What media knows and ethical and legal responsibility

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Maybe this has already been answered ...
Did Davis ever take the tape to the cops?
Why go to the media and not the cops?

I don't think ESPN or the paper is responsible civily for not turning the tape over to authorities.
Morally? ... Well that's on them and I hope they sleep well.

 

[lcjjdnh]

I'm not sure about alerting authorities; it's not black and white. How many times have newspapers written exposes that exposed crimes? Countless. Usually it'd be something corporate or financial, or having to do with government operations. Just take the Bell salary scandal as one example. Should the LA Times have alerted authorities before publishing their stories?

Should it be different for violent or sexual crimes? I suppose, but papers have written stories that break details before the authorities have it in those cases, too.

The difference here, though, is ESPN never published anything.

 

[ringer]

It's up to the alleged victim to report the crime to the cops, not the newspaper.

What's very concerning, imo, is how quickly the public automatically gives credibility to the alleged victim. Granted, the tape involving Fine's wife seems pretty damning, but we don't really know anything about her.

 

[lcjjdnh]

It's up to the alleged victim to report the crime to the cops, not the newspaper.

So as a question of morality, do you absolve a normal citizen from this responsibility too? Or do you believe newspapers have a different set of obligations?

 

[SF_Express]

It's up to the alleged victim to report the crime to the cops, not the newspaper.

So as a question of morality, do you absolve a normal citizen from this responsibility too? Or do you believe newspapers have a different set of obligations?

This kind of thing has been debated forever. Photographer shooting a picture of something he could have made better or whatever. Reporters knowing information that could have stopped something bad from happening.

 

[Azrael]

Better? Worse? The same?

frontrow.espn.go.com/2011/11/espns-doria-on-syracuse-coverage/

 

[Dave Kindred]

First rule of journalism: verify.
If we can't verify that it's Fine's wife on the tape, we don't publish. Apparently, that couldn't be done. They had only Davis's word. And his word was already trash because three supposed corroborating witnesses denied his claims.

I see no way they're liable. The police did investigate and said there was no case.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

From a professional standpoint our role as a journalist is to seek out information and vet that information and when we're satisfied with the credibility of that information to report it to the public. It's what journalists do. It's not necessarily the journalist's role to go to the police with potential evidence that at the time we didn't believe was strong enough to report ourselves.

A statement from Vince that doesn't exactly make me proud of my profession.

 

[YankeeFan]

First rule of journalism: verify.
If we can't verify that it's Fine's wife on the tape, we don't publish. Apparently, that couldn't be done. They had only Davis's word. And his word was already trash because three supposed corroborating witnesses denied his claims.

I see no way they're liable. The police did investigate and said there was no case.

When the story blew wide open, ESPN brought in an "independent audio analyst" to confirm the voice on the tape was Fine's wife. They got it done in a couple of days

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/story/Bernie-Fine-Syracuse-wife-telephone-call-sexual-abuse-allegations-112711

This isn't some new field, and they could have done the same in 2002. Why didn't they?

My guess is some lawyer told them to do nothing.

Lawyers are always looking to cover ass -- their clients, and their own. Lawyers get paid to say no.

Every time I've ever asked a corporate lawyer for permission to do something, they've said no. I became a big believer in asking for forgiveness, not permission.

 

[lcjjdnh]

It's up to the alleged victim to report the crime to the cops, not the newspaper.

So as a question of morality, do you absolve a normal citizen from this responsibility too? Or do you believe newspapers have a different set of obligations?

This kind of thing has been debated forever. Photographer shooting a picture of something he could have made better or whatever. Reporters knowing information that could have stopped something bad from happening.

Right. I was trying to get at his answer. As above, I simply don't see how the newspaper could be absolved from moral responsibility, barring a utilitarian justification that failure to act in this circumstances creates a level of trust (b/c they protected sources) that will allow them to engage in morally greater conduct in the future. Hiding behind a set of "ethical" rules doesn't help, except to the extent those ethical rules overlaps with moral ones (in which case it's the morality that guides the ethics, not the ethics themselves). If not, one could create ethical guidelines for any immoral behavior to justify the activity.

 

[ringer]

It's up to the alleged victim to report the crime to the cops, not the newspaper.

So as a question of morality, do you absolve a normal citizen from this responsibility too? Or do you believe newspapers have a different set of obligations?

This kind of thing has been debated forever. Photographer shooting a picture of something he could have made better or whatever. Reporters knowing information that could have stopped something bad from happening.

Right. I was trying to get at his answer. As above, I simply don't see how the newspaper could be absolved from moral responsibility, barring a utilitarian justification that failure to act in this circumstances creates a level of trust (b/c they protected sources) that will allow them to engage in morally greater conduct in the future. Hiding behind a set of "ethical" rules doesn't help, except to the extent those ethical rules overlaps with moral ones (in which case it's the morality that guides the ethics, not the ethics themselves). If not, one could create ethical guidelines for any immoral behavior to justify the activity.

The responsibility of the newspaper is to get at the truth. Simple as that.

 

[somewriter]

This story "blew wide open" because ESPN rushed out its first story about the allegations. Then, because ESPN had created this story, then ESPN could justify confirming a tape that ESPN apparently had 9 years ago. Seems like a lot of tail wagging the dog, to me.

I see no liability, or even ethical requirement that they release this tape 9 years ago. But if you have something like that in your possession, and you are OK with the possibility that this may happen to more kids if you do NOT act/verify/whatever, then I feel no pity for you when you can't sleep at night.