Today, anyone can break a story and publish it to the world instantly. That doesn't mean they should nor does it mean their methods or their content mean anything. For those that still try to "practice" journalism and do so responsibly and ethically, this blog if for them.
Follow me on Twitter: DavidRNorton
Journalethix
Here’s a reprint of a comment I left on Dan Romensko’s Blog For the Poynter Institute: Posting Mug Shots is “A Bit Smarmy, Unseemly” for Legitimate News Orgs:
“I completely agree with Dan’s distinction. Mug shots published on police blotters are pictures of the “accused”, not the “convicted.” They don’t tell, as the blog suggests, “who broke the law,” only who is accused.
It’s an interesting dichotomy and a difficult conundrum. In the criminal justice system, one is innocent until proven guilty. As mug shots are the most unflattering depiction of a person in a humiliating predicament (sometimes- though usually not- undeserved), in the news media the accused are guilty until proven otherwise.
Still, when crimes are committed and suspects are arrested, the community absolutely has a right and need to know. However, are their alternatives to running mug shots that would be more ethical? And if a suspect is cleared of wrong doing, should the state make private those photographs and preclude them from being released to the public once a case is closed?
As far as I know, once a mug shot it taken, it is part of the public record, something that seems unfair if the person is acquitted. And even if past mug shots of acquitted persons are still publicly available, reputable news organizations should take the high road and refrain from printing them, despite a public WANT to know/see, which is quite different from a NEED. Mug shots sell, but if there are other available photos, perhaps newspapers could operate under the “innocent until proven guilty” doctrine and treat the accused with more dignity when able.”
Do you agree?
Copyright David R. Norton 2009
