For instance, in the first hypo, as long as names are not mentioned specifically, I don't see how listening to that attorney would do any good. What purpose would it serve? The community needs to know something like a poisoned reservoir. They can be on the lookout or they may have more information to provide.
As for the second hypo, I would report that the police are questioning a new suspect. I would not use a name, unless the police publicly released it. I see no reason to hide this information from the public, especially if no identifying information is used. Note: I would not publish anything learned through his file. That is sneaky and unethical.
Lastly, the third hypo is a bit more tricky because no police have been involved. However, I think since this involves a school and sexual misconduct something needs to be published about it. If the man has a record or history of abuse he has no business in a school and parents have a right to know in order to protect their kids. Nevertheless, I would be careful about the exact information I publish, sticking to facts and official, named sources.
At the end of the day, I think as long as we can look ourselves in the mirror as journalists. And it is also important not to knowingly break laws just to get a story. But overall, the code of ethics we each hold should let us sleep at when dealing with these kinds of close calls.
7 comments:
I agree. I think as journalists- it is better to be safe than sorry.
At the end of the day we have to live with ourselves, it would be difficult to dwell on feelings of shame and sorrow every night, as a result of someone dying or suffering severe damage because we neglected our jobs.
Regarding the hypo's:
I would not release the young men's names, unless the police used them. I would definitely write a story about the men potentially poisoning the town reservoir, despite the lawyer's arguments. I think as journalists we are obligated to spread the word about some stories, especially a town's potentially fatal reservoir. If anyone in the town caught a severe sickness or died, I would feel guilty if it involved the reservoir; and I had the power to prevent it by writing a story to inform everyone. Also it might be better to send the men back to their country of origin, if they remained in the community they might have killed many innocent people.
Secondly, I would release a story about the police investigating a new suspect in JonBenet Ramsey's murder. I would release the reasons why the police are questioning him to build a story.
However I would not release the mans identification or file info since he might not be charged with the murder. And I would not want to ruin a man's reputation in the event he will never be charged.
Last, I would take a lot of discretion about publishing this article since the teen's safety would be my first priority. I believe that the coach should not be near those girls and parents have an obligation to protect their children. I think the principal should be the driver in this situation since they hire and fire staff, send notes to the parents , and run the school.
I think the coach threatening that he might drive himself to commit suicide is a whole other story. Again, I don't know anything about American laws surrounding suicide. In Canada committing suicide is illegal, and if someone is at risk of hurting themselves or another individual, u can call the police. And they will be forced to seek psychiatric treatment. I think suicidal behavior is an uncontrollable sickness. Therefore if the coach is threatening to commit suicide based on this story, I would call an anonymous emergency phone number and let the police handle him. But that is besides the point.
I believe a good journalist does not only take integrity in their work, but they also strive to serve the publics best interest. And I think each of my statements- above pertaining "my action" as a journalist- are morale and ethical since they concern the publics safety.
As I read the three hypothetical situations posed to us, I evaluated them on their various merits. To be newsworthy,there sensationalism, and there informative information for the publics interest.
In looking at the first story, i felt that the situation posed a serious threat to a community.The individals were more than likely attempting to use the chemicals to endanger innocent people.I think it is a responsibilty of the press to alert the public of potential danger of the acts ,and additionally the suspects,if they have credible information. Naturally the attorney doesn't want the information about their clients public.His job is to protect them ,snd avoid any additional suspect about them at any costs,and regardless of their guilt.
The second story , I think should be published but without any names.If the person has not been charged ,then he deserves his aninimity.He is not endangering a community and has a family.He should not have the shroud of guilt attached to him untill he is charged.
The third story is also about awarness.The man had a history of sexual abuse cases and suspicious behavior.He is involved working with children , therefore even if he has not been convicted there is enough reason he should be exposed.He says he may move and leave teaching, but that is not the issue.By the press not exposing him and allowing him to keep moving around, the public is continuing to be exposed to this predator.I think it is a responsibilty of the press to devulge information of this nature.His idle threat of suicide is just a ploy to allow him to escape criminal action.
I believe that in each of the three provided cases, it's perfectly fine to report on the situations so long as no names are provided. Only after the police have formally released the names, should journalists do so.
Releasing names before the actual specifics of a police investigation, if any is being conducted at all, can be counter productive to the judicial process.
Further, providing names prematurely in most cases will do nothing to better the situation. Usually, simply informing of the situation will be more than enough to create the needed reaction within the public. With the Hatfill case, for example:
Why was the release of Hatfill's name needed? So long as the public understands the situation and the dire nature of anthrax being mailed through letters, a name is rather moot. What are they to do with a name? Are the masses to publicly try this man?
In the hypo's:
I think it is in the public's interest to understand that there was a threat to their public water supply. I would not release the men's names because the "goal" of my story would to be heighten public awareness within the community not to target the men being questioned.
In the 2nd one, since having been shown the man's file, I would push the police for public comment. As the man is not just a person of interest but a suspect, I think it is appropriate to publish his name if you can get it on record.
In the third one, whether or not the story is run should not be contingent upon the man's threat to kill himself. I think a story should be researched and what facts emerge (rather than hearsay)should be the determinant to publishing.
I feel like the odd man out. Perhaps I’ll never get a job in news journalism since I will be late with every story compared to everyone above. My inclination would always be to give people the benefit of the doubt and everyone is innocent until proven guilty (perhaps I should be a defense lawyer).
In the first scenario the men are only under suspicion of planning to contaminate the water. That’s a police hunch, not proven. I assume that once they are arrested the chemicals are removed and the immediate threat dissipates. Given that it is only a hunch why send fear and panic into the local community until it is a proven fact. The short term benefit of informing the community on a timely basis may be outweighed by the negatives which include the loss of privacy for the suspects, increased prejudice, paranoia and fear in the community, jeopardizing the suspects right to fair trail and possibly encouraging copy cat activities. I don’t know if there is a benefit to an early story, however once the men are charged then I would begin to cover the story.
In the Jon Benet Ramsey case I would not release any information about the man because he hasn’t been charged and you are mostly likely tormenting the family even further with hopes of a conviction that may or may not materialize. You could make an interesting story even without the suspect about how the police haven’t given up the search or why they have persisted in this case when so many other cases they give up on much more quickly. Who is driving their persistence? Jon Benet is a juicy story that the tabloids have dragged out for years, but by keeping the story going on rumor and suspicion is the behavior of a tabloid journalist.
In the third case it seems strange to me that the coach has never been charged – 3 times lucky to escape (amazing). So if there are no formal charges then there is no case to report – only rumor and speculation. I think the more interesting story in this case is how the school district could hire him if he has three cases of sexual misconduct on file (is that a breakdown in control?) and what is stopping the school firing him. What’s the school’s jurisdiction in these cases? If the guy is a threat then report him to the police. Let them collect the evidence and make a conviction. I don’t think it’s the role of the journalist to make try the man in print. You could ruin his life forever and be very wrong.
After reviewing the hypothetical situations and others' comments on publishing these stories, I believe I am basically in agreement with the majority. Discretion should absolutely be used in publicizing any names that have not been released by the police. However, in all three cases, public safety is at risk.
In the first two hypotheticals, it seems that you could satisfy the needs of the public stakeholders while still reducing the harm to the suspects in the case by not publishing their names until they are officially charged. The police are actively working on the cases.
With the third hypothetical, I believe it would irresponsible to not publish his name, despite the threat of suicide. Journalists should not be manipulated in such a way. If no action is being taken and what is basically a cover up is taking place, this is where responsible journalistic investigation should come into play without leaning on sensationalism. Especially if the school is encouraging the coach to simply move on to another school, there is a clear pattern of likely harm being done to the students. It reminds me of the priest sex abuse case in Boston with John Geoghan. The church covered this up by simply transferring him to church after church, and eventually he was convicted of molesting over 130 boys. Attention should be brought if institutions are not taking action. If I suspected that his threat was legitimate and not aimed at preventing the story from being run, then the police should be contacted to prevent him from harming himself.
I am finding that it is more difficult than I would have originally assumed it would be to decide what to print and what information to withhold.
In the first hypothetical question, I can see how the public has the right to know of any potential threats to their water. Where I am finding the difficulty in this scenario is whether or not the suspects information should be released. I think that after 9/11 there has been a heightened fear of people from middle eastern decent, and by releasing this information before they are publically charged with the crime would only increase the fear the public already has. I find myself feeling that there is too much potential harm to the suspect in this scenario, and no necessary benefit to the public, seeing how the police have not charged them with any crime at this point.
In the second scenario I am a bit torn as well. I do not feel that the children are playing into my decision at all though. If their father did commit the crime, as traumatic as that may be, the public has a right to know. I think what is different about this instance is that sometimes by releasing a photo or identity of a serious suspect, you may have witness come out who would either validate their story or potential place them in and around the time and place of the crime. However, I do not think this becomes a story until it escalates to the point when the suspect is no longer a person of interest, and there become actual evidence that he may be the murderer.
In the third scenario, I do not believe that the suspects threat of killing himself should stop this story from being released. What seems to be the case with sexual predator, is they seem to go after more than one person, thus leading to the numerous accusations. I think that the public has a right to know that a potential sexual predator is teaching their children.
Where I find myself wavering is the public right to know if they are in proximity of dangerous people, and if their well being is being threatened. What I do not think people need to know, is every person the police question in order to find the actual criminal. Also, I do not think that threats from lawyers, family members or the suspect themselves should ultimately deter the printing of the story.
Post a Comment