Suppressing News at Police Request

Thanks everyone for the great questions and discussion on Thursday. You all voiced some intriguing opinions regarding where journalists stand when it comes to withholding information from the public based on police request.

The Raoul Moat case was interesting because of the way Moat specifically mentioned media coverage being responsible for his heightened anger-and the possibility of him killing again. If police shared this information with you, what would you have done? Although it (thankfully) doesn’t happen everyday, in situations like these journalists are faced with enormous ethical and professional questions. What if the media would have continued reporting on Moat’s story? What if someone else (aside from Moat) had been killed? Would coverage of the incident potentially have helped the investigation? What if someone in the public would have been able to identify the killer from news broadcasts and helped police apprehend their fugitive?

A serious conflict of interest is encountered when media outlets need to weigh their responsibility to inform against the potential threat to public safety. And it is often left to journalists and editors to trust their gut, factoring their own morality against their responsibility to report. Newspaper reporter Richard Halicks was told by mentors and editors when weighing the decision to run a story about an attempt on President Bush’s life in 1988, “ ‘Our job is to write and print stories in timely and responsible fashion, not to assist in criminal investigations, nor to anticipate the actions of madmen. If publication hampered the investigation, that wasn’t really the newspaper’s problem,’ they said.”

Not a problem professionally, perhaps. But morally? If someone were to be injured or killed—potentially due to a news outlet’s coverage—can reporters and their editors sleep at night, confident in their decision to run the story and uphold the fundamentals of their profession? I think the best answer varies based on circumstance, and although journalists are reporters with a public duty to inform, they are also human, and constantly need to weigh the impacts of their work on the safety and well-being of the public. Journalists hold a powerful tool in their pens and cameras, capable of not only helping and informing, but also harming. In situations where people’s well-being may be threatened by the publication of information, I think it is an undeniable human tendency to push professional principles aside, consider the circumstance, and take whatever course of action can best protect others.

Links:

The article in the UK Guardian announcing the media blackout during the police manhunt for Raoul Moat: Raoul Moat news blackout requested after threat to kill public

And the SkyNews report regarding Raoul Moat's threats against the public, brought on by what Moat perceived as inaccurate media reporting:
Raoul Moat: Secret Death Threats Revealed

Here’s an older, but equally interesting case where reporter Jon Hall for the Miami News was investigating a serial killer in south Florida during the mid 1970s. An excellent example of police requesting the suppression of news—and a journalist’s decision to ignore them.
“Stop this is a warning…Suppressing news at police request.”

The Virginia Tech Shooting

The media played a huge roll in the story of the Virginia Tech Massacre. NBC found them selves’ part of the story when the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, age 23, sent a package full of pictures, letters and videos of himself to NBC’s headquarters, between his two shootings on the Virginia Tech campus. NBC turned over all of the evidence to the police after they made copies for themselves of all the evidence. NBC aired a little over a minute of the 10-minute video rant of Cho talking. They also aired some of the photos that Cho took of himself holding guns and pointing them at the camera.

• If you were an editor at NBC when all this happened how would you have handled to situation?

• Would you have turned over all of the evidence to the police?

After all of information surrounding this case started to come out, parents were informed that students were not notified of the first shooting until after classes had begun for the day. Two of the families from the 32 students that were killed that day filled for a lawsuit against the state in hopes to revealing all of the facts on the day of the shooting. The two families that did not taking a settlement from the university are of Julia Pryde and Erin Peterson, who were both killed by gunman Cho. These two families presented enough facts that the university may have acted with gross negligence the day of the shooting.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2010/01/virginia-tech-lawsuit-proceeds-with-gross-negligence-claims.html

http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/breaking/wb/201460

The 46 families out of 48 gave up their right to sue when they signed the $11 million settlement, which included financial compensation, health benefits and meetings with university and police leaders and the governor. It also required the university to create an electronic archive with documents related to the shootings and make it available to families.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/201453

University officials from Virginia Tech disputed a U.S. Department of Education report that found the school in violation of a federal campus security law. The school did not notify students in a “timely manner” according to the Clery Act. The Clery Act was created in 1990 in memory of 19-year-old Jeanne Ann Clery, who was raped and killed after having been asleep in her dorm room at Lehigh University. The law requires colleges and universities to disclose information about crimes on or near their campuses.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-18/justice/virginia.tech.report_1_clery-act-campus-shooting-norris-hall?_s=PM:CRIME

There was also a new law that was put into effect after the Virginia Tech shooting. The new law authorizes up to $1.3 billion in federal grants to help states improve their background checks, National Instant Criminal Background Check System, on people who are purchasing guns, so people who are mentally unstable like Cho, are not able to purchase guns.

"The Virginia Tech killer should have been stopped at the gun store," Paul Helmke of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said. "He was a prohibited purchaser. He had been found a danger to himself and others because of mental illness. Virginia did not send that information in."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4126152&page=1

• Do you think the increased amount of funding for better background checks is going to be effective in future shootings?

Facebook Ethics

Have you checked your Facebook today? Well, most likely the answer to that question is yes. In fact, you may be so hip that you just do it constantly because it's on your phone.

For some reporters it's a valuable communication tool. They use it to get story tips, search out folks or share facts with their viewers. This does not seem to be the case for all journalists as some fill their page with unprofessional personal opinion.

Peter Horrocks BBC Global News Director- read up on his thoughts about embracing social media sites

The way I see it, it would be in the best interest of all news outlets to put pen to paper and prepare a code of ethics for social media. With help from the Poynter Institution ethics group leader Kelly McBride, the Virginia newspaper The Roanoke Times did just that.

Random side note.. in attempts to find out if KPAX has a code of ethics I stumbled across Jill Valleys blog and it made me think twice. To go through a fight with cancer would be so difficult in the first place, but to do it in front of all of Missoula county shows true colors.

Paparazzi

Hey guys. Thanks for the comments and questions Thursday. I think the paparazzi are definitely seen as parasites in photojournalism world, yet it is undeniable that they make a huge impact on society. Two of the more controversial paparazzi cases involved either Princess Diana or Britney Spears, and in the two cases, the paparazzi most likely contributed to the downfalls of both.

I'm curious if any of you find paparazzi tactics ethical or journalistic. Would any of you sell a photo of a celebrity? Would any of you decide to be a paparazzo if it was more financially secure than a more "ethical journalism" job?

Below are some interesting links I used to research the paparazzi:

Videos on celebrities and the paparazzi:

*Miley Cyrus

Princess Diana:

*Princess Diana
*1999 verdict
*2008 verdict

Britney Spears:

*Shooting Britney
*Paparazzo quits in protest at Britney 'hounding'

Laws:

*AB 2479

Paparazzi Salaries:

*Forbes

Also big are celebrity-focused blogs such as Perez Hilton's blog and, my personal favorite, Go Fug Yourself.

Misuse of Graphs and Statics in Media

The Misuse of Graphs and Statics continues to call in to question ethical action of the 24 hour news cycle and how they produce statics.

The use of For profit polling and statics companies means that over a period of time the New source can flex that company to produce results they want rather then results then create an accurate representation of a population.

Further more the use of interactive polls, such as online or text in polls, that are used to as a traditional poll only reduce the effectiveness of actual scientific polls. And once again Journalism takes a hit in and the industry looses in the end.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Poll Bearers
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Hello,

the Kobe Bryant case was a very interesting case to evaluate. Rape Shield Laws are meant to protect the victims of sexual assault, but they can also allow a victim to hide behind the truth. I don't want everyone to think that every piece of journalism that came out of the Bryant case was bad. There was a lot of good journalism that brought up questions in the accuser's past while keeping her name of record.

Most of the unethical journalism in this case was in the blogs online and over the radio. Bloggers really destroyed this girls life for a period of time with the false accusations and rumors they posted. However, reputable news organizations did a great job of protecting her privacy while still reporting what they felt to be a false claim.

here are some links that can help you better understand the case and the federal and state Rape Shield laws.

Enjoy.

Here are some links to some info on the Kobe Bryant case.

file:///Users/tr112095/Desktop/Full%20Court%20Press:%20Kobe%20Bryant%20and%20the%20Media%20%7C%20Project%20for%20Excellence%20in%20Journalism%20(PEJ).webarchive

This link has a lot of articles pertaining to The Kobe case. if you keep following the links you should get to the article you want.

file:///Users/tr112095/Desktop/Colorado%20Rape%20Shield%20Law%20-%20Denver%20Criminal%20Attorney%20Specializing%20in%20Criminal%20Defense%20for%20Denver%20-%20Colorado%20Criminal%20Lawyer.webarchive

This explains Colorado's state rape Shield law in full. You can also find federal laws.

There is a PDF that is too long to post on here, but Aviva Orenstein's Special Issues Raised By Rape Trials is the best article I found on the Bryant case.

Here is my powerpoint if you want to look at it again: file:///Users/tr112095/Documents/Kobe%20Rape%20Case.pptx

Journalism Junkets

First of all I would like to thank everyone for participating in what I thought was a great discussion on Thursday. I am still interested to hear more people's personal experiences and how they handled them. Also, we had a bit of a sarcastic tone when it came to taking "freebies" but this can be a serious issue. For those of you that said you take things and it depends on the situation, have you thought about it more and have any more thoughts on the issue?

And we didn't really discuss how we would feel if we found out a report or story we read had a journalist who took free stuff from their subject. What if you read a great piece and found out the journalist had taken freebies, would it take away from the story? Or would you say, "Hey it's all situational and I'm sure the journalist took the freebie because it was ok and didn't effect the writing."

From our discussion it's pretty obvious junkets are quite prevalent in the journalism world, so how many of you think this is a major problem in journalism today?

Here are some of the links to the sites where I got most of my info.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Can-Journalists-Be-Bribed-to-Give-Free-Publicity?&id=3450992

http://techrights.org/2008/01/31/microsoft-bribes-journalists/

http://www.spj.org/