How important is the Media's Role in creating a more diverse NFL?

Although the Super Bowl is coming up this weekend, the NFL is already looking beyond the big game.  With the league's collective bargaining agreement set to expire next year, the players and owners are already setting the terms for which they each desire.  But perhaps more urgent than that is the lack of diverse coaching hires in the league, and the NFL recognizes the problem at hand for the Rooney Rule. 

The so-called Rooney rule requires NFL teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching jobs.  The rule, named for former Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney, was implemented in 2003 to ensure that minority coaches, especially African Americans, would be considered for these roles. While the number of minority head coaches grew in the NFL as a result, the rule has come under fire recently, as the league went from eight nonwhite head coaches in 2019 to just three in the very next season.  Since teams only have to interview one minority candidate, they can essentially just fulfill that requirement and not bat an eye at it again. 

A graphic on first time minority coaching hires from 1997-2016.  

The situation has gotten so bad that league Commissioner Roger Goodell has vowed to make changes to the Rooney Rule this upcoming offseason.  Although he didn't get into specifics, Goodell stated that there are meetings scheduled on how to improve upon the rule.  However, former NFL player and current ESPN analyst Louis Riddick said that the mindsets of the owners need to change more than the rule, and that there should be more focus on them instead.  In an interview, San Francisco 49ers cornerback Richard Sherman repeated that same sentiment, calling on the media to do a better job when he was asked a question on the Rooney Rule.  

"I put more of the responsibility on you, on the media, because you're asking people who have no say."  Sherman elaborated and said that the players don't get a voice in personnel decisions when compared to the owners, and states that the media avoids asking them tough questions to prevent them from getting on their bad side.  "Everyone feels comfortable asking a player a hard question about 'man, why aren't these black coaches getting jobs?' ask the dudes who have all the power in the world to hire and fire these men.  But you don't get the answers.  Or maybe we're not looking for the answers from those dudes because we kind of know what they are."

There are multiple layers to these statements by Sherman, which are mostly understandable.  Through about a month of coaching searches, there were many quotes on the Rooney Rule and the hiring of minority coaches, but nothing of note came from the league owners.  This group of mostly old men ultimately get the vote on which rules to implement, so there should be at least a spokesperson who speaks on the owners' behalf.  However, the situation will not likely be remedied just by asking league owners on how they view the Rooney Rule, and there's a fair chance that asking these questions don't result in anything different.  That goes without saying that reporters should still go and ask the owners on what needs to be done to improve the diversity and hiring problem in the NFL.  

At the same time, Richard Sherman looks like he's discounting his own power as a player.  He stated that he has no say in who gets hired or fired, and while there is truth to that, there is still great power that he especially holds.  Sherman is in the second of a three year deal that's worth $27 million, and having just been elected to his fifth Pro Bowl, his voice definitely holds more weight than the average player.  A lot of players can band together on resolving the Rooney Rule, and it's likely the players could have more influence on than the media.  As mentioned before, the NFL's CBA is expiring in a year, and the players could use the Rooney Rule as a bargaining chip in favor of both players and owners, even if the latter doesn't see it.  

Louis Riddick and Richard Sherman are both correct that when discussing diversity in coaching hires, the owners need more attention.  There is also an incredible amount of power that both players and media have on shaping this discussion, and both should act on it if this problem is to be resolved.  

https://twitter.com/JDJohnDickinson/status/1222858085385035776
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/01/07/the-rooney-rule-still-isnt-working/
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28593376/roger-goodell-says-nfl-needs-changes-rooney-rule

India's Social Media Situation and the Precedent it may set for Everyone

In 2015, the Supreme Court of India made a landmark ruling in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India in which it ruled that social media posts can only be removed via government or court order.  In the case, Indian law student Shreya Singhal challenged Section 66A in regards to restrictions of online speech in India's Information Technology Act.  Just this month, that ruling was upheld, as India's Supreme Court reinforced the constitutional right of free speech for the internet. 

While this may be viewed as a victory for internet freedom, it establishes an odd precedent that allows for the national government to have a stranglehold on social media.  Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are regulated privately, and any government regulation of their Terms and Conditions in the United States could be viewed as a violation of the First Amendment.  In addition, the power of the government getting the deciding voice in removing content could be dangerous if gone into the wrong hands, as a country like China could use this policy to target certain people and groups. 

Even with India's decision to have basically unrestricted free speech on their social media, their Ministry for Information and Technology has just recently implemented new rules to have platforms comply with government orders within 24 hours, which is too soon to properly evaluate the situation at hand.  In addition, the IT Ministry is seeking a way to trace the origination of hate speech and fake news, though that creates a new problem where the users' encryption is likely to become compromised.  There is additional concern that automated filtering technology could ban content on accident, and that it's better to have human evaluate the content even if it's more exhaustive. 





Shreya Singhal, the student and now lawyer that changed social media policing in India. 






Although this case took place outside of the United States, it is still noteworthy because of the impact it might have for the Western Hemisphere.  As countries struggle to prevent "fake news" from misinforming the public, lawmakers in Europe and the United States have focused on implementing automated filters to remove hateful or threatening speech from social media.  However, these filters may not properly understand the context or meaning behind a certain post.  For example, terrorism recruitment videos are already illegal, but these filters may ban a post that's instead reporting on terrorism.  The price to filtering content is also costly, as YouTube said they paid $100 million for their automated technology, a price that most outlets simply cannot afford. 

There doesn't look like a right way to do this, but the rules in each country has left a lot of interesting proposals on the table.  In my opinion, leaving the ability to filter out malicious and/or erroneous content up to people is just not possible, as nobody can evaluate the millions of social media posts and users that are present online, especially in countries as large as India or the United States.  Despite this, it should still be made possible for any accounts or posts that are reported on to get a second reference from human reviewers, since this process could accurately determine whether or not the decision to remove a user or post was correct.  That is a process that most outlets have taken up, so the current situation for sites like Facebook and Twitter should remain the same, though a few minor revisions could be made to clarify their review process.  The idea of almost unmonitored internet speech (with exception to the government) sounds crazy, though we will still have to wait and see what impact it has on India, and potentially the rest of the world. 

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/filtering-out-free-speech-shreya-singhal-case-supreme-court-6220277/

https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/regulations-are-important-to-protect-free-speech-online-say-experts-at-sflc-panel-on-intermediary-liability-law/story/394161.html