LeBron.
Soon his name will roll off our lips like the names of basketball superstars Shaq and Kobe. His fame already huge and his fortune close, first-name-only status should follow.
And yet LeBron James is still only a 17-year-old high school kid.
That’s what some readers keep saying and why they object to his name being prominently included in several recent crime stories.
“This is exploitation,” said Daisy Richard of Akron. “He’s still a kid and there is no reason to include his name in those stories.”
Here is the issue: Eddie G. Jackson Jr., the man acknowledged as the father figure for James, has been charged with mortgage fraud and money laundering. Jackson’s half-brother, Ricky D. Garrett, has been charged with drug trafficking.
In writing about these cases, the Akron Beacon Journal has included the connection to James, often prominently and in the headlines.
That’s wrong, according to some readers.
“I think that was totally irresponsible and unnecessary,” said one reader in an e-mail.
“It’s disgusting to cash in on this talented teen-ager,” said another.
“Taking advantage of LeBron James’ basketball stardom to catapult Eddie Jackson Jr. to front-page status… was an opportunist folly,” said a recent letter to the editor.
And even though the stories have been clear that the police aren’t looking at James, that’s not good enough, say these readers; the damage has been done.
“Your articles certainly have robbed LeBron of his innocence,” said Jacquelyn Garrett of Akron (no relation to Ricky Garrett). “Are you planting a guilt-by-association thought in your readers’ minds?”
Beacon Journal editors don’t see this as a matter of guilt by association, but more a matter of newsworthiness. For celebrities such as James, everyone in their inner circle is important and what they do is of strong interest.
“How prominently his name is linked to the charges against Eddie Jackson is a legitimate question. We have tried to be sensitive to this issue,” said David Hertz, the editor in charge of local news coverage. “However, when the person who advises LeBron James on his financial future is charged with fraud, that’s news by any journalistic standard.”
So, what is this journalistic standard? Basically it’s a formula for evaluating the relative importance of stories, a sliding scale that goes up and down depending on a variety of factors.
How many people are affected by the story? How close to home is it? How much impact does it have on people’s lives? Is it happening right now, versus a week or month ago? Is it unusual or even unique? Does it have high reader interest?
That last factor is the one that comes into play here. People are interested in all things LeBron. His broken wrist, his bandaged tattoos, his brand of shoes — all newsworthy.
So when the financial adviser to this soon-to-be millionaire is charged with fraud, that aspect becomes relevant to the story. In fact, for most editors, it would be irresponsible to leave it out.
In some ways, LeBron James belongs to Akron. He’s our celebrity. We want to see him succeed and represent the city well. We don’t want to see him corrupted by riches and drugs like so many other athletes.
So, the question is, do you want, expect, demand to know whether LeBron James is being sheltered from bad influences — or whether he is being exposed to criminal elements?
I think the answer is yes.
Then the next question is, when do these references in stories cross over the line from responsible to exploitive?
Daisy Richard believes the line was crossed with the very first story. Other readers have said the first reference in the first story was appropriate, but subsequent mentions were unnecessary, especially when the connection became more tenuous.
I’m inclined to agree with them. The glare of the media spotlight has robbed LeBron James of his privacy. Let’s leave him his good name.
