Jack Doppelt
Nov. 10, 1991
[A version of this article was published as "Fair reporting eludes many defendants" in the Chicago Headline Club's Chicago Journalist in Oct. 1991]
The news angle was evident when the information crossed the police scanner: a man had been abducted and taken to a motel near the airport, where he was beaten and robbed. The incident was believed to be mob-related.
Some more information was forthcoming at the crime scene, but by deadline for the local media (television, radio and the morning papers), the story still had holes. Reporters ran details provided by law enforcement officials that the man was a restaurant owner, that two or three suspects were implicated, that the FBI was called in, that $1,000 and a watch were taken from the victim, and that the victim was not being very cooperative. Law enforcement officials were declining to identify the victim.
The next day reporters followed up the story. One television station and its sister radio station updated the story with the victim's name. The TV reporter got the name from the FBl's press person. The radio station got it from TV. Pretty straightforward.
The trouble was: they got the victim's name wrong. They ran the name of one restaurateur when, in fact, a different local restaurant owner had been the victim in the
mob-related incident. The FBI press person denied giving the reporter the wrong name. Both stations carried retractions a few hours
later, but damage had been done.
They had run the stories connecting someone to organized crime without contacting,
trying to contact, leaving a message or even thinking about contacting that person. It was the last thing from their minds, and it is the last thing from the minds of most reporters who cover breaking crime stories.
This time the stations got caught where it hurts. The person sued for libel and at the trial, a jury in Niagara Falls, N.Y., awarded the man $15.5 million in damages. The verdict was ultimately reversed by the the New York Court of Appeals and a new trial was ordered. On re-trial, it didn't get much better for the journalists. The verdict was tamped down to $11.5 million.
 |
| [Credit: Mike Cramer, 1991] |
I know the scenario intimately because I was called as an expert witness by the media defendants. It was my role to explain to the jury that, among other things, it is appropriate in news reporting not to attempt to get comments from a victim or defendant before running a breaking crime story. A friend of mine said, I was there "to explain that grossly reckless conduct is the norm of the news business," a notion that he and the average juror believe anyway.
I believed then and I believe now (as Oliver North once said) that my testimony made the best case that can be made for the common journalists' practice of publishing breaking crime stories on the word solely of law enforcement officials and without even an attempt to get the defendant's (or victim's) side of the story.
I also believe it's incumbent on us us to rethink whether we can really justify the practice.
For reporters, the reasons for not contacting a crime victim may be different from the reasons for not contacting a criminal defendant. But from the perspective of either a crime victim or defendant, one common proposition stands out: each deserves an opportunity to be heard before being singled out by name in the news media. As little deference as crime victims get from journalists, defendants get even less.
Despite the obvious fact that criminal defendants have been charged with a crime, reporters do not treat them as they would other people who are accused of wrongdoing. If a political candidate verbally attacks an opponent, if an official criticizes another official's performance, or if a group accuses a company of ripping off consumers, it's the accepted convention for reporters to try to get a comment from the "other side." Not so when a person is arrested, charged or indicted.
Almost any example drives home the point. Take the coverage of the arrests of three suspects in the Aug. 15 killing of CHA Police Officer Jimmie Haynes. When two of the three suspects were charged with murder, the Chicago Tribune's front-page story identified two of the suspects (the identity of the third was not released because he was a juvenile) and quoted Cook County State's Attorney Jack O'Malley and two police officials.
Despite noting twice that law enforcement officials were reluctant to elaborate on the case, the Tribune attributed the following incriminating information to one law enforcement official or another: one of the identified youths was "believed" to be the triggerman, he was being sought on a separate murder warrant, the shooting was an attempt to intimidate the police and was connected to the drug wars. No other side was presented, nor was there a stated attempt to reach the defendants, their families or attorneys.
The next day, when the Tribune reported that the third suspect was arrested, the story was enhanced by information from "a source close to the investigation." The source said one of the two adult suspects was "on his own mission: he had vowed to kill a CHA police officer." Sources said all three suspects belonged to the same gang. O'Malley was now saying that the suspect who was being sought on a separate murder warrant had been released on bond the day before the killing despite an outstanding warrant for attempted murder and aggravated battery. O'Malley said the suspect had used an alias to evade detection. Still no other side and no apparent attempt to get one.
--------------------------------------------------------Though most reporters will tell you that they don't necessarily trust what police and prosecutors tell them, they are willing to attribute almost any uncorroborated information to them.--------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, as in the Niagara Falls case, if the Tribune had misidentified one of the youths, the paper would be hard-pressed to justify the common practice of failing to seek out the defendant's side. But it should not take the ultimate horribles of misidentification and a libel verdict to question the practice. What about basic fairness and getting the story right?
Criminal defendants have the odds stacked overwhelmingly against them. Though they are presumed innocent in a court of law, they are presumed probably guilty by society. And for good reason. When someone has been charged with a crime, government prosecutors are saying they have probable cause to believe the individuals committed the crime.
Reporters are on the spot to report the charge with unchallenged statements attributed to law enforcement. Most defendants are jailed when arrested and charged with a serious crime. They are available to reporters only if law enforcement chooses to make them available and only if reporters even bother to ask. They seldom do.
Most defendants do not have a lawyer when they are arrested and charged, so no ready spokesman for the defendant exists even if reporters were to seek one out. They seldom do.
Reporters have stock excuses for not getting the defendant's side of the story. They are usually in jail. They're just going to "no comment" anyway. Most of them are guilty; what are they going to say? If they have defense attorneys, most of them won't talk either.
These points aren't wrong. They are, however, unacceptable reasons for failing to at least seek out the defendant's side, especially when at the same time they are reporting literally anything law enforcement tells them. Though most reporters will tell you that they don't necessarily trust what police and prosecutors tell them, they are willing to attribute almost any uncorroborated information to them. Study after study shows that reporters rely far more on prosecutors and police than they do on the defense, if for no other reason than they are more accessible.
Law enforcement officials have agendas other than the pure dissemination of information the public has a right to know. They may be allaying community crime fears but they may also be puffing up their police work, covering up a botched investigation or smoking out confessions through media-transmitted disinformation. In the process, information about criminal defendants can
be distorted, inflated or downright wrong.
Knowing that, as reporters do, it is particularly inexcusable to continue the journalistic convention of writing off criminal defendants as generically unavailable sources. You know newsrooms have become complacent when they no longer even include the boilerplate phrase, "unavailable for comment" or "declined to comment."
That means not only that reporters have stopped trying to get the defendant's side. It also means police and prosecutors go largely unchecked.
#####
