Media's Balancing Act

I thought Nicholas Kristoff's apology for his columns fingering Dr. Steven Hatfill as the criminal was somewhat weak. He apologizes in one breath, but then justifies it in the next: "...I owe an apology to Dr. Hatfill. In retrospect, I was right to to prod the F.B.I. and to urge tighter scrutiny of Fort Detrick..." Then, Kristoff goes on to show us how difficult the job of the media is and challeges us with three hypothetical examples. While I think the examples were another justification for him falsely convicting Dr. Hatfill in his columns, the examples are interesting ones to consider:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/opinion/28kristof.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

I agree with Kristoff's decisions to write about the first and the third stories with one major difference: In the first case, I would not name the suspects unless they were being officially charged. The risk to the public, which was Kristoff's concern, would be minimized just by covering the story and giving the facts of the plan. To state that the crime was planned by a certain group in particular would, again, be using the press as a jury and would do nothing to increase the safety of the public.

In the third case, I would choose to cover the story because of the multiple accusations of sexual misconduct. This is also direct testimony as opposed to hearsay or opinion. With that being said, I would still be cautious of condemming the person in the coverage. I would want to state only what is fact and call for further investigation of the direct accusations instead of sweeping it under the rug.

The job of a journalist is sometimes a difficult one and with the interest of the public at stake, it is even more imperative that we give out correct information instead of passing judgement.