Do reporters have an obligation to protect the privacy of student athletes?
I wonder because shortly before the Wisconsin Badger basketball team tipped
off against Ohio State last night, the University announced that two
players did not make the trip to Columbus. Greg Stiemsma was on a "leave of
absence for personal medical reasons" while Marcus Landry was simply
"ineligible". In the past couple of years two other Badgers, Boo
Wade and DeAaron Williams permanently left the team for mysterious
"personal medical reasons". Is there more to it than that? Due to HIPAA
privacy regulations, universities are prohibited from disclosing
medical information about athletes without their consent. That's all well
and good, but what if the University of Wisconsin is using a very
broad definition of "medical reasons" and hiding behind the law so that
they don't have to answer any tough questions?

I'm not accusing Badger coach Bo Ryan of anything. I have no idea what's
happening with these kids. I would, however, like to know. While
HIPAA prevents universities from saying what's going on, it doesn't, as far
as I know, prevent the media from doing some digging. But that's not the
way that some members of the local media see it. I was listening to a
sports talk show and the host was absolutely adamant that no more
questions be asked about this. He was content to just wait for the next
official statement to come across the AP wire. He seemed to think that
college athletes had some extra-special right to privacy and how dare we,
the tax-paying public, ask questions or speculate!

Sometimes I think we get confused about our rights. People cried
"censorship" when radio stations refused to play the Dixie Chicks after
they ripped on President Bush. Not everyone understands what exactly the
Constitution says (myself included). The 1st Amendment states that the
government can't restrict free speech, it doesn't say anything about
private enterprises. Likewise, the fact that the a university can't
disclose medical information doesn't mean that others are barred from
talking. An enterprising reporter could, for example, call a player's
roommate or his parents or his girlfriend and try to get the scoop.
They can tell the public what's really going on.

But, they can't do this if they refuse to go after the story. It occurs to
me that one of the reasons that the internet is a more and more popular
news choice is because it gives the public a chance to hear the whole
story. They can circumvent the traditional news media when they take it
upon themselves to act as a gatekeeper. Basketball fans will hop on message
boards and try to get to the heart of the matter. Soldiers in Iraq will
start blogs to tell their story of what's happening on the ground.
Members of the vast right wing conspiracy will analyze documents and prove
that they are forgeries.

People are always going to want and need information. The fact that
reporters don't always want to provide that information doesn't make the
need go away. It simply opens up opportunities for other information
providers and further erodes the public's trust in the mainstream media.