Journalism at UMD

One of the first times I stopped and really asked why was several weeks into my yearlong position as editor-in-chief of the University of Minnesota Duluth Statesman.

After getting tidbits of information from the university police, our crime reporter went to Duluth's courthouse to get more information.

According to the St. Louis County criminal complaint, a freshman male was caught with cocaine, marijuana, prescription pills and several other types of drug paraphernalia in his on-campus apartment. If convicted, the student would be charged with a fifth degree felony for possession of cocaine.

There was no question, the Statesman had to run this story, but should we run his name?

Our code of ethics did not bring any clarity to the situation.

"The UMD Statesman, in general, does not print the name (s) of any victim or suspect in an ongoing investigation without their consent. In cases of sensitive crimes, the Statesman will not print the name of victim or suspect unless given permission. If the suspect is a public figure, or it would be beneficial to the student body to release a name, the Editor-in-Chief has discretion to use it. The Statesman will never publish the name of a criminal suspect until they have been charged with a crime."

He had been charged and the student body would benefit from this story, but he wasn't a public figure.

There was only one way this question could be answered, by the discretion of the editor-in-chief. The decision was entirely up to me.

Decisions made at our college newspaper are miniscule in comparison to the ones larger organizations have to make every day.

Rob Karwath, executive editor of the Duluth News Tribune says that the topic of when to name and when not to name is brought up regularly in the paper's newsroom.

Like the Statesman, they also have a policy that generally states they do not name suspects until formal charges have been filed.

"If the authorities or prosecutors believe something has happened, most of the time we want them to put their money where their mouth is," Karwath said.

The policy is designed to protect alleged criminals from potentially unfair and unofficial recounts of what happened, he said.

But even after formal charges are filed, a news organization still has to decide - name or no name? It's an ethical question with no easy answer.

"We're certainly within our rights to do it," Karwath said. "It's accurate, but it is more of what's the proper thing to do."

There are several different groups or stakeholders that must be taken into account when trying to figure out what is proper; this is especially true in criminal reporting.

For various reasons members of the community want to know details of crimes that happen where they live.

On the other hand the alleged criminal, who also is a stakeholder, has only been charged with a crime, whether or not they're actually guilty is yet to be determined.

Regardless of whether the verdict is guilty or innocent, it deserves another story. If a guilty verdict is found, the story should explain why and what the consequences are for the criminal.

If the verdict comes back innocent, the story needs to explain how the trial progressed from point A to point B, in other words, it need to explain why they weren't guilty.

But for the accused criminal, explaining their innocence isn't enough. They have already been singled out in front of their community, the damage has been done and that can't be fixed.

"One of the things that causes the greatest level of frustration and anger in people who are charged with crimes by the media is that when they are eventually acquitted or plea bargained out to a much lesser charge, it often doesn't get as much publicity as the original charges did," said Mark Anfinson, attorney for the Minnesota Newspaper Association.

Even if the story about the acquittal receives as much publicity as the story about the initial charges, Anfinson said that in his experience by that point the public has already made up their minds.

"People should not assume that people are guilty until proven so, but let's face it they do, and they do so overwhelmingly," he said.

If a journalist's overall purpose is to inform the public who presumably will draw the wrong conclusion, what is the deeper purpose to reporting on criminal activity?

Bob Steele, who was the 2008 Eugene S. Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Professor of Journalism, will tell you that criminal reporting serves two essential purposes in our society.

"We do those stories about alleged criminal wrongdoing or civil wrongdoing not only as stories about the person accused of a crime, but they also are stories about how well our system of justice functions in this country," Steele said.

Anfinson agrees, a great deal of his day is spent helping journalists strike a balance between ethically reporting on criminal activities and making sure the criminal justice system is living up to its promises.

Shortly before our conversation he had been talking with an editor of a daily newspaper in southern Minnesota about a story involving the arrest of a community member and his subsequent stay in jail.

"The editors stock response to these guys that call and complain is as follows," Anfinson said. "The only thing worse than reporting that you have been arrested and put in jail is not reporting that you've been arrested and put in jail.

Because if nobody can find out about that fact, we would ultimately be in worse shape because there would be secret jails and secret justice," he said.

To sum it up, reporting on criminal activity in your community is a necessary evil, which takes us back to a question proposed by Karwath; what is the proper thing to do?

According to Steele, the only proper way to report on criminal activities is to make sure the story is as fair and accurate as it possibly can be.

"Even when the truth is elusive, journalists have an obligation to get as close to it as possible," Steele said. "The story should be factually accurate and reported in context."

One way news organizations attempt to make stories fair and contextual is by repeatedly using phrases like "according to police," "allegedly" and "facing charges" to the point of what Karwath calls being a "little repetitive."

He feels that cutting corners during the reporting process can easily mislead the public to an impression of guilt.

"Are we being clear with the readers about what is going on here? Are we being fair to the subjects of coverage?" Karwath said. "They may end up getting exonerated."

Another attempt to balance these stories comes by making contact with the alleged criminal. Generally they won't talk at the advice of their lawyer, but it is still a crucial step in the reporting phase.

Mark Stodghill has been covering crime for the Duluth News Tribune for over 20 years. He has covered cases of nearly every nature including over 40 murder trials. Regardless of the alleged crime or the alleged criminal's prominence, he always attempts to make contact so they can share their side of the story.

"Ninety percent of the time they do not call me," Stodghill said.

Despite various efforts made by journalists to protect the accused in their reporting, they rarely serve their intended purpose. Regardless of whether or not the accused is guilty or innocent, if the story made the news, chances are that they have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion.

"It's certainly not our intent but there almost isn't any other way around it," Karwath said. "You get into that anyone can get tarnished up, or trashed up, but I can't think of a different way of handling it. The alternative would be to not write about it."

When it came time to send the Statesman to the printing press our decision had been made; we were going to run his name. The first two paragraphs of the story identified the student and named the charges he faced.

As the paper circulated around UMD the next day it worked exactly how news is supposed to - it created a buzz in our community. People were talking about the story in the halls, e-mailing it to their friends, but most of all everyone was astonished by the alleged criminal's actions.

In the opinion of the student body he was already guilty despite our best efforts to make the story fair.

After publication the student e-mailed the author of the story. He accused her of personally attacking him and threatened suit against the Statesman.

We knew he had no base for a lawsuit, but we scheduled a meeting anyway hoping to relieve some of his frustrations.

He was angry. He was embarrassed. We had shamed him in front of the entire school and all he wanted to know was why.

Everyone in the room including the student knew the answer, but as we explained our position even I couldn't truly understand why.

I know he allegedly committed a felony on campus and as the student newspaper it was our job to report on it. I know that there was paraphernalia found in his apartment generally used in the sale of narcotics, so his name was of value to the student body.

I know why we published the story. I know why we published his name. I know all these things, but unless I lose every bit of compassion inside of me, I will never truly understand why.

The Statesman identified six other students for alleged criminal conduct during my time as editor-in-chief.

As the year went on, our journalistic skills improved and the decision making process regarding naming these individuals became easier. But come publication, hanging them out to dry in front of the entire school never got any easier.

Although I never experienced the shame and embarrassment that I put these individuals through on behalf of the Statesman, I hope they can at least understand it wasn't something we wanted to do.

We were doing our jobs. We were doing what we thought was right. And at the end of the day, doing the right thing is all that matters, even if doing it feels incredibly wrong.