with the subtitle: It looks like the Justice Department could have a lot of explaining to do. It’s no surprise that the lawyers working for the Bush Administration made themselves unavailable to comment.
Several times, the article makes it a point that Bush’s staff did not give a comment, presumably because they have something to hide? Isn’t this akin to police suspecting someone of being guilty because they plead the 5th? This doesn’t seem like responsible journalism to me.
as far as I can tell, you can suspect something of being true because they’ve declined to comment, but you can’t use that as actual proof. Reporters can believe something to be true because the lawyer refuse to comment, or police can suspect someone of something for the same reason, but such assumptions won’t hold up in court by any means.
A ‘No Comment’ is just that: the person being questioned has no statement to make for the record.
A reporter inferring something from such an answer and writing it is being unprofessional in the extreme. I would not allow such to occur in my papers and if there was a pattern of such I would fire the reporter in question.
The only things a reporter should put in a story are verified facts, hopefully from more than one source.
I don’t see the subhead in the story that you mention so I won’t comment on what went on there. My statement above only refers to the professional conduct that I expect from my reporters.
That subhead was what drew me to the story in the first place (it can be found here). I was having trouble verifying whether the reporter actually wrote that, or if the news poster on Digg wrote that.
and it is important for journalists to contact a person named in a story, to give them the opportunity to comment if they wish to have their side of the story noted.
I had two instances where this was not followed on cases where I was acting. On one story, the journalist said I had no comment, when in fact the journalist never even contacted me. In another, the journalist said that I had not given any comment by the time the story went to press - a sleazy way to obscure the fact that the journalist had not contacted me at all.
I appreciate that on breaking stories there are deadlines, but a more honest statement would be something like: “We were not able to reach counsel for the defendant for comment by press time.”
Agreed. An honest effort should be made to contact the players in a story. The difference should be made between receiving a ‘No comment’ and ‘Could not be reached for comment’.
Though the flip side of this is one of the slogans for my newsroom…
“Just because you won’t comment doesn’t mean the story won’t run. It only means that your side won’t be as well represented as it could be.”
Too often I’ve run into subject who dodge my reporters figuring that will torpedo the story and hamstring our ability to run anything.
The story is sensationalised by implying that by saying ‘no comment’ the interviewee has something to hide. As such, the story is therefore more interesting. Conversely, by speaking to the press could mean that comments made will taken out of context to make a better story especially when it makes the interviewee look bad. It makes good copy and/or tv.
As it is possible that there might be a criminal investigation which might lead to prosecution it is understandable that Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury are remaining silent.
I’ve always been surprised by the number of trial lawyers who are afraid to talk to the press and don’t get this basic point.
These are people who’ve gone through six or seven years of university, plus articling, and whose speciality is public advocacy, in front of a sceptical, probing judge. They have the ability to put together good oral arguments. And yet they hide in the court house until the press goes, “because I don’t see any need to talk to the press.” Or, more honestly, “I don’t like talking to the press.”
Whether you like it or not, if the press is covering your case, that means they think it’s newsworthy, and your client is being judged, not just by the court, but by the court of public opinion. You have an obligation, it seems to me, to point this out to the client in advance, and to seek instructions on whether the client wants you to talk to the press about the court hearing that you’ve just argued, to put forward your client’s position for the public at large.
And yet lawyers are intimidated by the press. I don’t get it. A communications fellow asked me once which was harder - appearing in court, or handling the press conference afterwards. I said the court appearance - no question. He replied that it was surprising the number of lawyers he had spoken to who said the press conference was harder. I still don’t get it. When I’m in court, the judge is in complete control, and can ask any questions that enter the judicial mind, and can require me to answer them. I have zero control. But when I’m on the steps of the court house after the hearing, I’m in control - I can answer the questions I wish, in the way I want to, ignore the ones I don’t want to answer, and can set limits on the time I’ll spend or the number of questions I’ll take.
It’s another form of oral advocacy on behalf of the client.
Of COURSE news reporters are free to draw conclusions from a person’s refusing to speak to them. And people watching on TV are also free to draw similar conclusions.
A reporter is not a juror, and neither are his viewers. He has NO obligation to give the subject of his investigations the benefit of any doubt.
If my wife is on a jury, she’s expected to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt (the presumption of innocence), and she’s obliged NOT to hold it against a defendant if he tells interrogators “I refuse to answer.” It doesn’t follow that, if I come home at 3 AM with liquor on my breath, she has to give me the benefit of the doubt, should I refuse to answer her questions.
In the same way, if Mike Wallace “ambushes” a politician and asks point blank, “Did you take bribes from the Very Big Corporation of America,” and that politician says “No comment,” that politician looks guilty as sin. Mike Wallace and viewers alike will conclude the politician is guilty as sin. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
I work in PR, although I have never represented anybody going through a court case.
I counsel my clients to NEVER say “no comment” If they are legally bound from commenting, as in a matter that is sub judice (sp?) or more likely because of stock market regulations then SAY SO,
If you don’t want to comment because you are unsure of facts - then promise to check and get back (and DO get back).
And other times I will prepare answers for clients that totally obscure the issue…
People plead the 5th only in a Court, when they are giving testimony (or refusing to)
With the police, you simply decline to answer their questions. You always have the right to remain silent; they even tell you that before they start asking questions. But most criminals aren’t smart enough to pay attention to that.
And police generally suspect someone either because of evidence they already have, or because of an obvious motive you have. They usually are already suspecting someone; that’s why they are questioning them. Your refusal to answer questions may lead them to suspect you more, but so what? What does it matter if police suspect you? They still have to come up with enough evidence to convince the prosecutor to charge you.
I think the first question a reader would have while reading an article like that is: “What do the subjects of the article say about this? What is their side?”. Any responsible reporter would try to find this out. If the subject refused a response (very justified in most cases), the reporter is responsible to tell their readers that.
After reading the article in question, any and all conclusions are drawn solely by the reader. Here’s the direct quote in question:
That’s crap. A reporter’s job is to report facts that can be verified…nothing more. Anything further is subtle editorializing or dishonest reporting and should be a firing offense. A reporter’s Managing Editor should be on the lookout for such.
It’s true that a reporter is not a juror. But neither is a reporter a man on the street. By reaching a conclusion NOT borne out by verifiable facts and presenting such as fact in a story the reporter betrays the trust of the reader and those upon whom he is reporting. In that way a reporter may lead public opinion but that is not his job. Such is the responsibility of well-noted editorialists and opinion writers.
To cross that line is to become, at best, one of the new breed of bloggers who style themselves journalists while not embracing any sense of reportorial ethos. At worst it becomes yellow journalism and displays the dishonesty of bought reporting.