This article just boggles me.
Look, missy, the police aren’t releasing her details for her safety, so why the bloody fuck are you doing it?
And what clueless moron of an editor let it slip through?
Don’t you Yanks have an offence of Reckless Endangerment or something?
Yeah, that’s pretty stupid (or uncaring) of the paper to put that out.
The dumbest one I ever saw was on the local news. They were talking about a black teenager who’d been receiving racist threats at school. They spoke to him in shadow, saying that he wanted to be anonymous because he felt things would get worse if the racists thought he’d gone to the news.
Then the station showed tape of the kids parents with their faces clearly visible (taken from across the street, so they probably didn’t know about it) and mentioned what street he lived on. :smack:
Most local newspapers as a matter of standard identification give every person’s name, age, and address. Only in the last decade or two has it become common to vague-ify the address by indicatingo only the block.
Very generally speaking, a person’s name, address, and published telephone number are not considered private information in American law.
Just because the police withhold information, doesn’t mean that there is a valid reason for the press to withhold it. The article (which is very badly written and confusing) doesn’t indicate why there should be concern about the woman’s safety and how withholding her name will protect her. And, indeed, I can’t fathom one, really.
A charge of reckless endangerment might exist in common law or statutory law, but you’d have to research the law of a particular jurisdiction. There won’t be any such law on a national basis. In any case, I would think that for any such claim to apply (either in civil or criminal cases) you would have to show a clear reason why publishing the woman’s name created a particular, imminent threat.
One of the more scandal-sheet-type papers in our area included all the details of an alleged rape which just happened recently, and I mean all the details. The accused’s name is public knowledge and we know who the alleged victim was because it’s a small town. I know the police report is public knowledge (right?) but it seemed odd to go into specific detail, especially if you need an unbiased jury later??
No, no, no… it’s not the newspaper that gave the information away…
It’s her neighbors. That should make the next block party interesting…
Why should a newspaper be concerned with the state’s ability to produce an “unbiased jury”?
Well, it would be in other jurisdictions, where prejudicial newspaper reports about an accused criminal can put the newspaper and/or the reporter in contempt of court.
I agree. That’s an appalling piece of journalism, full of “look what I found out, Mr Editor, how’s about a promotion” unnecessary detail. And fucking irresponsible of the paper to run the story without some serious legal subediting; and fucking unprofessional to run it without some serious textual subediting. It might be within the law, but it’s outside common decency.
jjimm, a former (quite useless) reporter.
That site seems to be talking about laws in the UK. I’m not sure American newspapers (which is where the OP’s cite came from) are under similar restrictions, though I suspect I’ll find out in my Journalism Law class.
Maybe you could explain how a reporter in Florida would be subject to the rules and laws in your cite?
Got any cites for US LAWS?
CMC fnord!
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to bar the government from preventing or punishing publication of any information, especially if it’s truthful. Specifically, “prior restraint” is banned. That is, the government can’t tell someone not to publish something. There are, in theory, some situations that are so dire that prior restraint might be contemplable, but an ordinary criminal proceeding is definitely not one of them.
From my point of view, the story is poorly written, but otherwise is a decent piece of journalism. It gives information about an actual event in the local community, one that resulted in a fatal shooting, to boot. Hell, yeah, the details are of public interest.
It is also clearly tied to an issue of public policy that has been in the minds of the community (the “Stand Your Ground” law, whatever that is).
The reporter has successfully dug up the pertinent details of the matter and has not relied on the willingness (or the unwillingness) of the police to release information (not that they should be withholding much information in any case).
The poor writing shows that this reporter is a novice, but her successful legwork shows talent. I give it good scores.
(It’s certainly better than the few examples of local British journalism I’ve been exposed to – anecdotally, a friend of mine who worked for a local wire service in England said that one of the routine aspects of the job was following celebrities and dignitaries around to see whether they were procuring drugs or prostitutes and confirming it by having the reporter duplicating the transaction. Seems unnaturally obsessive about other people’s private lives to me.)
And just in case you missed the name above, angry relatives and friend of dead assailant, it’s the mauve-shuttered house. You can’t miss it. Also, Jardinh road is one way heading East, so make sure you enter Jardin west of Gilland.
What an asshole reporter and editor. And while they enjoy freedom of the press, that does not mean that decision to publish everything is the right one. and when twats like this make a decision like this we get to exercise our right to view her as a fucking asshole and an enemy of law, order, and civic safety.
Maybe she should apply to the NY Times where her “skills” could be applied to a larger canvas.
Don’t know if you’re trying to get me on the defensive about British local journalism or not, but I’ll stand up and say that I cannot defend it in any way. It’s utterly shit.
That’s how I read it, too. “Oooh, look, I ran around knocking on peoples’ doors and somebody told me something!!!”
Gawd bless Google, because it’s all too easy to find a similar piece of garbage journalism from the same reporter:
Geee, thanks, Mr Shop Owner, you’ve saved us all a lot of trouble. Especially when it comes to those pesky things called ‘facts’.
I did say “in other jurisdictions” – meaning in some other jurisdictions. (And a reporter in Florida would be subject to those laws if:
(1) They were reporting on a case currently in one of the UK’s legal systems, and
(2) Their publication was being distributed in the UK.)
The newspaper I work at has a policy of not releasing the names of minors involved in crimes, not releasing the names of victims of sexual assault, and not releasing the names of victims in which there are ongoing investigations (without their prior consent, of course - or that of the family). It all depends on the newspaper/media outlet. Some of them are very cutthroat; you just get used to it.
There was a case here in January where this 16 year old girl and her brother had been locked in a bathroom and starved to emaciation over the course of five years. We all around the newsroom knew their names. We didn’t release them, but one of the local news stations did. It happens, and is, as I said, a normal part of journalism. The ones that have integrity won’t do something like that, but they might not sell as well, either.
~Tasha
Well I’ll rise to that. Your examples are a bit like me using the Nat. Enquirer as my primary evidence for the state of US newspapers. Surprisingly enough, not all our media is like that, and a great many of us actually want real news, not pointless gossip about famous nobodies…
The problem is your cite,[
](4docs.org.uk)none of this is American law, and here’s why,[
](4docs.org.uk)Your “cite” is cover their ass boilerplate for a website based in London!
Soo,
(1) Cite that an American reporter writing in an American publication distributed in the UK has ever faced criminal or civil charges for their reporting.
(2) Got any cites for US LAWS? Since it’s a story about an incident in FLORIDA, published in FLORIDA.
CMC fnord!
I would just like to say nice use of color in your post, Magellan01. And that “fuckwit” is my very favorite British phrase.
That is all. Carry on.