Tag: justice

Hidden treats and tricky touchy topics

First of all, I just wrote a piece that I hope to share on-air – er, on-Web video – about the parts of KTVZ.COM that just don’t get the attention they deserve, because they’re not locally produced.

Of course, folks go to the Website for local news, but have you ever just happened to click on the part marked Lifestyle, off to the right in the Navigation links? Just the Halloween page alone has recipes, safety tips, videos on how to make great kids’ costumes without sewing – the works! And there’s tons of content on every topic imaginable, from technology and money to health, family life etc. Give it a try once in a while!

Okay, then there’s the heavier topic I may/may not do a video piece on, depending on whether I want steam coming out of my ears for all to see.

We have quite the questioning group in our article-comment community – some are the typical armchair quarterbacks you might expect, but some try to put the thumbscrews to ME over why we didnt report this or that, or didn’t know this or that that the cops aren’t telling us, etc.

It gets pretty maddening. So let me make some points.

Other than victims’ names – if they aren’t hurt, we usually leave that out – I use just about EVERYTHING police tell us in news releases, in our online stories. And quite often, more, because there are inevitable ‘holes’ in releases that I try to fill, some more obvious than others (“Captain, when it says ‘vehicle’ – are we talking a car, motorcycle, SUV? And when it says ‘residence,’ do you mean apartment, duplex, mobile home?”

Stuff like that.

But quite often, police don’t include some information in a release because they don’t want to hinder their investigation by revealing too much. Most, I presume, of our online comment-posters realize that, but some get all incensed and claim we or they (or both of us!) are “covering up.” It makes me as mad as the ones who say we “slant” stories in order to make them more exciting. BS. But they have a right to their opinion.

I enjoy some decent head-scratching questions about what “REALLY happened” in this or that notorious crime. But I get heartburn when I see folks claiming to know “the real facts” and throwing them out there AS facts. How do we know Mr. or Ms. Anonymous isn’t just trying to muddy the water and mess up what police and the courts are trying to do?

It’s not as easy a cut-or-dried issue as others where it’s clear where the line is and what goes over it and needs to be deleted (remember, I can’t EDIT postings, only let them be or toss them out – the system doesn’t allow me to edit them, which is good, because then I’D assume liability. No thanks.)

There have been a few folks who’ve called for my head on a platter, claiming the postings – which I admit do get pretty wild, and insensitive at times – tarnishes the station’s reputation. Those daggers thrown at me don’t bother me too much, because I work for an organization that has totally supported our efforts to build dialogue on the news we report. They see the pluses that no doubt have the inevitable minuses, too.

No, what makes me nervous is the threat some of our anonymous postings pose to people’s reputations or ongoing criminal cases. In other words, I fear a lawyer at the door, with a tort claim or subpoena. After all, one doesn’t have to WIN a lawsuit to create an unholy nightmare for the recipient.

So that’s why I often plead, even beg, folks to THINK before they type, and think AGAIN before they hit the ‘submit comment’ button. If they value our exercise in community dialogue, and don’t want to see it vanish, they need to think of the impact of their words, intentional or otherwise. I’ve had to laugh at some postings that rip apart the claims of a crime victim or someone involved in a case, then add at the end, “My prayers to the family” or somesuch. With such comments posted like that, they’re going to NEED those prayers.

I think ulterior motives are boundless in such troubling postings. I have no doubt that I’ve failed at times to be completely equal in deciding when to delete a post for violating Terms of Service – depending on how big the avalanche of disturbing posts, how scared I am at the particular moment, etc. I’m human, and don’t always react to the same things the same way.

But I try. And I tell some folks, “You think those are bad? You didn’t see the ones I DELETED.”

Ugh. Anyway, enough venting for one night. Y’all have a great week!

‘Building a Culture of Dialogue’

I spent four very interesting hours Saturday with all three Central Oregon district attorneys, defense lawyers, public defenders, police, several of us media types – all talking off the record.

But it’s VERY ironic that I write up some of the themes of that talk after probably the most overt, posted lawsuit threat in our many months of online article comment postings.

‘Building a Culture of Dialogue’ was the topic of the gathering, arranged by the Oregon Bar Press Broadcasters Council.

Folks gave up a big part of their Saturday for a free bag lunch and a chance to not just talk, but listen to each other as we discussed a few ‘ripped from the headlines’ scenarios that have dealt with the issue of a free press and how that role can cause issues for those seeking to assure a fair trial.

The justice system has changed little over the decades, as technological and cultural shifts have changed, greatly, what a prospective juror might hear or read, and from who or where. Imagine if bloggers, for example, or anonymous article postings existed back when our justice system was created. It’s not a perfect system, but how can it evolve and cope with those issues?

That wasn’t the topic of Saturday’s session, really. But things like that did come up – imagine, for example, a DA sending an e-mail declining to confirm or deny a juicy rumor, but inadvertently – one must presume inadvertently – including some damning information below the e-mail, or in an attachment.

Can the reporter then report that information? Use it to ask questions/gather more info? Confront the DA, threaten to use it unless he/she provides some on-the-record info on an ongoing investigation?

Reporters have gone to jail for refusing to disclose their sources. Local media don’t print info from anonymous sources, unless they can get an on-the-record corrobration.

I’ve learned to live with and have a strong defense against the whole notion that the media only reports things “because it sells papers” (or TV commercials). I know we report what is considered news, and yes, we have to make a profit to survive.

But I am just as uneasy as many a defense lawyer about how days, weeks, months, sometimes even years of reports about a heinous crime can make their job incredibly difficult, even with all the “alleged” and “innocent until proven guilty” provisos that we include, for our own legal protection as much as anything else.

Finding actual justice after the “court of public opinion” has made up its collective mind is only getting harder in an age when Website can give you a person’s criminal history in an instant, and where increasingly, opinions are shared as thinly-veiled, so-called “facts.”

Small town or large, reporters and editors are often friends, of a sort, with their sources, with people who make news, and with people in the justice system. Wearing the right hat at the right time, and knowing how to do one’s job and not rupture those relationships is one of the struggles reporters and editors face all the time. I’ve said before, “I don’t mind making an official mad for the right reason” is a glib quip that tries to put a light face on it.

But of course, when a source tells us something juicy, we have to “consider the source,” literally – how do they stand to gain, if the tip is true and the info comes to light?

We will never convince some – make that many – people that we strive to get the facts right and that we really wouldn’t run over our own grandmother for a juicy story. One thing I try to do in our article-comment system is explain – sure, defend, too, but mainly explain – how we human-being reporters and photographers and our bosses do what we do, and why.

Because if news is a conversation, we all have to listen as much as we talk. It’s that easy – and that hard.