Reporters Should Inform and Leave the Drama to Hollywood by C.R
April 7 2013
'Innocence is the weakest defense. Innocence has a single voice that can only say over and over again, "I didn't do it." Guilt has a thousand voices, all of them lies'
LEONARD F. PELTIER, Prison Writings
LEONARD F. PELTIER, Prison Writings
Questionable press ethics
While the presumption of innocence is a widely-known tenet in the American legal system, only the ethics of journalists require they refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt were certain.
Yet, far too often, these ethics – like accountability, accuracy and fairness – are trumped by the desire to fill the gaping yaw of the public’s need for gossip with titillating details meant more to entertain than inform.
In practice, the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement the government must prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Journalists, typically, have long used “suspect” or “defendant” or “the accused” to protect this presumption until a conviction or plea is handed down in a court of law.
However, when the crime becomes hyper-sensational and the rush to judgment becomes more necessary to satisfy the public’s appetite for information or to calm our citizens by wrapping the crime into a tidy bow, journalistic integrity seems now to take a backseat to entertainment.
The Boston Marathon Bombing has served as the most recent example of a news media driven more by the sensationalism of the act and the interest in the characters than in filling the role of informant to a shocked public.
Granted, the bombing of a packed marathon crowd in the view of hundreds of cameras, victims whose resilience inspires and photogenic suspects may make the story seem more Hollywood than reality, the urge to use the alliterative “Boston Bombers” should be resisted by the news media. Their job is to provide checks and balances in a fair and impartial manner. They are, after all, the Fourth Estate.
However, when the crime becomes hyper-sensational and the rush to judgment becomes more necessary to satisfy the public’s appetite for information or to calm our citizens by wrapping the crime into a tidy bow, journalistic integrity seems now to take a backseat to entertainment.
The Boston Marathon Bombing has served as the most recent example of a news media driven more by the sensationalism of the act and the interest in the characters than in filling the role of informant to a shocked public.
Granted, the bombing of a packed marathon crowd in the view of hundreds of cameras, victims whose resilience inspires and photogenic suspects may make the story seem more Hollywood than reality, the urge to use the alliterative “Boston Bombers” should be resisted by the news media. Their job is to provide checks and balances in a fair and impartial manner. They are, after all, the Fourth Estate.
Guilty as charged?
Rolling Stone magazine garnered quite a bit of criticism when it published a cover featuring a coiffed Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Critics howled that the cover, an image taken from one of his social media accounts, made him out to be more like a rock star than a suspected bomber; however, little was said about the headline, “The Bomber,” that convicted him of the crime absent any trial or plea deal.
More recently, TIME magazine dropped any pretense of objectivity when it reported Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, had killed MIT Officer Sean Collier. While the reporter called the brothers “suspects” in the bombing, he failed to mention they allegedly shot Collier and simply blamed them for the crime.
It should be noted the TIME journalist initially reported Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had pleaded guilty to a 30-count indictment when he has actually pleaded not guilty. That error has since been corrected, but should have easily been caught by an editor. TIME is not under the pressures of daily deadlines, so there should be no excuse for this misinformed mindset.
But the most egregious blending of information as entertainment has come from the highly-respected National Geographic Channel’s lengthy soon-to-be aired recap of the Boston Marathon Bombings on the heels of the one-year anniversary.
The channel, celebrating a recent success with its well-researched and produced Cosmos series, has resorted to reenacting the alleged surveillance video of the younger Tsarnaev supposedly placing his backpack bomb at the Marathon in the absence of actual footage. Within minutes of its preview, social media denizens were linking to the segment called, “Inside the Hunt for the Boston Bombers: White Hat” and claiming the footage was real. To the casual observer, this footage has become “the real thing.”
But, upon closer examination, it’s obvious that this footage was not taken from in front of the Forum on Boylston Street and the actors involved do not resemble anyone who was allegedly there - except, of course, for the suspect - right down to his white Polo hat with the “3” emblazoned on the side.
In a case that has become synonymous with censorship of the media, sealed docket items and even a defendant hidden from the media by Special Administrative Measures (SAMs), one would hope that Nat Geo would have either demanded the actual footage or explained why law enforcement is choosing not to release this video ahead of a trial. They’ve leaked so many other things. And then, they should have respectfully demurred from dramatizing “footage” they cannot independently confirm exists.
They did none of this, and, instead, have allowed a reenactment to solidify guilt in the minds of millions of potential jurors (the case is a Federal one and, without knowing if a change of venue is on the horizon, Americans from all over the country are currently potential jurors).
The presumption of innocence and a fair trial be damned.
More recently, TIME magazine dropped any pretense of objectivity when it reported Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, had killed MIT Officer Sean Collier. While the reporter called the brothers “suspects” in the bombing, he failed to mention they allegedly shot Collier and simply blamed them for the crime.
It should be noted the TIME journalist initially reported Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had pleaded guilty to a 30-count indictment when he has actually pleaded not guilty. That error has since been corrected, but should have easily been caught by an editor. TIME is not under the pressures of daily deadlines, so there should be no excuse for this misinformed mindset.
But the most egregious blending of information as entertainment has come from the highly-respected National Geographic Channel’s lengthy soon-to-be aired recap of the Boston Marathon Bombings on the heels of the one-year anniversary.
The channel, celebrating a recent success with its well-researched and produced Cosmos series, has resorted to reenacting the alleged surveillance video of the younger Tsarnaev supposedly placing his backpack bomb at the Marathon in the absence of actual footage. Within minutes of its preview, social media denizens were linking to the segment called, “Inside the Hunt for the Boston Bombers: White Hat” and claiming the footage was real. To the casual observer, this footage has become “the real thing.”
But, upon closer examination, it’s obvious that this footage was not taken from in front of the Forum on Boylston Street and the actors involved do not resemble anyone who was allegedly there - except, of course, for the suspect - right down to his white Polo hat with the “3” emblazoned on the side.
In a case that has become synonymous with censorship of the media, sealed docket items and even a defendant hidden from the media by Special Administrative Measures (SAMs), one would hope that Nat Geo would have either demanded the actual footage or explained why law enforcement is choosing not to release this video ahead of a trial. They’ve leaked so many other things. And then, they should have respectfully demurred from dramatizing “footage” they cannot independently confirm exists.
They did none of this, and, instead, have allowed a reenactment to solidify guilt in the minds of millions of potential jurors (the case is a Federal one and, without knowing if a change of venue is on the horizon, Americans from all over the country are currently potential jurors).
The presumption of innocence and a fair trial be damned.
Media's rightful role
It could be argued that Nat Geo isn’t really the “news media” and is not bound by the same ethics, but the culture which allows a television channel to rewrite history and fake evidence isn’t created in a vacuum. The problem of news sensationalism isn’t new, but it’s become more toxic since television stations and large corporations who own news media began consolidating the news division with the entertainment division some 20 years ago.
Despite these changes and challenges, Nat Geo, along with TIME, Rolling Stone and others, should be protectors of the very Constitution that allows them so much freedom to publish such sensational pablum.
The problem is systemic. What one thinks about Tsarnaev’s guilt or innocence is merely an opinion (albeit a less-than-informed opinion based on the secrecy surrounding the case and the dramatization afforded it by the news media). What matters is this experiment in Democracy the United States has enjoyed for more than 200 years. The rights to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial should be protected more by our news media - we have movies and television dramas to fascinate our imagination.
With the exception of a letter filed by Gatehouse Media regarding the docket secrecies, the exalted Fourth Estate seems more hell-bent on pushing a narrative to draw in readers/viewers/listeners than examining a crime and the consequences to all of us that crime presents. And, for that, they should be ashamed.
The media’s job is not to play judge, jury and executioner, nor is it to pollute a potential jury pool. It is to inform, to shine a light in the darkest corners and to herald the US Constitution and its provided rights – even those rights afforded those Americans accused of horrific crimes.
Despite these changes and challenges, Nat Geo, along with TIME, Rolling Stone and others, should be protectors of the very Constitution that allows them so much freedom to publish such sensational pablum.
The problem is systemic. What one thinks about Tsarnaev’s guilt or innocence is merely an opinion (albeit a less-than-informed opinion based on the secrecy surrounding the case and the dramatization afforded it by the news media). What matters is this experiment in Democracy the United States has enjoyed for more than 200 years. The rights to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial should be protected more by our news media - we have movies and television dramas to fascinate our imagination.
With the exception of a letter filed by Gatehouse Media regarding the docket secrecies, the exalted Fourth Estate seems more hell-bent on pushing a narrative to draw in readers/viewers/listeners than examining a crime and the consequences to all of us that crime presents. And, for that, they should be ashamed.
The media’s job is not to play judge, jury and executioner, nor is it to pollute a potential jury pool. It is to inform, to shine a light in the darkest corners and to herald the US Constitution and its provided rights – even those rights afforded those Americans accused of horrific crimes.
Related posts:
The other news: Discovery issues still at the heart of the BMB case
Propaganda: How to spin yourself through a terrorism case
Trial by media: How to prejudice the outcome of pending prosecution
Propaganda: How to spin yourself through a terrorism case
Trial by media: How to prejudice the outcome of pending prosecution
Recommend this:
VISIT OUR MAIN ARTICLES AND FEATURED STORIES INDEX HERE
Want more? For NIPS, quick takes, and blog posts by the main contributors to this site visit here
________________________________________________
We actively encourage comments, discussion and debate on this site! Please remember to keep it relevant and be respectful at all times.
Want more? For NIPS, quick takes, and blog posts by the main contributors to this site visit here
________________________________________________
We actively encourage comments, discussion and debate on this site! Please remember to keep it relevant and be respectful at all times.
