Iñ the murder mystery I watched last night part of the plot was the college reporter was killed because she knew another student bribed the dean for a buiding contract
She first tried to put it in the student paper but the editor was bribed to kill the story
Years later when it came out the detective said the college editor could be arrested for being an accomplice …was this the usual interrogation be on could he of went to jail?
Nope, ask Donald about it…
So the act of suppressing the story was not illegal, but the money paid counted as an illegal campaign contribution (not a problem in the OP). The difference is in the OP that the act itself was actually illegal, which might change things.
If there is a crime, I suspect it wouldn’t be “took a bribe to kill a story” but rather some version of “accessory to a crime after the fact.” I don’t know enough about criminal law to say any more than that.
I can easily imagine this counting as being an accomplice after the fact. Taking a bribe to hide evidence of a crime.
A possible complicating factor is that if the editor simply decided not to print the story, then presumably the journalist could just have taken the evidence to the police. It’s not like printing a story in the paper is the only way to get it out.
But if the plan was “kill the reporter and bribe the editor to lose the file”, then you’re not only looking at accessory after the fact but maybe also conspiracy to commit murder?
The editor might argue that he didn’t know anything about the murder, but what good is killing the story if the reporter is just going to take the evidence to the police?
Just what I was thinking.
Paying an editor to kill a story in and of itself is not a crime, though it is certainly unethical. Editors can freely choose to publish and not publish whatever they want for whatever reason they want. Unethical behavior could get them fired by an ethical media outlet, or soil their reputation, but not get them arrested.
The situation in the OP adds the complication that there was a crime involved. I am not even sure it would be illegal to suppress the story in this case because the editor still has the editorial freedom not to publish it. I suppose if the editor then tried to keep the reporter from going to police, it could be obstruction of justice. IANAL but I see no crime in burying a news story.
Sorry but I have to correct this:
could he have gone to jail?
At common law, bribery/corruption/extortion are offences only where public officials are involved. It’s an offence for me to pay a public official to discharge his official duties other than honestly or impartially in a way that favours me, and its an offence for him to seek such a payment. But it wouldn’t be an offence at common law to do the same if a private sector employee is involved.
However in many jurisdictions statute has extended the common law offences to cover the private sector also, corruption in business/commerce having been recognised as a matter of public concern. So you’d need to look at the laws of the jurisdiction where this happened to see if paying a newspaper editor to spike a story, or newspaper editor accepting a payment for the spiking of the story, is a crime. It could welll be.
If there is an applicable crime, I don’t think it would necessarily be a defence to say that the newspaper editor had the right to spike the story even without the payment. A tenderer for a contract who paid a bribe to secure that his tender was accepted could not defend himself against a corruption-type charge by saying that the bribed official had the power to select which tender would be accepted. Of course he did; that’s why you bribed him. It doesn’t mean the bribe is not criminally corrupt. And similar reasoning applies here.
Is the editor an employee or a volunteer? If the editor is an employee, the editor’s taking a bribe to kill the story deprives the newspaper of the editor’s honest services and it’s a violation of U.S. federal law. UDS discusses how states have similar laws which may also apply.
Based on the wikipedia article (which is all I’ve read) the question is not whether the editor is an employee or a volunteer, but whether somebody else - the university, a student organisation which publishes the newspaper, whoever - has a right to expect the “honest services” of the newspaper editor. And even then there’s a suggestion that the crime requires not only personal advantage to the editor (i.e. the bribe) but “economic harm” or deprivation of property in some way to the person/body to whom the honest services were owed. It might be difficult in this case to show that the newspaper owners/publishers suffered any economic harm through the story being spiked.
I think a typical newspaper can make the case that its value is in part based on being seen as trustworthy and impartial, and that if an editor accepts a bribe to kill a story it affects that reputation and therefore there is significant economic harm to the newspaper. For a student newspaper, the school itself is probably the one suffering the repuation loss and economic harm, but it’s the same pretty reasonable argument.
If this crap is legal then it ought to be obligatory to publicly report that your paper is willing to suppress for money so people can make an educated decision on whether to trust that paper. Because even if its legal its still scummy.
Even were this turn out not to be a prosecutable crime, I doubt that it’s something that we currently have to worry much about.
More likely is a so-called news source accepting money to run a story (as opposed to covering it up) or paying to suppress a story, in the case of David Packer.
If a person accepts an outside payment to not do the job they were paid to do, then thy are definitely accepting a bribe and acting contrary to their fiduciary duty to their employer. I guess it depends on local law whether this becomes a crime of accepting a bribe. In the case mentioned I cannot see the person being liable in the murder unless they had specific definite knowledge of the murder before it happened, or if the bribe was delivered with the added warning “and don’t say anything about the murder” - thus adding the silence about murder to the payment’s obligations. If they approached the person impugned by the story, and asked for money, that would I assume be extortion, but if he person just showed up and offered money, then I don’t see anything other than “accepting a bribe”.
The proviso being, of course, if the briber decides to cut a deal with the authorities when caught, he could say anything about the transaction and then it’s hard to counter that.
And if the story in question is one that would accuse a public figure of a murder for which they have not been charged, based on a claim by a person who has not come forward to authorities, it could be consider reckless or libelous to print the story.
Most non-fake news, the mainstream media, require two independent sources to verify a story before they will print it, especially if it’s contentious. Drudge Report, IIRC, gained massive traction on the internet during the Bill Clinton Monica Lewinsky thing by publishing single source material that reliable media were reluctant to publish - but it happened to be true, mostly.
The reason for requiring dual sources to verify is to avoid what happened to Dan Rather in 2004. He had alleged memos from GWB’s National Guard days indicating George had skipped out on his service. They were obvious fakes.