Journalism rules control crime stories
Studying journalism involves a fair amount of studying laws governing free press as well as reporting on legal issues. Not every journalist is an expert, but some are, and most know a fair amount about the law, or at least who to ask when we need something clarified.
A reader, apparently unaware of those standards, recently inquired about the fairness of reporting the identities of people who are arrested for crimes and hinted that we were in some way violating the Constitution by suggesting that they weren't actually innocent until proven guilty. She even went so far as to question overall media ethics and to use words such as distasteful, irresponsible and slanderous.
It was a thoughtful and serious inquiry, but way off base journalistically.
We in the newspaper business, aren't in the habit of trying or convicting anybody. We are, however, in the habit of reporting on those who do.
When someone is arrested, we generally don't publish their names until they have gone through arraignment. That's a formal judicial procedure in which a judge hears the charges against the accused, accepts their plea, and sets bail, or doesn't. It's a step beyond getting stopped and searched, and carries the judicial weight of having documented evidence to support the charges. It also provides the opportunity to report the defendant's "not-guilty" verdict if that is how they plead.
For those who might not be immediately arrested after a crime or investigation, we sometimes don't publish a name until after an indictment has been returned and the arrest made. The indictment means evidence has been presented to the grand jury and those jurors have determined, not innocence or guilt, but simply that there is enough evidence of a crime to charge the person.
If we report on significant arrests or indictments, we make serious efforts to follow up to report the outcome of those arrests. Yes, sometimes we drop the ball, because sometimes there might be negotiations to lesser charges, delays or other issues. But in many cases we follow the case from beginning to end.
We don't print names of juveniles and we generally don't report arrests for misdemeanor crimes. That means publishing names with simple DWIs and charges such as theft by check never make the paper. Some readers probably wish they did.
The reader also complained that in sexual abuse cases we sometimes identify the victim by way of their relationship with their abuser. The example they used was that of a parent and child.
No, we don't. We've had several instances where someone charged in a sexual crime was a relative of the crime victim. If we identify the relationship at all, that's what we say, that the victim was a relative or family member.
Does that provide complete anonymity and protection for the victim? Probably not. We can be responsible, but we can't stop gossip and we can't control the processes or behaviors of other media.
The most obvious case of recent history was the high school principal charged with having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student.
We reported on the charges, on his arrest, on his indictment, on his trial, and on the not-guilty verdict that absolved him of those charges. I can't imagine a parent who would have accepted any excuse from their newspaper for not reporting the story from beginning to end.
In fact, I recall an instance about two years ago, when a school employee was among people arrested for lewd conduct at a local park.
More than one reader complained that we didn't list the names of those arrested and charged. The charges were all misdemeanors, so we didn't.
Not listing those names doesn't mean we condone those activities any more than a list of those charged with felonies means we convict them. It simply means we have standards of practice that we follow regardless of our personal opinions.
Following a case through the legal system and accurately reporting on it is not slander. It's journalism. The names of those charged in crimes are public record. Not publishing them would be shirking our journalistic responsibility.
A reader, apparently unaware of those standards, recently inquired about the fairness of reporting the identities of people who are arrested for crimes and hinted that we were in some way violating the Constitution by suggesting that they weren't actually innocent until proven guilty. She even went so far as to question overall media ethics and to use words such as distasteful, irresponsible and slanderous.
It was a thoughtful and serious inquiry, but way off base journalistically.
We in the newspaper business, aren't in the habit of trying or convicting anybody. We are, however, in the habit of reporting on those who do.
When someone is arrested, we generally don't publish their names until they have gone through arraignment. That's a formal judicial procedure in which a judge hears the charges against the accused, accepts their plea, and sets bail, or doesn't. It's a step beyond getting stopped and searched, and carries the judicial weight of having documented evidence to support the charges. It also provides the opportunity to report the defendant's "not-guilty" verdict if that is how they plead.
For those who might not be immediately arrested after a crime or investigation, we sometimes don't publish a name until after an indictment has been returned and the arrest made. The indictment means evidence has been presented to the grand jury and those jurors have determined, not innocence or guilt, but simply that there is enough evidence of a crime to charge the person.
If we report on significant arrests or indictments, we make serious efforts to follow up to report the outcome of those arrests. Yes, sometimes we drop the ball, because sometimes there might be negotiations to lesser charges, delays or other issues. But in many cases we follow the case from beginning to end.
We don't print names of juveniles and we generally don't report arrests for misdemeanor crimes. That means publishing names with simple DWIs and charges such as theft by check never make the paper. Some readers probably wish they did.
The reader also complained that in sexual abuse cases we sometimes identify the victim by way of their relationship with their abuser. The example they used was that of a parent and child.
No, we don't. We've had several instances where someone charged in a sexual crime was a relative of the crime victim. If we identify the relationship at all, that's what we say, that the victim was a relative or family member.
Does that provide complete anonymity and protection for the victim? Probably not. We can be responsible, but we can't stop gossip and we can't control the processes or behaviors of other media.
The most obvious case of recent history was the high school principal charged with having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student.
We reported on the charges, on his arrest, on his indictment, on his trial, and on the not-guilty verdict that absolved him of those charges. I can't imagine a parent who would have accepted any excuse from their newspaper for not reporting the story from beginning to end.
In fact, I recall an instance about two years ago, when a school employee was among people arrested for lewd conduct at a local park.
More than one reader complained that we didn't list the names of those arrested and charged. The charges were all misdemeanors, so we didn't.
Not listing those names doesn't mean we condone those activities any more than a list of those charged with felonies means we convict them. It simply means we have standards of practice that we follow regardless of our personal opinions.
Following a case through the legal system and accurately reporting on it is not slander. It's journalism. The names of those charged in crimes are public record. Not publishing them would be shirking our journalistic responsibility.
posted by Sheila Friedeck at 3:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home