Story Abstracts for Week 6

Story Abstracts for Week 6

 

            The first article I read, Scott. M. Libin’s “Word Watch: Allegedly Innocent Suspects,” deals with the misuse of terminology in crime stories. Libin cites several instances in which an incorrect term may be used to denote a criminal activity or court finding, and then offers advice on avoiding these errors and how to more accurately describe the subject. The most common misuses he highlights are referring to a verdict as “innocent” instead of “not guilty,” writing that “suspects,” instead of “criminals,” commit crimes, and using the words allege and allegedly with no attribution. I think it is easy for reporters to get caught up in, and confused by, the legal jargon used by police officers and attorneys, and in an attempt to sift through the talk and get to the truth, many reporters often lose sight of what exactly it is that has happened, who exactly has committed the crime in question, and what is known for sure to be fact.

Libin writes that he understands “the instinct of journalists to translate turgid legal verbiage into clear language.” I agree with him on this statement, as I believe journalists see it as their responsibility to provide their audiences with an understandable and concise account of the crime in question without confusing the readers with lawyers’ lingo and police officers’ slang. Occasionally, however, a reporter will inadvertently mislead the audience by referring to a fact of the case as something it is not. In most instances, I don’t think this occurs due to a lack of reporting or any malice of the reporter or publication. More often than not, I believe it is simply a matter of forgetting the actual legal definitions of the terms used to define a case.

            I think this article would make a good reference for new journalists, especially those on crime beats, as well as more experienced journalists who may have unknowingly been misusing these terms for years. The article, however, only concentrates on a few of the issues of inaccuracy in terminology. A more comprehensive list of legal terms and their definitions would be helpful in avoiding any potentially harmful or untruthful accounts of a crime. Reporters must focus on being as accurate as possible, not only to avoid damaging the credibility or reputation of any so-called suspect, but also to protect themselves and their publications from any accusations of libel or falsifying facts. GOOD

            The second site I looked at was Regret The Error, which is not so much an article as it is a collection of corrections and apologies printed by newspaper publications across the country. A publication that falls victim to the mistakes mentioned in the first abstract might find itself on this Web site. Printing corrections, verifications and apologies is one of the best defenses a newspaper, or any journalistic medium, has against a defamation or libel suit. This policy is no substitute for accurate and truthful reporting, but journalists are human, and mistakes do happen, and it is better to fix an error that has already been made, and learn from it, than to just ignore the mistake altogether. This site could prove to be a good resource for journalists to learn from others’ mistakes. Certain errors are grammatical or typographical, and those cannot be avoided without focus and solid editing, but looking at what others have done wrong may teach writers what to look for when fact- and quote-checking their own stories.

While these corrections span the entire gamut of reporting errors, there are some that are more common than others. The most frequently occurring errors seem to involve misquoting sources, misidentifying persons, and misstating facts, especially those involving numbers. A few were just as simple as adding a letter or forgetting a space, like in the examples of the Los Angeles Times printing that the interaction between sleeping pills and alcohol is “more than just addictive” when it should’ve read “more than just additive,” or a Dow Jones wire story that cited Warren Buffet as saying the dollar would be “worthless” instead of quoting him as saying that it would be “worth less.” Whatever the error, this entire site should remind journalists that any mistake, even one as seemingly small as a slip of the finger on the keyboard, could have major implications if not caught and immediately retracted. It is impossible to be perfect 100 percent of the time, but reporters and editors must strive to flawlessly edit every story, brief, sidebar and profile that appears in print. The best way to avoid these mistakes in the first place, however, is to be certain of all the facts before doing any writing.

The final article I read was Kelly McBride’s “Before you publish a rape victim’s name…” This story fits into the theme of accurately reporting crime stories and avoiding harm whenever possible, but goes further into the dos and don’ts of covering a specific issue: rape. The primary question addressed in the article is whether or not a publication should print the name of a rape victim. This has been a controversial issue of ethics in reporting for years now, and will probably remain so for years to come. McBride cites an informal poll that “suggests that roughly one-third of newspapers have formal, written policies on the coverage of rape.” So what do the other two-thirds of newspapers do? Do they address this issue on a case-by-case basis, or do they avoid the topic altogether, or at least as much as possible? With her article, McBride attempts to alert journalists of the pitfalls and minefields of rape coverage, and teach them how to most accurately and sensitively cover this touchy subject.

It is written in the article that crisis counselors, nurses, high school educators and rape victims all feel that a publication should not report the names of those who have been sexually abused or assaulted, even if this practice turns these individuals into “nameless, faceless victims,” and the anonymity leads to “a lack of empathy among readers and viewers.” The biggest issue that McBride raises, in my opinion, is the lack of coverage of this horrible, tragic part of our society. She writes that often, only the most brutal and violent rapes get any kind of coverage in newspapers. While these especially heinous crimes are definitely newsworthy, they do not reflect the majority of rape cases. She focuses on covering trends of rape just as much as individual cases. I believe it would be more effective to cover trends than isolated crimes because rape is such a personal issue, and by covering a specific case, it can end up doing more harm than good for the victim. But by covering trends, a paper can still make readers aware of the all the causes and consequences of rape without singling out any one victim, which could bring more attention and publicity to someone who, most likely, is looking for anything but more coverage of this cruel, demeaning act.

While I do agree that counselors, nurses, educators, reporters and editors all have a legitimate stance on how rapes should be covered, I think the most important factor in reporting on the subject is the feelings and views of the victims themselves. Yes, it is true that after undergoing such a traumatic experience, rape victims may not be in the best state of mind to decide how their ordeals and identities are portrayed to the public. Nonetheless, I think too often everyone but the victim has a say in what goes into print. The best way to find out if a report might be damaging to the victim is to ask the victim for an opinion on the matter. We, as journalists, can use ethics codes, previous cases, and counselors’ statements all we want in determining what the right course of action is in a situation as potentially harmful as this. But in my opinion, the best way to get to the truth of the matter and the heart of the problem is by approaching the victim. Suppose he or she does want to share the story of what happened, or how it could’ve possibly been avoided, or how it affected the lives of the people connected to him or her. Many times, the victims will likely shy away from coverage and prefer to remain anonymous, but what’s the matter with just asking? So long as it is done in a tasteful manner, a reporter should always ask that extra question to make sure the most accurate version of the story is told, and this situation should be no different. Rape coverage can still be sensitive and informative, without further destroying the lives and reputations of the victims.