Here’s a hypothetical:
A prominent athlete spends a night in the bar. Then, screaming drunk, he gets behind the wheel of his car and kills two people as a result of his condition.
Naturally, there would be outrage. One of the most hard-hitting attacks probably would come from Sports Illustrated columnist Rick Reilly, whose style would be to vilify the athlete.
But could Reilly write that column now? After all, didn’t he just do a commercial endorsing a beer company?
Reilly violated the unwritten rule that says journalists don’t do commercials. A serious reporter never should give the impression that he or she can be bought, like an athlete, or even worse, a politician. A journalist would rather face an angry Albert Belle than questions of conflict of interest.
So imagine the surprise when Reilly showed up in a Miller Lite commercial that began its run last week. Starring with supermodel Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, Reilly spoofs his magazine while plugging the beer.
When asked about ethical problems posed by the commercial, Reilly initially joked that his wife was the only person to raise questions about a possible conflict of interest.
“She didn’t want me to spend a whole weekend with Rebecca,” Reilly said.
Too bad Sports Illustrated didn’t listen to Reilly’s wife.
Reilly didn’t need the exposure. He arguably is the highest-profile sports print journalist in the country, writing a weekly back-page column for the 3.125 million readers of Sports Illustrated. He earned the position because he has a way of turning a phrase that make the rest of us feel as if we are as entertaining as the phone book.
Now Reilly has gone out and compromised his credibility by shilling for a beer.
Of course, Reilly and Sports Illustrated don’t see it that way. According to SI spokesman Art Berke, the ad was more “a statement about sports magazines than endorsement of beer.” It should be noted, however, that Reilly was holding a beer, not a sports magazine, in the commercial.
Reilly seemed genuinely surprised that the ad is even an issue. He said he didn’t endorse a product like Nike, which sponsors many athletes.
Well, doesn’t Miller Lite sponsor many athletic events, including auto racing?
“I’ve never covered an auto race,” Reilly said.
Reilly, though, did write a stinging indictment of last year’s race in Michigan that continued after a fan was killed by a flying tire. If that race had been sponsored by Miller Lite, could he have written the same column?
And what about writing on athletes with alcohol- and substance-abuse problems? Can a writer who endorses a beer come down on an athlete who doesn’t know his limit?
“I think that’s a stretch,” Reilly said. “Just because you endorse Miller Lite doesn’t mean you endorse DWI.”
Reilly insisted that his principles haven’t been compromised. But that won’t stop the questions from coming. In fact, they’ve already began.
For instance, a colleague called to inform that Miller Lite had purchased the premium and expensive back-page ad in this week’s SI (featuring Romijn-Stamos). He wondered if Reilly’s commercial was part of a package deal the magazine has with the beer company.
In Sunday’s New York Daily News, sports media columnist Bob Raisman was critical of a recent Reilly column in which he called for Mark McGwire to quit taking performance-enhancing drugs because of his influence on kids.
Now in light of Reilly’s ad, Raisman wrote: “There’s a certain hypocrisy in all this. If Reilly can take McGwire to task, then turn around and do a beer commercial (which could adversely affect a kid), we must wonder if the message he sent to the Cardinals slugger was truly a sincere one.”
Knowing Reilly, there’s no doubt about his sincerity; he recently ripped his own company for sponsoring the Olympics. But we’re talking perception, not sincerity, here.
Most editors operate under this premise: If there’s even the appearance of a conflict of interest, then there’s a conflict of interest.
Our sports staff fights the perception all the time. When asked about Reilly’s situation, Robert Reid, a journalism professor at the University of Illinois, responded, “Tribune Co. has a huge conflict of interest in owning the Cubs.”
That may be true, but there is a difference. The Tribune’s ownership is a business decision. At last check, nobody consulted with the sports staff.
Reilly could have turned down the commercial. This is one time when he should have said no to a supermodel.
Last year retired TV news legend David Brinkley caused a stir when he signed on to do ads for Archer Daniels Midland Co. The profession was aghast.
“We didn’t think David Brinkley could ever be bought,” said Andy Rooney of “60 Minutes.”
Reilly, like Brinkley, probably was paid handsomely to do the ad. But when the critiques and criticisms come in, Reilly could wind up paying a much higher price.
