Might Aaron Rodgers' shot at Jimmy Kimmel prove a fatal fumble for QB's career in punditry?

The possibility of ESPN not taking the misleading comments Aaron Rodgers made seriously was laid to rest when Pat McAfee hosted his show on Wednesday, featuring a feeble apology for Rodgers' previous day's antics. If you recall, Rodgers used his weekly segment on McAfee's show, for which he's paid seven digits a year, to discuss the upcoming release of legal documents associated with Jeffrey Epstein, the infamous financier and sex trafficker. If a full list of Epstein's high-profile friends becomes public, their reputations could be permanently tarnished. Those associated with a man infamous for exploiting underage girls for sex would struggle to justify their association. Rodgers, the 40-year-old quarterback for the New York Jets, gleefully anticipated TV host Jimmy Kimmel being revealed as an Epstein affiliate. "Many people, Jimmy Kimmel included, are really hoping that doesn't get out," Rodgers asserted. If the list becomes public, I'll definitely celebrate." This could be viewed as slanderous.

When Kimmel hit back at Rodgers on X (formerly Twitter), it was evident he was in damage control. Kimmel tweeted, "I’ve never met, flown with, visited, or had contact whatsoever with Epstein," pointing out that Rodgers' wild accusations put his family at risk. McAfee then appeared on his Wednesday show to try to downplay Rodgers' comments wearing a sombre black long-sleeved shirt. The sleeves arguably symbolised the seriousness of the issue. Normally, McAfee would be in his favourite tank top, or maybe a sleeveless T-shirt if the weather's cold.

On Thursday, when the documents were released, Kimmel's name wasn't mentioned. ESPN hasn't publicly responded to Rodgers' recent foray into hot-button off-field issues. The repercussions could be significant, especially for a network that markets itself as a global sports leader. Other media outlets grappling with the issue of misinformation could benefit from principles for handling interviewees who distort the truth. ESPN's response to Rodgers' indirect tarring of Kimmel, if it ever materialises, could serve as a precedent.

Rodgers' regular TV appearances seem to guarantee continued controversies. His relationship with the truth is questionable, as evidenced by episodes such as misleading the public about his vaccination status, complaining about being shadowbanned for his views, and stringing his team along on hopes of an unlikely return from a serious injury. His media appearances are hardly journalism - If they were, someone involved would prioritise truth. Rodgers’ interviews can hardly be considered entertaining unless you're interested in his thinly veiled insincerity.

McAfee's situation is straightforward. He runs his show and licenses it to ESPN at an average of $17 million per annum. Also, he has to occupy three hours every weekday afternoon, making Rogers, a regular talkative guest, invaluable. Rodgers also fits into the package that ESPN is buying. He uses his space on McAfee's show to discuss day-to-day sports, opine about vaccines, and make significant announcements. This recent furore could strain this relationship.

However, disparaging remarks about vaccines can be life-threatening, especially with a possible resurgence of COVID-19 linked to low vaccination rates. When Rodgers sneered at Travis Kelce, the Kansas City Chiefs tight end, after he appeared in a vaccination promotion commercial, it was overlooked as mild banter between professional peers.

But suggesting on the same platform that Kimmel, whose show is aired by ABC (a Disney company like ESPN), is linked with a convicted sex trafficker is an egregious crossing of boundaries. It is not like making an incorrect prediction that can be retracted later, or falsely reporting that Shohei Ohtani is en route to Toronto when he is still in LA. Wrongly insinuating that someone is a sexual predator can cause substantial reputation damage, and this is why Kimmel suggested taking the matter to court.

McAfee has assured viewers that Rodgers will be back soon to explain his comments, which could mean a retraction, a confession, or an apology. Nevertheless, even a repentant Rodgers is still Rodgers, and thus due for fact-checking.