Journalethix

The Poynter Institute’s Al Tompkins presents a tricky ethical conundrum: In standard criminal cases involving allegations of sexual assault, a victim’s identity is almost always withheld to protect the victim.  But what about alleged victims in civil lawsuits? According to Tompkins in his analysis of the pending civil case against Pittsburgh Steeler’s quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, while the standards for criminal sexaul assault cases are quite clear, civil accusations are another matter entirely, and the water is very murky.  That said, reporters have to weigh a plethora of factors in making a very hard decision.  According to Tompkins, a majority of Pittsburgh newspapers and even ESPN have withheld the alleged victim’s name, but Tompkins asserts that he would do otherwise.

Tompkins said in his analysis, “I lean toward naming the accuser in this case. Seeking compensation in a civil suit affords one less protection than pressing to jail an attacker in order to protect society. Not naming her, as I noted above, could potentially cause harm to others not involved in the incident.”

Indeed, whatever the outcome, Roethlisberger will be a free man, but it may cost him his fortune and his job if he is found liable.  (Is guilty the wrong word here?)  And while his accuser (whom Roethlisberger has named publically in his own statement and which news organizations still refuse to repeat, adding another dimension entirely to the debate) might certainly find herself to be the subject of retribution either by fans or by Roethlisberger himself (and there is no evidence currently to suggest that she would be), she doesn’t seem to warrent the level of protection required if this were a matter of sending Roethlisberger to prison.

Still, as Tompkins points out, what is even more troubling than perhaps a reluctance by Pittsburgh publications to release the accusers name is the reluctance for ESPN to acknowledge the case at all until after Roethlisberger made a statement. They cited precedent in not naming accusers of sports figures in civil cases; however, Tompkins points out that that policy is inconsistent and they have named accusers in sex related civil cases before.

Regardless, the Tompkins piece is worth a read.  And regardless of how news organizations proceed this time, Tompkins’s organizatiaon suggests that it would be prudent for all news organizations to “revisit [policies on sexual assault victims] on a regular basis.”

Copyright David R. Norton 2009

Roy Clark of the Poynter Institute is a brave man.  He’s among the first to admit that Walter Cronkite was not a god, was human, and did have his faults—even in the realm of his profession.  Below is a synopsis of all his points, but to read the full article from Poynter, CLICK HERE.

*Note-All questions were posed by Roy Clark.

Question 1: If Cronkite so valued the standards of objectivity, why did he abandon them in certain key moments?

Question 2: Did Cronkite’s affinity for certain issues and events override his reportorial skepticism?

Question 3: Did Cronkite turn news authority into authoritarianism?

Question 4: As managing editor of CBS News, did Cronkite do enough to bring women and minorities into the business, or did he inherit and essentially preserve a white man’s news world?

Question 5: Was Cronkite slow on Vietnam?

Question 6: Did Cronkite give up the ship too early?

Question 7: Did Cronkite fail to undertake in-depth investigative work?

Question 8: Did Cronkite contribute to the culture of anchor celebrity?

Question 9: Did Cronkite turn up his nose at the younger generation of broadcast journalists?

According to the Baltimore Sun via the Poynter Institute.  According to the Sun, a religion writer writes a column that is picked up by 900 newspapers…when Michael Jackson gets an ORIGINAL column for almost twice that many.  Which begs the question, why is the covering of religion so underfunded? ~David R. Norton