Is Aaron Rodgers still interesting?

We’ve recently seen more furor than usual around New York Jets’ quarterback Aaron Rodgers, which is saying something.

That started with Rodgers listed as a potential top candidate for the vice-presidential slot on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential ticket (which reportedly isn’t happening after all). It then led to CNN reporting that Rodgers had spread conspiracy theories around the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting at least twice, claiming it “never happened” and the grieving parents were “actors,” to a partial denial from Rodgers (which certainly didn’t cover everything the report mentioned), and to investigations into Rodgers’ comments on other conspiracy theories on vaccines, immigrants, the “Tartarian Empire,” and more.

That all led to discussion about where Rodgers is at overall, including Mina Kimes’ comments about him on The Dan Le Batard Show With Stugotz (around 34:30 in the clip below):

There, after a discussion of Rodgers’ response to CNN and what it did and didn’t say, Kimes went into a larger conversation on Rodgers and the conspiracies he’s discussed. She said “What’s now interesting to me, because I don’t think he’s a particularly interesting person anymore because all of this is pretty predictable, is how people react to him. What this means for the perception of who he is as one of the faces of the NFL, whether he can be anymore, whether fans can sit with this. …I’m kind of wondering what happens next for him in the public imagination, setting aside the VP aspect of it all, because this is pretty reputation-damaging stuff. It should be.”

‘All of this is pretty predictable’

It’s notable that Kimes is not questioning the media coverage of Rodgers to date, at least not in this specific clip. And she’s not explicitly saying that the media shouldn’t cover Rodgers going forward, either. But “I don’t think he’s a particularly interesting person anymore because all of this is pretty predictable” is a notable line, especially for its contrast to other things we’ve heard about Rodgers. It’s a good reason to discuss whether Rodgers’ views are currently of public interest and worthy of coverage (which are different, but related, things).

In particular, Kimes’ stance here on how interesting Rodgers is or isn’t is a notable divergence from the various things we’ve heard her ESPN colleague Pat McAfee say in defense of his repeated platforming of Rodgers. (Of note, while McAfee works for ESPN on a lot of fronts, including College GameDay and alternate broadcasts, his The Pat McAfee Show is a licensed simulcast. Thus, the millions he pays Rodgers to appear there don’t make Rodgers an ESPN employee. Instead, he is someone who regularly appears on their platforms.)

‘A human that is one of one’

In particular, a lengthy All The Smoke interview with Stephen Jackson (who’s made his own controversial comments at times) and Matt Barnes (recently seen in a controversy of his own) saw McAfee expound on why he believes it’s worth to keep having Rodgers on his show. McAfee said he’s sometimes wondered if he’s handling the Rodgers situation right. But he defended it overall by citing Rodgers’ relevance as an NFL quarterback and the importance of getting his views on the record, which may matter for future coverage and documentaries. A few selected quotes there:

“There was nights I couldn’t sleep, I’m like ‘Am I f****** this up completely?’, and then I got back to like ‘We’re having conversations with people.’ You can disagree with them completely, but at least you learn and know where Aaron’s at.

“Like, this is a Mount Rushmore quarterback in the history of the NFL. In real time, you’re learning about him completely. I feel like that’s a form of journalism as well, even though people won’t really talk about.

…”Whenever there’s documentaries made about Aaron Rodgers later in life, which will happen, they’re going to use so much of our show. Is that not journalism?

“Is that not journalism?” is a complicated discussion (and one with a notable history) that we’ve already dove into at length, so we won’t fully reprise that here. But McAfee’s comments tie into a long history of what he’s said about how worthwhile it is to hear Rodgers on any subject, from “we just try to provide him with an opportunity to explain himself so we can learn a little bit more about him, get his side of it, learn about this anomaly that is him” to “conversations that rattled the sports globe” and “these convos enlightened us on a human that is one of one.”

‘Exploring the mystery that is Aaron Rodgers’

While renowned journalist and author Ian O’Connor’s approach to his upcoming book on Rodgers is notably different from McAfee’s approach to Rodgers, it’s also worth discussing. O’Connor largely based that book on his interviews with more than 250 others about Rodgers, and was prepared to finish it without any specific access to the quarterback, but Rodgers did grant him a couple of hours of responses at one point. So that’s significantly different from the largely unchallenged platform McAfee gives Rodgers.

That book’s marketing copy claims Rodgers “stands among the most mysterious and polarizing figures in the modern-day national pastime that is pro football.” And O’Connor told AA’s Michael Grant he chose Rodgers as a subject “to explain to people who he is and why he is the way he is” and because people around the NFL “felt like they did not know who Aaron Rodgers really is.” So there’s at least somewhat of a similar idea there, that Rodgers is this incredibly significant figure whose thoughts and beliefs (and how he acquired them) are worthy of intense exploration.

Those are three perspectives on “Is Aaron Rodgers interesting?” And maybe the most declarative statements there are McAfee’s “this anomaly that is him” and “enlightened us on a human that is one of one,” suggesting that Rodgers is so unique and special that anything he wants to say is worth noting. That certainly gets reinforced in O’Connor’s discussions on exploring “the mystery that is Aaron Rodgers,” even if that exploration (unlike McAfee’s) is largely through sources outside Rodgers. But Kimes’ “I think all of this is pretty predictable” is a sharp contrast to this, and it’s worth considering in detail.

How original are Rodgers’ takes?

An important element with Rodgers and his takes to date is that while they’re controversial, they do not appear to be original. This was particularly notable in his recent three-hour podcast with Eddie Bravo on a wide range of conspiracy theories, from immigrants joining the U.S. military and then betraying the country to vaccines as “experimental gene therapy” to young athletes dying to the Tartarian Empire and mountains, trees, and the library of the Vatican. That’s all been seen before as well, in everything from his defense of his “immunized” claim about COVID-19 to his reported questioning of what happened with the Sept. 11 attacks and the Sandy Hook shooting.

Few things are truly original, and there can be merit to discussing others’ ideas. And no one is expecting Rodgers to do intense original research worthy of academic publication while also playing quarterback for the New York Jets. But the challenge with viewing Rodgers’ opinions as so “mysterious” and him as an “anomaly” and a “human that is one of one” is that it largely isn’t true.

These are theories that have been put out there. They’ve generally been advanced in strange corners of the world because they don’t do well under academic scrutiny or journalistic fact-checking. But they’re not original ideas crafted by Rodgers. Kimes’ “predictable” comment refers to how these wild theories on such widely different topics and subjects are all often advanced by the same group of people. And that came up in AA’s Sean Keeley’s intro to his post on Rodgers and the Bravo podcast: it makes complete sense that Rodgers reportedly said what he did about Sandy Hook because of what else he’s said publicly.

When the news broke that, per CNN, Aaron Rodgers reportedly claimed that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was a “government inside job,” I didn’t even flinch.

Obviously, it’s a horrific conspiracy theory that you have to be devoid of human empathy to even entertain. But I have absolutely no problem presuming that Rodgers does hold those beliefs. In fact, I’d be shocked to learn he didn’t believe it.

Thus, with that in mind, and with the idea that you can largely predict Rodgers’ take on a particular subject, there is an argument for Kimes’ stance that he may not be “a particularly interesting person anymore.” However, that sets up the discussion of whether he’s worth coverage. There’s some overlap between those ideas, but there are also some distinctions. And the distinctions are worth exploring.

Why the VP conversation matters

It appears that what the “one of one” Rodgers is doing is getting these unoriginal and highly criticized theories to a much wider audience. And that’s because while “Joe on the street corner” saying these things would not get media outlets’ attention, the starting quarterback for the New York Jets and (especially!) a potential candidate for Vice President of the United States saying these things does.

The vice-presidential discussion got CNN to report Rodgers’ past Sandy Hook comments. And as Keeley wrote in our coverage of Rodgers’ podcast with Bravo, that didn’t initially seem worth writing up for a sports media site when Rodgers was just an NFL quarterback. But it became much more significant with discussion of him seeking high political office.

There is a huge discussion to be had on where the “worthy of coverage” line gets drawn, though. Historically, this has been a big deal with third-party presidential candidates. It appears highly unlikely a true third-party or independent candidate will win a U.S. presidential election.* And most discussion of third-party bids in recent years has been about who they’ll suck up (not “off“) votes from, and what issues they’re trying to raise awareness of. So that’s led to figures like RFK Jr. with strong stances on specific issues (in his case, particularly against vaccines) making bids that seem mostly designed to gain media coverage of those stances. And Rodgers certainly seems to fit with that.

How do journalistic outlets handle this?

Right now, there’s no one answer to what coverage of Kennedy and Rodgers is worthwhile. While that presidential bid doesn’t seem particularly likely to triumph (and Rodgers himself now seems to be on the outside of it looking in), many unexpected things have happened in U.S. politics. Kennedy has indicated ballot access is a major focus for him, and he has the money to make it happen, but there are still challenges.

Thus, while this bid can be described as “unlikely,” it can’t be written off as impossible yet. And that certainly means that comments from Kennedy, and people rumored as his top VP candidates, have news value. (even officially selected VP candidates have been disqualified from tickets for much less than what Rodgers reportedly said on Sandy Hook.)

So there are arguments for the value to the public in covering everything Rodgers has said so far, and even perhaps for people like McAfee providing him prominent platforms to continue to say controversial things. (Again, there’s a lot to discuss there, from the platform to the appropriate level of pushback from the host, but there’s at least a case that encouraging Rodgers to keep talking is relevant to a public that may soon have to contemplate whether to vote for him or not.)

But the argument from the other side is that when Rodgers does become “predictable,” the discussion of his takes goes from conversations on how remarkable it is that he says and believes these things to just publicization of these conspiracy theories. And with a presidential campaign that seems largely about getting attention for stances, that takes on a further dimension. Rodgers’ McAfee appearances also seem to be about getting attention for stances. So there are real debates for news organizations in how, and how often, to cover what Rodgers says.

The SPJ Code of Ethics

There’s no universal answer here. As discussed on a very different front Friday, journalism tends not to have defined black-and-white answers that apply to all outlets at all times, and that’s for good reason. Even the widely cited Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics makes it very clear it exists as a guideline and as a document to be considered in totality rather than something where critics can weaponize individual elements against journalists.

But there are notable discussions in that code on how to “balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort,” “avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do,” and “consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication.” Those are three things worth consideration in any Rodgers conversation. So is the point there that “private figures have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power” (a point that comes up in the vast majority of defamation cases).

In the end, each journalistic organization is going to have to draw their own lines on how “interesting” Rodgers is (or, more specifically, what from him qualifies as “interesting”) and how worthy of coverage individual things he says are. There are arguments for a wide variety of approaches and perspectives there, with the ones relayed above from McAfee, O’Connor, and Kimes all having their merits (and with there also being many other perspectives on how to cover Rodgers). But those decisions should be made thoughtfully, and with thought given to both the “interesting” angle and the “worthy of coverage” angle. We’ll see how organizations handle that in the coming days.

*As a side note, the full span of U.S. history is not really a full two-party system, as there have been a whole lot of changes in the dominant two parties and also several significant elections where it was not clear from the outset who the “two parties” or tickets would be. And there have been a ton of notable third-party runs. But the last third-party candidate who probably actually had a realistic shot at becoming president was former president Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

There, Roosevelt won 88 electoral votes, more than eight times what incumbent president and Republican William Howard Taft drew. Many since then, from Strom Thurmond to George Wallace to David Duke to Ross Perot to Ralph Nader to Jill Stein and Jo Jorgensen, have got a lot of attention, and often significant numbers of votes, but haven’t come close to winning as many electoral votes as Roosevelt did.