Poll of the Day > Do journalists have a responsibility not to compromise ongoing investigations?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Im watching the night stalker on Netflix and if you havent seen it spoilers ahead but anyway the main piece of evidence connecting the killer to all his crimes is the shoe print .

so the reporter calls the police and says I know about the print and im gonna run a story on it.

Obviously if she runs a story on it, killer changes his shoe, now makes it 10x harder to find him. So anyway she agrees to not run the story on the proviso that she gets an exclusive interview with the detectives.

Just got me thinking though if she had run the story, surely thats just totally wrong. You dont wanna silence the media but surely they can get fucked for screwing up an investigation? One of the detectives even jokes that I should have hooked her up for extortion, which doesnt sound wrong IMO.

can journalists really just run whatever story they want about anything without any consequences?

---

A truly difficult question to answer. Is it okay for the media to, during wartime, run a story detailing military secrets or championing the enemy? If the journalist runs a hate piece against a certain demographic is it okay? There's a bunch of difficult questions. However the big question should be the difference between 'HAS the right' and 'SHOULD EXERCISE the right'. Like, given this situation, I would say the journalist has the right to publish the story but needs to be held accountable for the outcome if the criminal doesn't get caught. However that can be worked around if the journalist simply holds off on the story until after the investigation is concluded. At that point they are not being censored as the story isn't being repressed in any way but they're not risking the lives of anyone by doing so either.

---

modern journalism shows 0 responsibility so...

should they? yes. do they? no.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

A truly difficult question to answer. Is it okay for the media to, during wartime, run a story detailing military secrets or championing the enemy? If the journalist runs a hate piece against a certain demographic is it okay? There's a bunch of difficult questions. However the big question should be the difference between 'HAS the right' and 'SHOULD EXERCISE the right'. Like, given this situation, I would say the journalist has the right to publish the story but needs to be held accountable for the outcome if the criminal doesn't get caught. However that can be worked around if the journalist simply holds off on the story until after the investigation is concluded. At that point they are not being censored as the story isn't being repressed in any way but they're not risking the lives of anyone by doing so either.

This sounds about right. They have a responsibility not to compromise the investigations and therefore must take responsibility if they choose to do so (up to and including being charged with interfering in the investigation or possibly even being treated as an accessory), but they should retain the right to make that choice.

---

A moral/ethical responsibility maybe, but morality and ethics don't have much place in journalism, particularly given that peoples' careers can be made by doing this kind of shit that fucks things over.

---

Zeus posted...

A moral/ethical responsibility maybe, but morality and ethics don't have much place in journalism, particularly given that peoples' careers can be made by doing this kind of shit that fucks things over.

The irony is that it is the exact place where morality and ethics should be REQUIRED. I mean, imagine getting a hot story that will ruin a bunch of peoples lives if you publish it, or some powerful entity (like a government) paying you to NOT run stories, or deciding to run/not run stories simply because of your personal beliefs and alignments. That's the bastardization of the freedom of press that makes people skeptical of it at best.

---

I feel like reporters do that shit in TV constantly even at worse times where it's like if they run the story, they will for sure be dooming everyone but "the people must know the truth" even if it literally kills us all.

---

Really depends on the situation, if theyre reporting on corruption or something then it doesnt make any sense for them to wait for permission

But if their reporting can cause harm or impede an investigation then they should not do that and should maybe face some kind of penalty or consequence

---

yes, but then they also have a responsibility to be unbiased as possible, so...
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

yes, but then they also have a responsibility to be unbiased as possible, so...

Well, that's the thing. What actually is 'unbiased'. Let's take Spiderman.

It's very easy reading the comics to assume that Peter is the hero and JJJ is running shock pieces and smear content against him for views (hey. Clickbait before there was even clickbait). But here's a big question. Is JJJ right? I mean, villains show up just to fight Spiderman and wreck the city while doing so and they occasionally do these things SPECIFICALLY to bait him. It's not like the Kingpin WANTS to have Spiderman wrecking his businesses after all. However you can also counter by pointing out that these criminals and supervillains would be free to wreck havoc across the city if Spiderman wasn't present. You could also say that Spiderman, as a vigilante, is not accountable for his actions and deeds while a government, or at least public, super hero would and that fights and costs that would have been relatively minor got escalated simply BECAUSE Spiderman showed up. After all, if Electro robs a convenience store he makes off with maybe 1-2K at most assuming he got really lucky, but when Spiderman shows up and slams him into a car that car probably cost more that what Electro could have stolen. If we only look at the petty and minor crimes Spiderman probably costs the city more in damages than if the criminals just got away with their crimes. Course Spidey also stops BIG crimes as well that have extreme costs.

So, putting aside the fact that, as readers, we know Spiderman is a good guy... Who is actually biased here? Papers proclaiming him to be a hero overlook the fact that he DOES attract crime and he almost certainly costs the city a LOT more than if the police just handled the small crimes without his intervention. However JJJ ignores the good things he does and only focuses on his negative aspects. You could argue both are biased and even argue that JJJ is actually correct (Spidey attracts crime and escalates minor crime damages while lacking accountability) while papers with a more positive spin hold the actual bias.

So who is biased here? Papers saying Spiderman is a hero? JJJ? Both?

---