Ok, I see what you're saying. But, the words "credible source" still come to mind. Those media folks who contacted the parents did so because parents are typically considered credible sources, & whether they like it or not, they are definitely linked to any news related to their son. As a rule of thumb, a journalist needs at least 2 credible sources in every article he/she produces (of course nowadays it seems like having only 1 source will do) and "internet chatter" certainly does not count as a credible source. The media wasn't getting anything from Nebraska coaches & they probably didn't know if the parents had been contacted by the coaching staff. How would they know?
Now, I admit if I were Fisher's parents, it would annoy & upset me to get a call from media about my son's injury before I'd even gotten word from my son or the coaching staff. But, that doesn't mean the media is crossing the line by calling me about it. Crossing the line would be if media were harassing me for information in a way that is disrespectful or harmful to my reputation or well-being. This is neither.
Is this still the rule of thumb or is this a quaint throwback to the days of real journalism? I don't see two credible sources on a LOT of articles these days, and depending on the article, the article host, the journalist and/or the topic, often there are zero sources cited.
If we're talking about the quaint old days of journalism, the journalist should have the courtesy not to bother the parents while their child is on the operating table, but I don't think we're there anymore. I don't think we're talking about the good ol' days.