When retired basketball star Kobe Bryant and his 13-year-old daughter Gianna died in a helicopter crash on January 26, despair swept across the world. As a player for the National Basketball Association (NBA) league, Bryant was often referred to as one of the greatest players of all time. He was, however, also accused of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old girl in July, 2003, regarding which he financially settled a private suit in and issued a public apology. Bryant’s sudden death sparked controversy about how media outlets should cover the life and death of public figures.

As the freak accident killing Bryant was reported, the world seemed united with the feeling of sadness for he and his daughter’s early deaths and condolences rapidly poured in from individuals and media outlets through social media posts and articles.

Those who suggested a slightly different view on his death, on the other hand, were immediately shut down. The Washington Post journalist Felicia Sonmez’s retweet of an old article about Bryant’s rape allegations led to a bombardment of “abuse and death threats,” according to Sonmez. She was also subsequently put on administrative leave without a clear explanation. American television (TV) host Gayle King also received death threats and had to travel with security guards after a clip was shown of her asking an interviewee whether Bryant’s rape allegations impacted his legacy.

Perhaps these responses were insensible in some ways. The backlash they faced, when analyzed through the prism of Bryant’s admirable legacy as a role model in basketball, black culture, and more, is possible to comprehend. However, it is important to question whether the public in general—especially media outlets—responsibly discuss the good and bad aspects when reporting the life and death of public figures. Some may even argue that media coverage in the wake of death is usually imbalanced and shines a light only on the more favorable qualities of the deceased, consequently glorifying them, whether intentional or not.

The affiliation of a widely admired star with such a negative record is understandably uncomfortable to the public, and perhaps that is why there are only a few people who are up to the task of mourning the entirety of Bryant’s history. However, discomfort cannot be an excuse for media outlets to refrain from telling the whole story. Because journalism sources largely shape the public sentiment, they have a responsibility to report the truth. This is readily applied to political sections that report corruption, or articles that advocate unpopular opinions. Why should the lives of public figures be exempt? In fact, it may even need to be applied more strictly.

When put in unfavorable situations, public figures are able to explain themselves from their own perspective to the public, precisely because of the media. On the other hand, those who are not publicly recognized have no choice but to let the public consensus about them be shaped by the media and their assaulter, who in this case is Bryant. Therefore, while Bryant was able to continuously redeem himself and his reputation after his rape accusation, the victim did not get the same chance to speak up. The same goes for all renowned public figures who have dark pasts. The media, as the ones with powerful voices, have the responsibility to not only celebrate these celebrities, but also to chastise them.

Quoting Bryant himself, “we are all angels, we are all devils.” Bryant was able to accept himself as a complicated human being. Media outlets, no matter how difficult it may be, should strive to do the same through their journalism, alongside vigorous debates about the way to do so thoughtfully.