Last week, I wrote about the ethics of covering rape cases, and the associated vocabulary. Again this week, I've come across yet another story that raises issue with media coverage of sexual abuse. This time, the conflict involves ESPN and Syracuse newspaper, The Post-Standard- and is less about wording and more about failure to take action.
Back in 2002, Bobby Davis shared his sexual abuse allegations [accusing assistant men's basketball coach Bernie Fine of molestation] with the newspaper. The paper subsequently refused to print his accusations because they could not confirm the alleged incidences. In 2003, Davis took his allegations to ESPN, who also declined to publish the information for the same reasons.
Now 8 years later, in 2011, in light of the Penn State scandal, Davis has come forth once more - and just a week after Joe Paterno was fired, ESPN aired Davis' story. Furthermore, just days after the ESPN story, another student gave police a statement also accusing Fine of molestation.
Only after Bernie Fine was fired from Syracuse University 4 days later, The Post-Standard finally published an article on Davis' story.
The ethical issue here, draws conflict between only publishing verified information, and publishing potentially inaccurate information in an effort to help the "greater good". The Post-Standard declined to publish the story in 2002 because it wasn't completely corroborated - an understandable stance. But we later find out that Davis was telling the truth, and that if the paper had taken a risk and published the story 9 years ago, a criminal could have been apprehended much earlier. So, is journalism about accuracy or about risk taking? Should journalists at The Post-Standard have taken greater interest and paid more attention to Davis in 2002? Was it unethical for them not to take action? OR was it only appropriate for them to forgo publication at the time?
In my opinion, I would not publish allegations that cannot be confirmed, but I would certainly have a hard time choosing to ignore such serious accusations.
[Get the full article and details from Poynter here]
Good thoughts, good link. My *impression* is that more evidence may have emerged since the news orgs initially failed to investigate, but that may not be true and the reporting now may have been based on the same set of facts, but those facts may be "coat-tailing" on the Penn State case; that is, as you suggested, news orgs are now taking more seriously the notion of "what if it *might be* true, then we are morally responsible if we don't err on the side of publishing even if it turns out not to be true.
ReplyDeleteOh, I'd want more info about what the news orgs knew when. As you suggest, this is great example of specific, contingent, situational ethics.