Blog: Rod Boyce: The editor's desk
When to publish, when not to publish
Published Friday, June 5, 2009
One of the questions we wrestle with here is “How much information is too much information?”
That’s a particularly troublesome question when it comes to reporting on crimes and court proceedings.
One example in which we erred involved the alleged sexual abuse of an underage teen. We named the accused. But we went on to note the community in which the alleged abuse reportedly occurred. It so happens that this particular community, like most in Alaska, is a small one.
The problem in our story was that we noted the age of the alleged victim. And in really small towns, knowing someone’s age is almost as much of an identifier as a name.
We took an angry phone call from someone about that very point on this particular story, and I have to say that the caller was correct to be upset with us.
The point is this: Just because information, such as a victim’s age, is made public by a government agency doesn’t always mean that the information should be published. Each instance needs to be looked at independently to measure the appropriateness of publishing that information.
We aim to be responsible in what we publish. It shouldn’t be any other way.
The argument for public safety reports are two-fold: First, they are a good source of information for people to know the frequency and nature of criminal activity in their community and/or neighborhood. Second, they are an inexpensive, low-skilled way to attract readership -- a kind of seedy gossip column dressed up as a public service. Reporters consult the daily police log to pick up on stories anyway; simply copying the log for a separate column is easy.
The argument for including the names of the accused is far less clear to me. Charges are routinely dropped, accused plead to and are convicted of lesser crimes, and once in a while someone is actually found innocent. The News-Miner doesn't appear to follow up on these developments. Meanwhile, an arrested person's name remains associated with an alleged crime in print and online indefinitely, affecting their personal and professional lives regardless of the legal outcome or the very real possibility that the police failed to meet their burden of proof.
In the end, it doesn't seem that the benefits of printing names outweigh the possible harm done to people whose final legal status changes dramatically from that which their initial appearance in the public safety report would suggest. Furthermore, I don't see what public benefit is lost if names are withheld from the public safety report. If an alleged crime is important enough to warrant the use of a name, then the alleged crime probably could use a story of its own and more effort on the reporter's part. Or, the News-Miner could report convictions and acquittals.
It would be interesting to know how well the information printed in the New-Miner's public safety report holds up over time as the alleged crimes filter their way through the justice system. Perhaps, before defending the continued use of names, the New-Miner could commit to doing some follow-up work to find out.
Post a comment