Media Ponder Their Own Ethics
NEWS TREATMENT of Atlanta security guard Richard Jewell, first hailed as a hero then spotlighted as a suspect in the Olympics bombing despite the lack of any evidence, has further shaken public confidence in American journalism.
The hero-turned-alleged-prime suspect in the Centennial Olympic Park explosion has now become a classic case study in media ethics.
An Atlanta newspaper's naming of security guard Richard Jewell in an extra edition three days after last month's bombing quickly made him an international Exhibit A on television and in newspapers.
But the supposed "focus" of a federal investigation has yet to be charged with any crime. Meanwhile, questions about media and law-enforcement responsibility, First Amendment rights and Jewell's legal recourse have taken center stage. Some worry that Congress inevitably will step in if and when the public says, "Enough."
"This is just another nail in the coffin that's being built for press freedom in this country," said Dr. Robert Blanchard, who teaches a media-ethics course at Trinity University in San Antonio. "The media rely on a certain public support, and I think it's just eroding."
CNN President Tom Johnson, whose all-news network was the first to follow the lead of the Atlanta Journal, said he is "having second thoughts" on what has become a "major journalistic ethical issue."
"We are guilty of more of a frenzy than is justified," Johnson said. "I'm hopeful we'll apply just as much effort now to try to show Richard Jewell is innocent . . . I may choose to put in a policy here where we will not name suspects, period. But we'll see."
Newspaper has no comment
Representatives of the Atlanta Journal have declined to comment, and they also did not participate in an extended Thursday edition of ABC's "Nightline" titled "The Bizarre Story of Richard Jewell."
It is not uncommon for law-enforcement officials to leak suspects' names to the media. But in recent major cases, arrests have quickly followed such news accounts of suspects, ranging from O.J. Simpson to Unabomber suspect Dr. Theodore Kaczynski.
Jewell's name still hangs in the balance three weeks after law-enforcement officials were first pictured searching his residence for clues. Earlier this week, his lawyers released the results of a lie-detector test that they said proved their client's innocence.
Law-enforcement agencies generally have an unwritten rule against talking about suspects "until you're prepared to file charges against them," said veteran Dallas Police Department spokesman Sgt. Jim Chandler. Doing otherwise, he said, invites a lawsuit and can hamper an investigation if informants start "coming forward with frivolous information. They have their own agendas. It sometimes can slow you down."
In a high-profile case such as the Olympic-park bombing, however, the "incredible pressures" to catch the culprit can be "relieved" by leaking a name to a trusted reporter, Chandler said.
"Quite often the media can develop information for you that might not otherwise be developed," he said. "They are not restricted to the extent that law enforcement is in finding out very private information about people."
Public vs. private figures
University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato, author of "Feeding Frenzy: How Attack Journalism Has Transformed American Politics," said it sometimes is justified to name public figures suspected of crimes.
But Jewell "didn't cross the threshold into becoming a public person," Sabato said. "Yes, this guy went around and tried to get some publicity as a hero, but to me that isn't enough. To me the first commandment of news organizations ought to be, `We have the power to ruin people. So let's be cautious.' "
The dam broke once CNN picked up the Atlanta Journal story and later asked Atlantans to comment on it. Other newspapers ran front-page stories naming him the morning after the Atlanta Journal published its afternoon extra and television spread the word.
The Seattle Times generally does not name suspects until they are charged but allows editors to make exceptions. In this case the Times left Jewell's name in a front-page story compiled from reports from several wire services.
"If it had been a local story, where we're the leading newspaper and we have a greater impact on a person's reputation, the call probably would have been different," said Mike Stanton, Times news editor. "But with this happening thousands of miles away and Jewell on television answering questions about it, it seemed silly to take his name out of our stories."
Media applied no breaks
Professor Barbara Reed, who teaches an ethics course at Rutgers University, said the media engaged in a "collective rush to judgment" that may have been spurred on by the TWA crash near New York City just before the Atlanta blast.
"It was almost as if it were too much for people to handle," she said. "They wanted to have a name. But I find it very distressing that there has been this kind of pack journalism. There was no reason why somebody couldn't say firmly, `No, this is wrong. He has not been charged. We are going to hold off.' There has been no restraint at all . . . The media just pounced."
Former television reporter David Margulies, owner of a Dallas-based media consulting firm, said law-enforcement agencies could use a crash course in the art of stifling themselves.
"They're always pressed to make comments and to say they're going to do something," he said. "And they get caught up in that . . . What they don't realize is that ultimately they will have more credibility if they don't say anything."
Major media outlets, particularly television networks, can't be expected to raise a white flag of ethics when their competitors are running with a story of this magnitude, Margulies said.
"The media's proclivity is to report the information they get, and I'm not sure I'd want to stymie that," he said.