saying that Rose already paid for what he did and should have been allowed to enjoy his celebratory evening. I feel like there was nothing wrong with Gray asking him one important question because the case study stated that Rose hadn’t made a baseball game appearance in 10 years.

Under minimizing harm, SPJ Code of Ethics says journalists should show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage and use special sensitivity when dealing with inexperienced subjects. 

Pete Rose was an athlete that played in hundreds of games in front of millions of people during his career. There is no way he was affected by news coverage because at one point in time, he was the news. He’s not inexperienced because he is no stranger to the spotlight. He was used to being a star athlete and all the challenges that came with it.

Jim Gray acted independently because even though the case study said he interviewed Pete Rose over 50 times in the past, he didn’t allow their good standing relationship to get in the way of him asking a tough question. He avoided conflicts of interests and remained vigilant about holding Rose accountable for his actions.

The only way the SPJ Code of Ethics wasn’t helpful in this case was when it came to being accountable. During that World Series, the New York Yankees were able to boycott Gray and get him replaced without him even getting a fair chance to explain the reasoning behind his actions.

An ethical perspective that supports the SPJ Code of Ethics is Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Kant’s principle focuses on consistency and whether the act is something everyone could do. If the act is respectful, then it’s acceptable. 

I believe that any journalist with enough courage and concern could have asked the athlete the same question that Gray did. As a truthful reporter, he didn’t have any bad intentions during his interview. Like he said in a post interview with Sports Illustrated, he was only “trying to give him a window of opportunity to take his case public.”

An ethical perspective that goes against Gray’s actions is Mill’s Principle of Utility, which determines the rightness of an act by its effect on total happiness. 

This principle says that actions should promote happiness with happiness being described as “pleasure and the absence of pain.” Many thought Gray’s questions were “embarrassing” and uncalled for. They didn’t believe that a World Series game was the right time or place for Rose to be put on the spot about something that happened in his past. Mill says that consequences of the action are most important and while Gray had noble intentions, the consequences that followed after the interview did not evoke any happiness for any parties involved.

Out of all the principles, I think the SPJ Code of Ethics was the most helpful because all of their major principles and code of practice really coincided with the gray areas of the Pete Rose/Jim Gray case. The SPJ Code of Ethics justifies the majority of Jim Gray’s action. Although many people disagreed with his question choices and persistent demeanor, he felt that he was upholding his integrity and fulfilling his obligations as a journalist.