Skip navigation
Sign up to follow your favorites on all your devices.
Sign up

Schefter admits it was a “mistake” to say Hardy “changed”


BRISTOL, CT - AUGUST 18: Adam Schefter joined ESPN as an NFL Insider in August 2009 and appears on a variety of programs, including NFL Insiders, NFL Live, Sunday NFL Countdown, Monday Night Countdown, SportsCenter and more throughout the year. He also contributes regularly to other platforms, including and ESPN Radio. Schefter has covered the NFL for over 20 years and is regarded as one of the top reporters in the industry. (Photo by Christopher Capozziello/For The Washington Post)

Christopher Capozziello

ESPN’s Adam Schefter has received plenty of criticism for his interview with Greg Hardy, who showed no remorse over his 2014 domestic violence case. But Schefter says he has no regrets about the interview.

Instead, Schefter is saying his one regret is about his declaration after the interview that he believes Hardy has “changed.” Schefter said on WEEI that he wishes he hadn’t said that.

“That was a mistake on my part,” Schefter said. “But I have no regrets about the interview or the questions we asked. None.”

But while Schefter may not regret any of the questions he asked, there are some questions that weren’t asked, and should have been. Specifically, when Hardy misrepresented the reasons his criminal case was dismissed, Schefter should have pushed back harder with follow-up questions. At one point in the interview, Hardy claimed, “I’ve been proven not guilty.” That simply isn’t true: The case against Hardy was dismissed because his accuser declined to testify and wouldn’t cooperate with prosecutors, reportedly after Hardy wrote her a check. Having the charges dropped isn’t the same thing as being proven not guilty, and Schefter shouldn’t have let Hardy’s claim go unchallenged.

Hardy also suggested that photos of his accuser’s bruises could have been doctored, stating, “Pictures are pictures and they can be made to look like whatever they want to.” If Hardy is going to claim that the disturbing pictures of his accuser were doctored, Schefter should ask Hardy to provide some kind of evidence that that’s the case. (Obviously, if Hardy had any such evidence, he and his lawyers would have provided it long ago.)

In his WEEI interview, Schefter said he doesn’t know whether Hardy hit his accuser.

“I honestly didn’t go in there to form an opinion of whether he did or didn’t hit her,” Schefter said. “I wasn’t there.”

Schefter seems to want to stay objective in his dealings with Hardy. Objectivity is usually a fine quality in a journalist, but with a subject like Hardy, a more adversarial approach would have better served his audience.