Usually they show people’s faces to help the police identify the people committing the crime. Has a recent legal ruling changed this policy? I was quite surprised that they blurred this road rage thug’s face. Wouldn’t the cops appreciate some phone tips from viewers?
They also blurred the bystander’s face that tried breaking up the attack. That makes sense. He’s just a good citizen trying to help.
video from local station WAVE 3 in Louisville KY
The tabloid media wants to have their pie and to eat it as well, they want to concoct a road rage narrative but aren’t quite sure they have the facts or even the real story. This allows them to sell a story while hedging.
Thank you.
This was a local tv station’s news story. The Daily News just picked it up. I linked them because local news links often disappear after a few weeks.
The police haven’t released the video yet. It was provided to the news station by the driver who took it, who could be liable for defamation (as could the station) if it turns out the video is doctored or creatively edited or something.
Ah, I see. CYA So they don’t get sued. I guess if the video comes from the police they take legal responsibility for showing the perp’s face?
And when the police release an unblurred photo or video to the public it’s usually because they have run out of options and need leads or the public at large is in immediate danger. They really don’t like tipping there hand when it comes to people on the run because suspects could take off across country or they could do something irrational like take a hostage. Better to let them think they got away with something and get them to ease back into a normal routine.
As a general rule of thumb, the mainstream media doesn’t like to identify suspects (either by name or by showing their faces) until they’ve been officially charged with something, or unless the police specifically request it.
Once it’s been released by an official source it becomes a public record, and you basically can’t defame someone by accurately reporting the content of a public record in good faith. It’s not so much that the police take responsibility as the media are no longer responsible.
The police don’t have to take responsibility because states and their subdivisions usually enjoy immunity from defamation actions (you can’t sue a state unless consents to be sued, and most states have not consented to be sued for libel or slander.)
Right, because then the story is “Police said X about Y”, not “X did Y”. If the cops release a statement, the newspaper can quote what the cops said all day long, and even if the statements are false it is absolutely true that the cops said what they said. Truth is always a defense against libel (in the US), so even if the suspect is factually innocent of the crime it it still true that they were accused of a crime.
Some very good explanations to my question. Thank you. I understand what the station was doing now.
Usually my local tv stations release videos provided by the police. The faces aren’t blurred. That’s why I was surprised by the video I posted in the OP. I didn’t realize a tv station would use video directly from a bystander. I’m glad that I posted the question. I understand the subtle differences now.
They’re afraid of getting sued.
It can be the other way around… here in this country the face must be blocked when they ARE charged !! There’s complications everywhere, eg if the footage is provided by police, and then it becomes evidence there may be laws about evidence.
The press are sometimes given a copy of evidence to allow the journalist to understand the story better, even when the rule is they must not use the actual evidence.
They might just be idiots. I’ve heard (supposedly) legit news broadcasters talk about how the “suspect” stole some jewellry or crashed a car or something. No, a criminal did that! You’re looking for some dude to arrest, in which case he’ll be a suspect. :smack:
The “legal reason” could be fear of litigation. Fear alone is nowadays the motive for almost everything. It’s been a long time since anybody has accused the news media of being courageous.
Basing this on nothing, but say for a show like *Cops *I always figured that when they don’t blur the face it simply means they got the person (perp, witness etc.) to sign a release, probably in exchange for a check for a couple hundred bucks. 
Or a promise to go easy on them if they mug properly for the cameras and make the cops look good.