From a Chicago Trib column about naming the ill-fated Cubs fan:
“It’s not simply a matter of getting the facts right. Our professionalism demands that we balance legitimate news value against the potentially harmful consequences of our coverage. That’s what good ethical decision-making is all about.”
How often do we really make that decision? There are so many times — particularly when covering crimes — that stories make me cringe at the thought of what happens to the lives of people we cover. Sure, we protect victims of rape and other crimes, but we have small regard for the rights of the accused to get a fair trial. I can’t count the number of times I’ve thought, “I sure hope this guy’s guilty” because the coverage is essentially convicting him long before the first juror is selected.
The problem is as old as journalism: we ask questions and report the replies, and leaving large questions unanswered drives us and our readers nuts. Maybe one of the reasons people are always mad at us (aside from the kill-the-messenger instinct) is that they see the damage we do and wonder, does it really have to be that way? Most likely, yeah, it does, but crowing on about “good ethical decision-making” seems slightly deluded in the context of the consequences of our coverage.