Sept. 4, 2010
It’s true that reporters must write about unfortunate events such as murders, thefts and kidnappings. But where is the line of telling the truth and being sympathetic? The question is, can a reporter do both?
In an article in The Buffalo News, it was reported that seven out of eight victims in a shooting at City Grill in Buffalo, N.Y. had a criminal record. It was not only reported, but the entire article was dedicated to not the crime that had taken place, but the fact that seven of these victims had a record.
The article goes into full detail describing each victim’s record as to maybe a reason why they were victims in the first place. It’s not that there were false statements that were said, or that there was anything offensive. The criminal records are public and anyone can view them. It just so happens that the entire article was dedicated to talking about the victims’ records instead of the crime that took place.
The paper responded with a statement that said, “While The Buffalo News has the deepest sympathy and compassion for the victims of this terrible tragedy, as well as for their family and friends, we feel that the information in the Sunday story is an important piece of the puzzle as our community tries to understand and explore why it happened.”
The article ends with the “public statement by Dennis Richards, chief of detectives, authorities continued to plead with the public — specifically the more than 100 people at or around City Grill who may have witnessed the carnage — to “come forward” and make statements to ‘identify the perpetrators’.”
Analysis:
Although the information may be useful for police officers to ponder, one has to consider, was this article good timing?
Many people were not happy with the article, including Darnell Jackson. As a community activist, he burned The Buffalo News that contained the article. Jackson said, “The facts are true, I mean it is, what it is, that’s apples and oranges. What does me being convicted of a crime or me arrested for a crime have to do with me getting murdered.”
It’s true that the paper had every right to publish those records to the community, and they do have the right to figure out why these victims became victims. The process becomes an ethical issue, because was the paper investigating the truth of the crime, or the truth of the victim?
People are now asking questions at whether or not this article was relevant to the situation at hand.
On one hand, the paper had a right to produce what it did. Reporters were trying to find answers just like the rest of the community. However, the overall article could have been about what had happened at the City Grill. Instead of asking the “why?” maybe the reporter should have been asking the “who?.”
Community activists, family and friends argued that the article was too harsh, and the timing was off. Others argued that the article had a point and was trying to show readers that there is crime for a reason. For some websites, including the comment box for the initial article, comments flew back and forth between parties.
William Small, a commenter on the original article, said, “Hey Buffalo News, let’s conduct a criminal background investigation on the passengers of flight 3407 to see how many criminals were on that flight. Let’s then suggest that the other people who died on that flight wouldn’t have died had they not been flying with people who had criminal records. Let’s suggest that there could not have been any good people on that flight if they were flying with criminals.”
Small has a point. Just because a crime occurs, does that mean that each member who was involved should be investigated with the outlook of finding criminal backgrounds? However, it’s true that every crime is situational and different aspects must be accounted for. The time, place and who is involved makes a large difference in the end.
One must consider the hypothetical situation. What if none of the victims had criminal backgrounds? It’s true that the controversy wouldn’t have started in the first place. However, how would that change the article? If the victims did not have criminal backgrounds, then the reader would have felt much more sympathy for those who have died, and the article would have been more about the actual crime than doing profiles on each victim. Of course, the question of “Why?” would appear, but that question is always asked by most even if it is logically answered.
I think many readers read one story and stuck to that one story. They formed an opinion very quickly and placed their judgment either with the paper or the victims. Because it only takes three graphs for a reader to come to an opinion about the story, an opinion was most likely produced very quickly by the readers. Therefore, I believe that many of the opinions and many of the arguments produced were by people who typically agreed with only one side of the story. However, as a reporter, I felt that I needed to read all sides to fully grasp an opinion. It was easier for me to side against the paper, because I felt like more important questions should have been answered. However, I also agreed that that information had a right to be eventually published.
If I were the reporter to write the story, I would have waited to publish all of the information about the victims’ records. I think the more important question to be answered is “what happened,” rather than “why?” Yes, I do believe that the victims’ records are important to determine the type of region that they were in and maybe that would have helped answer the “why?” However, that is not the most important factor that the public wants to know about at that moment. I believe that if there was a series of articles published about the crimes then readers would have been less upset. The reporter was more or less writing an obituary for eight humans and he or she flaunted their criminal record to the world. If I were every murdered, I would not want published all of the bad things that I have done in my life whether they be crime related or not. I think that many people would have been a lot less upset if the victims’ records were produced in a later story.
– By Patty Vaughan