Consider this a case study in which journalists juggle journalistic principles and matters of life and death.
It’s a balancing act that involves a convicted murderer, a hired arsonist, death threats, and a request from the police to fake the news.
Part I: The arson and the murder.
A man already convicted and imprisoned for murdering his wife hires his former cellmate to burn down a house—while his mother-in-law and 13 year-old son are in it, according to the sheriff’s office. The arson represents the first part of a plan. The plan includes a threat to kill the children of the prosecutor responsible for his conviction, sheriff’s detectives say. The convicted murderer promises the arsonist $17,000 in jewelry if he torches the house.
Part II: The deception.
A law enforcement informant tells the sheriff’s office about the plan. The police pick up the individual contracted to carry out the arson upon his release.
He cooperates with the police to avoid a murder conspiracy charge. But he informs the detectives that the man who hired him demands proof that the arson took place. He wants to see a newspaper article about it.
The sheriff’s office believes the lives of six people, four of them children, are at risk. Detectives consider creating a fake newspaper page. But they learn the convicted murderer wants his mother to see the article to establish independent verification that the local newspaper actually published such a report.
Part III: The journalism.
So, the sheriff’s office approaches a local newspaper reporter. Detectives tell the reporter they plan to stage a fire at the house designated by the convicted murderer. They ask if the newspaper would report the arson occurred there, with the idea that the police would mail the article to the plot’s mastermind behind bars.
What would you do if your newsroom were presented with such a request?
For the King County Journal, based in Bellevue, Washington, this was not a hypothetical question.
The newspaper went through the experience outlined above. It recently acknowledged intentionally publishing a fake arson story that misled its readers. That disclosure prompted passionate public and press pronouncements about whether convicting a criminal trumps journalistic ethics.
Some applauded the newspaper for its willingness to mislead the public in order to save lives. Others castigated, or questioned, the newspaper’s actions because they viewed it as a violation of the media’s responsibility to tell the public the truth(s). I was among those who said that deception undermines a newspaper’s credibility.
For the Journal, it came down to personal as well as professional values.
“We know the people involved quite well. It was not a theoretical concern, it was an actual concern,” said Journal Editor Tom Wolfe in an interview with Poynter Online. “We knew the man was capable of murder and of trying to recruit others. There’s no doubt that we’re talking about a dangerous figure.”
Wolfe said the newspaper initially recoiled at the idea of participating in the plan. It didn’t want to get involved. “The credibility with our readers was our most important consideration, “ he said. “We took it seriously and discussed it.”
Wolfe said as many as four people in the newsroom talked about it. The newspaper knew something about the murderer, the people in the community, the intended victims, and the circumstances. It considered the murder threats of credible.
Those making the decision also came to the conclusion that this act was not very different from what many journalists do routinely when they withhold certain information about a crime because it might endanger someone, Wolfe said.
“Reporters routinely withhold information that adversely affects an investigation,” Wolfe said, explaining why the newspaper considered publication of the fake story as an extension of that logic.
Ultimately, the desire to help the community outweighed concerns about credibility, he added. And the newspaper felt the public would understand its decision. Wolfe points out that reader reaction so far supports that view.
And the sheriff’s office believes the Journal’s article made their case, said Christina Bartlett, a detective in the King County Sheriff’s office. The article convinced the convicted murderer to speak about what he had done, and planned to do, which was recorded by the sheriff’s office with a wire-tap.
A conviction on the attempted arson would help limit the convicted murderer’s opportunities for carrying out such plan in the future, Bartlett added. “It takes away some of his privileges to connect with outside world,” she said, noting, however, that he won’t be denied total access.
The question of deception never posed a problem for the sheriff’s office. “In our investigations, we often are deceptive,” Bartlett said, pointing out how they handle such cases as prostitution. “As far as we’re concerned it’s fine.”
But for journalists who oppose using deception, intentionally misleading the public contradicts an implicit, and often explicit, promise to tell the truth(s) as they know it. To do otherwise will raise questions about the veracity of any news reporting.
Without credibility, a news organization breaks the bonds of trust it seeks with its audience. It weakens the credibility it has with those who turn to it for news they can believe in, and base their decisions on. And it’s a news organization’s credibility that makes it more than just a conduit for information.
In addition to truth, questions about the newspaper’s independence might be raised in this case. Some might see such cooperation with law enforcement as adversely affecting the independent coverage of the news event itself.
Some argue that editorial deception — which can amount to lying in print or on the air — can sometimes be justified in the interest of achieving a greater good. Some might say that a covert act of deception occurs whenever journalists withhold information that would contribute to a fuller, and more truthful report. It’s clear that the public is willing to accept some level of deception — some withholding of the full story — in the interest of saving lives or in other extraordinary circumstances.
What’s less clear is how much deception readers and viewers are willing to accept. It’s also difficult to gauge the longer-term consequences of deception on media credibility.
Engaging in a lie may not the only way to achieve the desired outcome.
Although news organizations often find themselves under pressure to make a black or white, either/or choice, a fuller examination of the possibilities — and the principles and stakeholders involved — can often yield additional alternatives.
But understanding a process for ethical decision-making can help. Learning to ask good questions can help broaden the knowledge of what’s at stake. And fundamental journalistic principles serve as a valuable guide.
The case faced by the King County Journal appears particularly unusual and challenging. I’m not aware of any similar cases, but invite you to alert me via e-mail or the Feedback link below if you know of any.
