trial by press

[spiritfild]

What is the name of your state? CA

Hi. I'm just curious - and I couldn't find anything in my Google searches... We've all heard the stories of people who get named as suspects in a crime, in the paper, and then their lives are ruined because if it, right? They name them, people read it, they lose their jobs, their money, their friends... and then when they're let off the hook, the paper does nothing and just goes on to the next story... I was wondering if there were any groups out there who are working to make it illegal to mention suspects by name in the press. It seems like a good solution. they don't name minors, I know that. But it seems very destructive and irresponsible to be naming people who are only suspects in a case. It's very damaging. Are there any groups out there trying to pass laws against doing this? Is it even possible to stop the media from doing this? I believe in the UK they aren't allowed to talk about a trial until it's over, which seems like a good idea. I mean... who are we, really, to be reading about Phil Spector or Michael Jackson, and deciding if they were guilty or innocent? It's none of our business, and we don't know all the facts. But mostly, I'm just thinking of the lesser-known people whose lives are destroyed simply for the sake of entertaining the LA Times readers.....

 

[SHORTY LONG]

OP, it falls under the First Amendment. As it is, I am not aware of any such groups.

 

[The Occultist]

It's public information. So any laws you want made aren't going to regulate what they can print, but rather what is or isn't public information. If you feel this strongly about it, start writing your congressmen.

And for the record, suspects who are minors still get named in papers. From what I've seen, the only real censorship is when a minor was a victim of a sexual crime.

 

[quincy]

The need to have freedom of the press goes way back to the founding of our country. There have purposely been no licenses required for journalists, as there are for doctors and lawyers, because having a free press requires a freedom from licensing. The power to license is the power to censor. The free and unfettered flow of ideas is necessary for a democracy.

The duty of a journalist is to report the news fairly and accurately, without fear or without favor. Many of the problems people have with journalists tend to be less about the legalities of a matter and more about the ethics. And ethical behavior cannot be legislated.

What winds up being printed in the newspaper is, ultimately, the decision of the editor. Most editors will make a decision based on what is considered "the greatest good for the greatest number". One of the toughest decisions an editor has to make is what will and will not be included in a story. Anything that is public record is fair game. Journalists as a whole decided a long time ago that it would be unethical to print the names of rape victims or minors. This was not a legal decision (the information is public record and can be printed), but a moral and ethical one. But, when decisions about whether to include information in a story or not arise, most journalists would rather say too much than too little. The public does not expect journalists to conceal information but rather to reveal it.

When writing a story, there is a delicate balance that must be found between revealing the facts presented and protecting those involved. Everyone has a right to privacy and a right to protect their reputation from harm, and courts have given specific legal definitions for invasion of privacy and defamation to help protect these rights. Journalists, however, must make their own ethical decisions when it comes to printing a true, fair and accurate report when knowing this report could injure a reputation or invade the privacy of innocent individuals involved. With stories: Do you report on the sexual entanglements of a public official, knowing his family will be harmed by the story? Do you include the addresses of robbery victims? Do you print the names of college sports players on trial for rape? With photos: Do you show the face of a dead person? Do you show grieving relatives? Do you show death, period? If so, when?

The recourse that people have against newspapers, or the media in general, when a news story turns out to be not so fair, not so accurate and not so true, is the same that any individual has - you can sue if you have been wronged. You can sue a newspaper for invasion of privacy and you can sue a newspaper for libel. While most newspapers will retract material or correct errors, there is no real correction for a damaged reputation.

There are definitely problems with a free press, but our country, with the First Amendment, the Freedom of Information Act and sunshine laws, shows how strongly we value this freedom.

 

[spiritfild]

The recourse that people have against newspapers, or the media in general, when a news story turns out to be not so fair, not so accurate and not so true, is the same that any individual has - you can sue if you have been wronged. You can sue a newspaper for invasion of privacy and you can sue a newspaper for libel. While most newspapers will retract material or correct errors, there is no real correction for a damaged reputation.

There are definitely problems with a free press, but our country, with the First Amendment, the Freedom of Information Act and sunshine laws, shows how strongly we value this freedom.

Yeah... it's hard drawing lines and lines are always moving around....

As for suing, the thing is... once you've spent all your money on like, bail and a lawyer, who has any left to sue the paper? Also, a lot of people probably just want it to 'go away' and not keep dragging it out. If it was me, and I had the money, I'd sue. I know what they want when they write these articles. Concerning the person I know who was accused of something, because the first article didn't get a big enough 'bang', in the journalists words, they were being made to write another one. Make more of a 'bang'. More money for them, more pain for those involved. Lives are destroyed, and the media needs to realize what they are doing.

 

[quincy]

Actually, it is a misconception that an ordinary newspaper (not a paper like the Enquirer) makes money by selling papers - newspaper subscriptions and sales of papers in the newstands alone would not come close to covering the costs of producing a daily paper. The money newspapers depend on to survive comes from advertisers. Obviously, advertisers are more apt to pay for ads in papers with large circulations, and will pay more for their ads, but it is advertising and not newspaper sales that keep papers afloat.

When newspapers print stories, they generally pick stories that affect the greatest number of people in their area. A Detroit paper will concentrate on Detroit area stories first, then, as a similar story happening in Minneapolis or Los Angeles will not have as much of an impact on the Detroit area readers. Since news tends to grow old fast, important stories are put to print quickly. The bigger or more recognized the name of the person involved, the more likely the story will be told. Also, the odd, bizarre or unusual makes the news - what doesn't happen often (like major storms or the collapse of famous bridges or plane crashes) are generally of interest to a reader. And any conflict - wars, sports, crimes, or politics - will be given attention.

I understand you are talking about a real person here, whose life he feels has been ruined by one or more news articles about him. I am assuming, since bail was involved, that this person was arrested and the arrest made the news. I am also assuming that this person was suspected of committing a crime which made the newspapers because of one of the reasons listed above - either the impact of the crime affected the readership (rapes in an area park or home invasions or an armed robbery would all be examples of such crimes), or the fellow arrested was prominent in the community (a teacher, a minister or someone else well-known to the readers), or it was an unusual crime for an area that doesn't experience crime often, perhaps.

Whatever the case, if this guy was arrested and the newspaper reported on it, they had a legal and legitimate right to do so. If the guy is innocent, and the newspaper in any way made it sound as if he was guilty, the paper could certainly be sued for defamation. If what the newspaper printed ruined his reputation, a lawsuit could be the right action to take. If, however, the police named the suspect and the newspaper only reported what was public record, the individual can probably not win a suit against the paper.

It IS expensive to sue, and newspapers have deeper pockets than most individuals, which makes a lawsuit difficult to bring without clear evidence of defamation. Plus, newspapers have the time and the resources to keep a defamation action in the courts for years. But lawsuits against newspapers can be won, and are won, and attorneys fees would be part of most awards.

If this person truly feels his reputation has been destroyed by the articles written, and can PROVE that what was written was UNTRUE and in any way defamatory, he should seek out an attorney, who may - if the evidence against the newspaper is strong enough - take the case on a contingency.

Other alternatives can be massive numbers of letters to the editor, in support of the person wrongly accused. Boycotting the major advertisers of the newspaper (which, as I said, is their major source of revenue) is also a possibility.

The editor of a newspaper is ultimately responsible for whatever appears in the newspaper, and it is sometimes a difficult decision to make as to whether to print the names of people arrested for or suspected of committing a crime. I am sorry that in your case that the decision the editor made seems to have been the wrong one.