You be the editor
Doug Fisher at CommonSense Journalism has posed a real-life ethical issue faced by The State in Columbia, S.C. You guys have always enjoyed batting them around a bit. Have at this one. The synopsis:
A middle-school student was murdered. Police have a security camera photo of a group of men -- I count nine or 10, depending -- standing at a nearby gas station. The police want to find them, calling them "persons of interest." The paper doesn't run the photograph, but directs readers to the police department's Web site, if they want to see it. (The paper's article here.)
Doug asks: So is the paper doing the public a service by referring people to the police site where they can view a picture the paper finds improper to actually print in its pages or put online? After all, isn't that what we've been harping on all these recent years -- link, link, link (although the paper did not include a live link in the story online, just the referral as you see it).
Or is it a case of being editorially milquetoast, ethically impaired or worse? The law calls doing such things being an accessory. Are we accessories when we handle things this way?
I'd add a few other questions: Does it matter that the nine or 10 are all African American, a group that has historically been sensitive to criminal stereotyping? Or that publishing the photo of a group of men in connection with a homicide that the men may know nothing about may be sensationalist and unfair?
By posing those questions, I sound like I would be disinclined to publish. Au contraire. But guess why.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
If I were you, I'd probably punt and let the Rhino publish the controversial material. That seems to have worked in the past.
But when in doubt, publish, publish, publish.
Posted on September 4, 2007 9:01 PM
Well argued.
Posted on September 4, 2007 10:07 PM
Did the police ASK the newspaper to run the photo? Or was it part of a press release and the newspaper just decided not to run it?
In the "old days" before hotlinked websites the only way for the police to achieve widespread dissemination of a photo was to ask the newspaper to run it. Nowadays, the newspaper can link to the PD website where the police department controls the content.
Posted on September 5, 2007 10:32 AM
Good question, jaycee. The newspaper story doesn't indicate one way or the other.
I question, though, if the photo on the police Web site is really widespread dissemination.
Posted on September 5, 2007 10:38 AM
Well, Mr. Robinson, the police having a website can be advantageous. When the newspaper directs readers to the site, it relieves the paper of having to make a decision as to appropriateness of a picture, as in your example. If someone takes the time to open up the PD website they they're actively seeking to view it, and should not be offended.
Also, by having the newspaper link directly it increases the "hits" for the PD website and makes it more beneficial for the PD.
I agree that it's probably not as widely read as the newspaper's website, but in the modern litigious-conscious and easily-offended society it takes some of the pressure off of the newspaper.
It might also serve to reduce some of the quid-pro-quo between detectives and reporters whereby the detectives have to trade favors to get the newspaper to print a picture. :)
Posted on September 5, 2007 4:34 PM
Agreed all the way around. I've got to go now to find out what favors the detectives are passing to our cops reporters. I need in on that action.
Posted on September 5, 2007 5:04 PM