Sports Scribe Spent The Weekend Reporting, But Not To His Audience

The sporting world is in a tizzy this week over the actions of Sports Illustrated writer Michael Bamberger, whose decision to report a possible rules violation to officials at the Samsung World Championship led to the disqualification of golfing phenom Michelle Wie. Bamberger noticed that in taking a penalty drop for an unplayable lie, Wie place the ball closer to the hole than it was – a penalty that should have cost her two more strokes. But his decision to consult with tournament officials has raised some important questions about the role of reporters, questions that go far beyond coverage of a golf tournament.

Bamberger witnessed the possible infraction during Saturday's third round but did not approach officials about it until Sunday, after Wie had already signed her third-round scorecard – an act that left no room for correcting her score. Bamberger says that as a reporter, he felt his duty was to question Wie about the drop, something he did not get an opportunity to do until after she had signed her scorecard.

Wie's response to the question, according to the reporter, was that the drop had been proper and not a violation of the rules. Bamberger tells Sports Illustrated he wrestled with the question further, knowing as a former professional caddy himself, "adherence to the rules is the underlying value of the game. To stand silent when you see an infraction is an infraction itself." After reviewing tape of the drop and revisiting the site of the alleged infraction, he then went to tournament officials.

Wie was taken back to re-create the event after her final round and officials determined it was, indeed, a rules infraction. Having already finished and signed her now-incorrect third-round scorecard, Wie was disqualified, losing over $53,000 in prize money. Speaking to reporters later, Wie said she had not had any intention of cheating and that she had learned her lesson to consult officials when there's any question about the rules.

The episode is unlikely to have any lasting impact on Wie's career. The 16-year old was participating in her first tournament as a professional, after all, and is widely expected to be the Tiger Woods of her sport. The lost money is nothing compared to the millions in endorsements in her future.

More uncertain is what this episode says about what the role of journalists should be in similar situations. Bob Steele, head of ethics at the Poynter Institute isn't confused, telling the USA Today, "if lives are at risk and the journalist is the only one who can intervene, that's different from citing a rules violation by an athlete. We should report that as part of our journalism. We should not be the whistle-blower who is going to the authorities."

The Golf Channel's Brian Hewitt has a different take, writing in his column, "Wie and her caddie made a mistake. They paid for it. We can now all move on from this. Meanwhile it's my opinion that Michael Bamberger did the correct thing on all counts. Doing the correct thing sometimes means a reporter can't avoid becoming part of the story. This time the story didn't have a happy ending. But it had the right ending."

This may be a tempest in a teapot, coming as it did during the course of a sporting event. But the news business as a whole is changing. How many times during the coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath were we told that the more personal, involved and emotional reporting we saw there was what news consumers want? Geraldo Rivera, we know, didn't push any rescue workers out of the way in an attempt to help in the efforts, but reporters were all-but climbing over one another to out-emote the next guy or gal. They, not unlike Bamberger, became part of the story.