This file is provided for reference purposes only. It was current when produced, but is no longer maintained and may now be outdated. Please select www.ovc.gov to access current information.

Chapter 22

The News Media's Coverage of Crime

Abstract: The news media wield a "double-edged sword" in their coverage of crime and victimization relevant to the "public's right to know" versus "the victim's right to privacy." Victim service providers play crucial roles in protecting victims' privacy rights, and helping victims cope with media coverage immediately following a crime, during the trial, and following verdicts. Advocates must possess knowledge of who the media are, how they operate, and victims' rights and needs pertinent to dealing with the media.

Learning Objectives: Upon completion of this chapter, students will understand the following concepts:

1. Individuals and entities that comprise the news media.
2. Major concerns of victims and service providers when dealing with the media.
3. Guidelines for victims who choose to deal with the media.
4. First Amendment issues and precedents relevant to victim privacy.
5. The role and responsibilities of the victim advocate in helping victims deal with the news media.

Crime in America is big news. According to a Media Monitor report published in January 1994, "The public is preoccupied with violent crime. The number of Americans naming crime as the nation's most important problem jumped six fold (from 5% to 31%) between June 1993 and January 1994 (according to Washington Post/ABC News polls) (Litter and Litter, 1994).

The public was hit with a wave of crime news in 1993, as a record number of crime stories reached the national TV audience. The three major networks aired nearly 1,700 crime stories that year, nearly five stories per night. Not only did overall crime news double from 1992 levels, but coverage of murder tripled, from 104 to 329 (Litter and Litter, 1994).

Media reporting of crime and victimization -- in both print and broadcast formats -- has far-reaching effects on a number of populations and special interests:

The American Public

The media play a significant role in public safety by keeping citizens apprised of increases and decreases in crime, trends in violence and victimization (that are specific to national, state, local and even neighborhood targeted audiences), efforts to prevent crime, reduce violence, and assist victims (including new and existing programs, policies, and legislation), and measures individuals and communities can take to promote safety.

The Criminal Justice System

Coverage of criminal justice system activities offers citizens an overview of the entire justice process, from law enforcement to prosecution through probation, parole and corrections. The news media's examination of individual cases has resulted in groundswells of public opinion and action that have, in many cases, ultimately changed the way our criminal justice system operates. In addition, the emergence of cameras in the courtroom and the Court TV network have expanded the American public's knowledge of the myriad intricacies that comprise our justice system.

The criminal justice system is also affected by its attempts to preserve the sanctity of criminal cases and, in some cases, protect victims' privacy. The espoused theory of the "public's right to know" often puts the media in direct conflict with system officials who believe that case confidentiality is essential to obtaining criminal convictions.

The Media Profession

Over the past decade, coverage of crime and victimization has drastically changed. For example, in 1985, footage of bodies and/or body bags on national networks elicited organized outcries from victim advocates across the nation. Today, such footage is commonplace. The volatile issue of identifying victims of sexual assault in the media has been debated and analyzed from both victim advocacy and First Amendment perspectives, with little consensus from either side of the argument.

However, the past ten years have also witnessed an increase in media professionals who seek sensitivity training from crime victims and advocates so that they can accurately cover crime stories with the least amount of trauma to the victim. Today, crime victims and service providers offer training programs to newsrooms, professional journalism associations, and university-level journalism classes about media sensitivity in addressing violence and victimization.

Journalists who cover crime beats are also affected by the scope and demands of their jobs. Those who cover the horror and degradation of violence on a regular basis have few outlets for the personal trauma they must endure. As such, there is high demand for a protocol to "debrief" journalists whose assignments include regular coverage of violence.

Victim Service Providers

The increase in the news media's coverage of crime and victimization has resulted in a very specialized discipline within the field of victim services: Advocating for crime victims whose cases are covered by the news media. Training programs to help service providers better work with the news media who cover crime and victimization, as well as guidelines in media relations that help them enhance their professional relationships with the news media, are regularly offered at training conferences and as a component of victim service professional education.

Crime Victims

The constituency most affected by the news media coverage of violence and victimization is crime victims. While sensitive coverage of victim's cases can be helpful and, in some cases, even healing, media coverage that is sometimes viewed as insensitive, voyeuristic and uncaring compounds victims' emotional and psychological suffering.

Most crime victims have never before dealt with the news media. They are thrust, often unwillingly, into a limelight they do not seek and do not enjoy solely because of the crimes committed against them. Many victims describe the initial assault from the perpetrator, a secondary assault from the criminal justice system, and a tertiary assault at the hands of the news media. As ABC News and Political Analyst Jeff Greenfield explained in 1986, "What weighs in the scale is not simply the desire of a victim for privacy . . . but the prospect of further victimization beyond the involuntary thrust into the public arena. And this is something that the journalism community must begin to consider in its daily business" (Greenfield, 1986).

The Major Concerns of Crime Victims

and Service Providers

In addition to privacy protections, the National Victim Center has identified 14 significant concerns that crime victims and service providers have in regards to the news media's coverage of crime and victimization (Seymour and Lowrance, 1988, pp. 5-7).

• Interviewing at inappropriate times. "Inappropriate times" for interviewing victims include, but are not limited to, immediately following a crime, at funerals, in hospital settings, and during trials when the judge or prosecutor has issued a gag order to witnesses. It is during these periods that a victim's trauma and distress tend to be extremely high; dealing with the news media can create a secondary victimization that compounds the victim's tragedy caused by the violent crime.

A 1992 study of homicide survivors found that 92% of respondents felt that "it is not appropriate for a television news reporter and camera crew to approach a grieving individual immediately following a death" (Fritz, 1992, p. 91). The feelings of many victims at the crisis stage following a crime were summed up by the mother of a murdered daughter:

"You're in such a state of shock, you're not thinking in terms of newspapers. . . .You're not prepared for this . . . I thought I'd come home by myself and cry my eyes out, but there already were 500 people waiting when I got home. We're not ready. We're numb. We don't know what's going on" (Grotta, 1986, p.10).

• Using euphemisms to describe victims and offenders. Euphemisms are often utilized by journalists and, in particular, newspaper headline writers to capture the essence of a violent act in a brief, memorable manner. However, in doing so, the identity of the victim can be demeaned and even lost. Most Americans remember the notorious "Preppie Murder" in Central Park in the 1980s, but how many people can recall the name of the victim, Jennifer Levin?
• Glamorizing the offender. The following words were used at various times to describe a well-known criminal: "handsome"; "intelligent"; "rape crisis center volunteer"; and "law school student." The man who was so described was Ted Bundy, one of our nation's worst mass murderers. While such descriptions may be essential to a news story, what often adds insult to the victim's injury is the lack of such detail in describing the victims of such heinous criminals.
• Exhibiting aggressive behavior toward victims, survivors and their advocates. The pressure to obtain a news story, often under a tight deadline, can lead some journalists to be overly aggressive to victims, their loved ones, and victim service providers. A television photographer illuminated this problem when he noted:

"I think at times we don't take into consideration what these people have been through. There is pressure there, someone breathing down your back to go out and get that story, get that interview. We should be more sensitive to these people's feelings. Sometimes I think we're a bit too aggressive" (Grotta, 1986, p. 7).

• Ignoring victims' and survivors wishes. The issues of control and decision making are essential to a victim's reconstruction following a crime. Since victims do not choose to be victimized, their ability to make decisions and have some degree of control over their lives following a violent crime is very important. Crime victims' wishes relevant to the news media's coverage of their cases should be respected and followed.
• Filming and photographing scenes with bodies, body bags, and blood. Many victim service professionals believe that the steady diet of gory crime scenes -- often involving murdered victims, body bags and blood -- portrayed in broadcast and print media contributes to individual and collective desensitization to violence and the personal tragedy it wreaks on victims and survivors of crime.
• Repeatedly using crime scene footage as a "lead-in" to newscasts. When a broadcast medium chooses to show crime footage as the "lead-in" prior to a newscast, it can re-victimize anybody who was involved in that specific crime. One victim told of watching the evening news and seeing a body bag containing her husband:

"There was no warning to the family that this was upcoming. You look up and there's his body. That's offensive. You can't be any more offensive than that" (Grotta, 1986, p. 7).

• Reporting innuendoes. The "double-edged sword" wielded by the media who cover crime is often evident when victims, their loved ones, and law enforcement officials refuse to be interviewed for reasons including the need for privacy, or to preserve the sanctity of the criminal investigation or case. In such cases, some media rely on interviews with third parties, including neighbors and people who may, or may not, have known the victim, to obtain details about the victim and/or alleged perpetrator. However, such hearsay interviews often cannot be relied upon for accuracy, and can invoke additional trauma for victims.
• Interfering in police investigations. The need for cooperation among law enforcement, other criminal justice officials, and the news media is essential to criminal investigations and prosecutions. Often, details that journalists consider key to a good story are also details that must be kept confidential in order to successfully complete a criminal investigation.
• Referring to drunk driving crashes as "accidents". The public awareness generated over the past two decades by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Remove Intoxicated Drivers, and other victim advocacy organizations has successfully educated citizens about the dangers of drinking, drugging, and driving. There is nothing "accidental" about a person who chooses to drink and drive, resulting in a crime that injures or kills another human being. Many journalists have begun referring to such tragedies as "crashes" or "crimes," which more accurately describes the criminality of driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.
• Failing to cover a crime at all. Societal biases in America are sometimes reflected in news reporting. The length of news copy and scope of broadcast coverage tend to vary based upon the victim's race, where they live, socio-economic status, and other factors that have nothing to do with the crime committed against them. These issues were elaborated upon in an article by the associate editor of a large metropolitan daily newspaper:

"When city editors get calls from the crime reporter, often the first question asked is 'Where did it happen?' The news team's reaction to the crime is often predicated on where the crime occurred. If it's at one of the projects in predominantly black and Hispanic West Dallas, we call in a brief; it's in white, fashionable University Park, we roll a reporter or two. That attitude is unlikely to change" (Sotomayer, 1987).

Such institutional biases can only be changed with continual training on cultural sensitivity, particularly as it relates to the coverage of crime.

• Identifying child victims. The criminal justice system goes to great length to protect the privacy of child victims, recognizing that any public identification of children's emotional, physical or sexual assaults can have devastating consequences. The media should similarly respect the privacy rights of child victims, and should avoid all reporting that in any way contacts or identifies victims of child abuse. In cases of incest allegations or convictions, journalists should not identify perpetrators if the child victim is in any way at risk of also being identified.
• Attempting to interview survivors of homicide victims prior to official death notifications by law enforcement. In homicide cases, the news media should always ascertain whether or not surviving family members of the victim have been notified of their loved one's murder. One victim recalled driving his car on a Florida freeway and hearing a radio report of his brother's brutal murder at the hands of a high-profile, and yet unidentified, killer. The shock and grief associated with the news media's reporting of violent deaths prior to sensitive death notification comprise a second tragic victimization that can be easily avoided with communication and cooperation between law enforcement and the media.
• Inaccurate reporting. Accurate media coverage of details of a crime, however minute, are very important to crime victims and survivors. For example, inaccurately reporting of the age of a homicide victim can have traumatic consequences on that victim's surviving family members. Factual reporting of all details associated with a crime is critical to not only to the media's underlying philosophy of accuracy, but also to a victim's efforts to reconstruct his or her life following a crime.

A brochure published by the National Victim Center in 1987 entitled "Victims' Rights and the Media" offers valuable guidelines to crime victims whose cases are covered by print and broadcast news media. While the "rights" enumerated in this brochure are not mandated by statute or policy, they should be considered guiding principles provided by all service providers to crime victims prior to dealing with the news media:

You have the right:

1. To say "no" to an interview.
2. To select the spokesperson or advocate of your choice.
3. To select the time and location for media interviews.
4. To request a specific reporter.
5. To refuse an interview with a specific reporter even though you have granted interviews to other reporters.
6. To say "no" to an interview even though you have previously granted interviews.
7. To release a written statement through a spokesperson in lieu of an interview.
8. To exclude children from interviews.
9. To refrain from answering any questions with which you are uncomfortable or that you feel are inappropriate.
10. To know in advance the direction the story about your victimization is going to take.
11. To avoid a press conference atmosphere and speak to only one reporter at a time.
12. To demand a correction when inaccurate information is reported.
13. To ask that offensive photographs or visuals be omitted from broadcast or publication.
14. To conduct a television interview using a silhouette or a newspaper interview without having your photograph taken.
15. To completely give your side of the story related to your victimization.
16. To refrain from answering reporters' questions during trial.
17. To file a formal complaint against a journalist.
18. To grieve in privacy.
19. To suggest training about media and victims for print and electronic media in your community (Seymour and Lowrance, 1988, pp. 7-10).

The question of where a society's right to know ends and an individual's right to privacy begins is one of journalism's thorniest ethical dilemmas (Thomason and Babbili, 1988).

This double-edged sword has serious implications for victims and those who serve them. While the legal aspects relevant to the First Amendment are quite clear, ethical considerations that take into account the traumatic nature of victimization and related news coverage are much more complex.

There have been two precedent-setting decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court relevant to the privacy rights of crime victims.

In Florida Star v. B.J.F., a weekly newspaper in Jacksonville published a news article that identified the name of a sexual assault victim, violating its own policy of protecting the privacy of rape victims. The resulting appeals and ultimate High Court decision rendered in 1989 were summarized in a 1990 Mercer Law Review article:

In Florida Star v. B.J.F., the Supreme Court invalidated a Florida statute proscribing the newspaper publication of the identity of sexual assault victims. In making its determination, the Court balanced the state interest of protecting the privacy of assault victims against the first amendment concerns of the free press. The Court did not focus on the privacy right of the plaintiff as much as it considered the inability of the statute to achieve its desired goal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found the Florida statute unconstitutional primarily because of its failure to protect the privacy of assault victims effectively without an impermissible intrusion on the first amendment freedom of the press (Hughes, 1990).

The constitutionality of a Georgia law that prohibited the identification of rape victims by the news media was called into question in a case involving a television station's reporting of the name of a deceased rape victim. When Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice White noted in the affirming opinion that the "commission of crime, prosecutions resulting from it, and judicial proceedings arising from the prosecutions . . . are without question events of legitimate concern to the public and consequently fall within the responsibility of the press to report the operations of government" (Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 1975, p. 493).

There are several arguments adopted by journalists in support of identifying victims of crime and, in particular, victims of sexual assault and rape. First, the public's right to know any information that is part of public record (i.e. law enforcement or court documents) is frequently cited. Next, some journalists believe that, in the name of fairness and equity, the victim's identity should not be protected when the name of the alleged assailant is published or broadcast, particularly when the defendant is found not guilty. Finally, some journalists believe that identifying rape victims will somehow eliminate or reduce the stigma that is often associated with sexual assault.

However, research clearly shows that crime victims, service providers, and American women in general strongly support protecting the privacy of rape victims. Key findings from The National Women's Study, as reported in "Rape in America: A Report to the Nation," include the following:

• Eighty-four percent of rape victims do not report to the police.
• Half of rape victims (50%) would be "a lot more likely to report" to police if there was a law prohibiting the news media from disclosing their name and address, with 16 percent indicating they would be "somewhat more likely to report" rapes to the police.
• Almost nine out of ten American women (86%) felt victims would be less likely to report rapes if they felt their names would be disclosed by the news media.
• An overwhelming majority of American women (75%), rape victims (78%) and rape service agencies (91%) favor legislation that would prohibit media disclosure of rape victims' names (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour, 1992).

Recent surveys of American newspaper editors have shown that most do not routinely publish the names of rape victims. In 1982, Oukrop reported that 68 percent of the editors she surveyed believed names of rape victims should not be published (Oukrop, 1982, p. 21). Wince (1991) surveyed editors in 1990 and found that 9.6 percent said rape victims should never be named; 39.6 percent said they should be named only with the victim's permission; and 43.6 percent said they should be named only in exceptional cases.

Furthermore, more news media today are addressing the issue of rape than ever before. In "Newspaper Coverage of Rape: Editors Still Reluctant to Name the Victim," the following data were revealed:

• The topic of rape coverage had been discussed in respondents' newsrooms, with 57.5 percent noting that their paper had seriously re-examined policy on rape identification, and 55.2 percent saying that they had re-examined policy on rape coverage in general.
• More than 40 percent believed their own newspaper is more sensitive toward rape victims than five years ago, and more than 50 percent said they believed newspapers as a whole are more sensitive.
• Almost one-fourth of the editors (22.6 percent) disagree with the idea that routine printing of the names of rape victims would remove the stigma of rape.
• Only 24.3 percent of respondents agreed that not printing names of rape victims was a violation of the public's right to know.
• However, they indicated that the decision to withhold a name should be the newspaper's, not a result of legislation that keeps the name from the press. Almost three-fourths of the editors (71.8%) said those laws should be repealed because they violate the First Amendment (Thomason and LaRocque, 1994, pp. 11-12).

Clearly, the correlation between rape victims' fear of being identified and the fact that only 16 percent of rapes are ever reported to police should be a driving force behind the protection of the privacy rights of all sexual assault victims. While legislation mandating such protections has been held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, the news media should adopt policies that protect rape victims' right to privacy as a basic ethical premise of journalistic doctrine.

In 1988, the National Victim Center published a suggested code of ethics for victim advocates in the media. With adherence to these recommended guidelines (which have been updated in 1995), victim advocates can ease the trauma of the news media's coverage of crime and victims and, at the same time, assist the news media in their attempts to focus public attention on crime in our nation:

I shall always:

1. Honor the victim's wishes relevant to any news media coverage of their tragedy.
2. Protect the privacy of any victims who do not wish to have contact with the news media.
3. Provide victims with guidelines on how to deal with the news media.
4. Upon request, help victims prepare for print or broadcast media interviews.
5. Inform victims that they have the right to refuse an interview with the media.
6. Upon request, accompany crime victims to media interviews and press conferences.
7. Review with reporters, producers and talk show hosts exactly what questions they can and cannot ask your client.
8. Reserve the right to end any interview if the client shows signs of trauma during the course of an interview.
9. Discourage the participation of children in any interviews or talk shows.

I shall never:

1. Force a victim into an interview against his or her wishes.
2. Provide any information about the victim without his or her explicit consent (Seymour and Lowrance, 1988, p. 15).

Advocacy for crime victims in the media has become a specialized discipline within the field of victim advocacy. Victim service providers who assume this immense responsibility must:

• Be knowledgeable about how the news media operate (see Worksheet #2).
• Be knowledgeable about victims' rights and issues in general, and about the specifics of the victim and case at hand.
• Develop solid relationships with news media professionals who are known to be sensitive to crime victims and victims' rights issues.
• Consider the needs and desires of the victims they represent -- especially privacy concerns -- as foremost among their responsibilities.
• Be sensitive to the specific needs of the victim and/or the victim's family and friends, as well as to the parameters of the criminal investigation, criminal justice system, and criminal case (when applicable).
• Be available 24-hours-a-day, seven days a week for both the victim and the news media.
• Be aware of and prepared to protect victims' rights in the media.

Advance Preparation

Victim service providers should have a roster of key media in their community, which includes: contact name; address; telephone number; fax number; and e-mail address. A database that allows rapid distribution of information via fax, mail, or the Internet such as victim statements and press releases, is helpful.

It is helpful to also know which media professionals have provided thorough, sensitive coverage of victims' cases, as well as those who have been less sensitive or intrusive. If the victims asks for recommendations on specific media who have contacted them, this type of background information is useful.

Helpful Tips

• Be well-versed about victims' rights in the media.
• Know all the facts of the case, including detailed, accurate information about the victim.
• Coordinate media outreach with relevant criminal justice officials.
• Always separate fact from opinion.
• Always remember that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and is "alleged" to have committed a crime prior to conviction.
• Be aware that anything you or the victim say to the media may be used by the defense.
• Be professional and courteous at all times.

Victim Advocacy

In some cases, the victim service provider will be directly contacted by the victim or a family member or friend. In other cases, a telephone call to the victim, followed up with a personal note that provides the service provider's/agency's contact information for support and services (including media advocacy), is appropriate.

The role of the victim advocate in helping victims deal with the media may include but is not limited to the following activities:

• Determining "ground rules" for the news media, i.e. does the victim want to deal with the media and, if so, in what manner?
• Providing to the news media the victim's wishes ("ground rules") both verbally and in writing.
• Providing victims with an answering machine if they do not have one that contains a message concerning the victim's wishes for dealing with the media and others.
• Explaining how the media work and, in particular, how the media might cover the victim's case.
• Helping the victim select a spokesperson, when applicable, and being prepared to fulfill this role upon request from the victim.
• Being prepared to develop a written statement, upon request from the victim, for dissemination to the media. A double-spaced statement that includes the spokesperson's contact information, limited to 60 seconds or less, is most appropriate.
• Protecting the privacy of sensitive victims, i.e. sexual assault victims, children and elderly victims, and victims with disabilities, at all costs.
• Providing the media with contact information for the spokesperson selected by the victim.
• Coordinating interview guidelines and other release of information with the media throughout the duration of the case.
• Releasing only information to the media that has been approved by the victim.
• Remember that the media are visually oriented.
• Providing copies of a photograph chosen by surviving family members in cases involving deceased victims, with the original photograph returned promptly to the family.
• Prior to the verdict, helping the victim prepare two statements: One for a "guilty" verdict, and one for a "not guilty" verdict.
• Advising the victim that following a verdict, the news media will have access to persons who had been previously silenced during court proceedings.
• Being prepared to provide follow-on support and advocacy to victims following a verdict, regardless of what that verdict is.
• Maintaining a log of media coverage of the case, including newspaper clippings and audio/video footage of interviews.

Case Coordination

• Determine key criminal justice officials (such as the police public information officer, prosecuting attorney, or victim/witness coordinator) with whom media outreach should be coordinated.
• Coordinate any release of information with key criminal justice officials.
• For cases involving trials, determine a room in the courthouse where the victim can be guaranteed privacy. Also, determine alternative routes for the victim to enter and exit without being confronted by the media.
• Always keep in mind that pre-trial publicity can result in a change of venue.
• Never speak about the case in any public situations and, in particular, anywhere in or around the courthouse.
• Coordinate victim privacy protection rules in cases involving trials, especially in cases in which cameras are allowed in the courtroom, with the prosecutor and judge.
• Respect any orders issued by the judge relevant to the release of information, especially "gag orders."
• Avoid any adversarial role with anyone involved in the case.
• Coordinate post-trial media activities with the prosecuting attorney and the victim.
• Prepare the victim for potential media inquiries on anniversaries of crimes or court decisions.

Over the past decade, news media professionals have begun to examine their roles in the coverage of crime and victimization. The "double-edged sword" -- involving the victim's right to privacy versus the public's right to know -- has been debated among journalists, with such discussions often involving input and advice from victim service providers. While levels of sensitivity to victims' rights and needs continue to vary among journalists, news media today more than ever are adhering to basic principles of fairness and sensitivity that ultimately benefit victims of crime whose cases they cover.

Guiding Principles for the Journalist

There are three guiding principles for journalists that are particularly applicable to their coverage of crime and victimization (Black, Steele, and Barney, 1995).

1. Seek truth and report it as fully as possible.
   • Inform yourself continuously so you in turn can inform, engage, and educate the public in a clear and compelling way on significant issues.
   • Be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting accurate information.
   • Give voice to the voiceless.
   • Hold the powerful accountable.
2. Act independently.
   • Guard vigorously the essential stewardship role a free press plays in an open society.
   • Seek out and disseminate competing perspectives without being unduly influenced by those who would use their power or position counter to the public interest.
   • Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise your integrity or damage your credibility.
   • Recognize that good ethical decisions require individual responsibility enriched by collaborative efforts.
3. Minimize harm.
   • Be compassionate for those affected by your actions.
   • Treat sources, subjects, and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect, not merely as means to your journalistic ends.
   • Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort, but balance those negatives by choosing alternatives that maximize your goal of truth telling (Black, Steele, and Barney, 1995).

A Media Code of Ethics

Victim service providers should encourage media professionals, both print and broadcast, to adopt a code of ethics specific to their coverage of crime and victimization. Such a code can serve as a basic ethical foundation from which difficult decisions -- frequently made in very short time periods -- can be made.

The most comprehensive written policy on ethical considerations affecting journalists, including those affecting crime victims, was developed by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1992. In the sensitive introduction to its "Guidelines on Privacy Issues," the following guiding statement was made:

"As we consider the policies that will best serve the Post-Dispatch, we should bear in mind some broad principles:

The perceptions and perspectives of reporters and editors are on the one hand, and readers and other members of the public on the other, are different. The news professionals are motivated chiefly by a desire to get the news and publish it. The others are more likely to react personally, imagining how they would feel as the subject of a story. In weighing matters of privacy, perhaps some effort should be made to bring that personal perspective into the equation.

Major changes should be approached with caution. The wind may seem to be blowing very strongly in one direction today, but could shift direction tomorrow.

No policy will cover every eventuality. The policy here enunciated (in the Guidelines on Privacy Issues) includes many exceptions, and must be augmented by the constant application of fairness, common sense, reasoned Judgment, and a degree of compassion by reporters and editors all along the line" (Guidelines on Privacy Issues, 1992).

When victim advocates consider proposing a code of ethics to media professionals, the following issues should be seriously considered.

The news media should:

• Present details about a crime in a fair, objective and balanced manner.
• Recognize the importance of publishing or broadcasting information that can contribute to public safety while, at the same time, balancing this need with the victim's need for privacy.
• Respect the privacy of individuals who choose to refrain from dealing with the media, or who choose to address the media through a spokesperson of their choice.
• Provide a balanced perspective relevant to a criminal act that reflects the concerns of the victim and offender.
• Never report rumors or innuendoes about the victim, the offender, or the crime unless such information has been verified by reliable sources.
• In crimes other than homicide, identify the victim by age and area where the crime occurs, omitting street addresses and block numbers.
• Refrain from using information gained from private conversations of victims or their relatives who are in shock or distraught.
• Identify witnesses only when they volunteer to be named, and when there is clearly no danger that can be predicted through their identification by the media.
• Never publish the identity of a sexual assault victim without his or her prior consent, regardless of whether the case is in the criminal or civil courts.
• Never publish the identity of a child victim.
• Never identify alleged or convicted incest offenders when such actions could lead to the identification of the victim.
• In cases of kidnapping where it is determined that the victim has been sexually assaulted, stop identifying the victim by name once a sexual assault has been alleged.
• Never identify the names of victims of scams or other crimes that tend to humiliate or degrade the victim without the victim's prior consent.
• Refrain from photographing or broadcasting images that portray personal grief and/or shock resulting from a criminal act.
• Never publish photographs or broadcast images that could place the subject in danger.
• Refrain from showing photographs or broadcast images of deceased victims, body bags, or seriously wounded victims.
• Never publish photographs or broadcast images of funerals without the surviving family members' prior consent.
• Refer to drunk driving incidents as "crashes" or "crimes," not accidents -- regardless of whether or not the use of alcohol has been determined as a factor.
• Approach the coverage of all stories related to crime and victimization in a manner that is not lurid, sensational, or intrusive to the victim and his or her family.

Worksheet # 1 Chapter 22

Who Are the Media?

Worksheet # 2 Chapter 22

The Media Hierarchy

Victim service providers most often will deal with a reporter from a print or broadcast news medium. However, in the newsroom, the reporter's place is on the lower end of the hierarchy, with many senior officials often responsible for key decisions affecting the coverage of crime and victimization.

The following depicts the hierarchy of the newsrooms of both newspapers and broadcast (radio and television) media (which may vary depending on the personnel and policies of a specific medium).

If victims or advocates are not happy with the media's coverage of a crime or of an issue, they can appeal through the various levels of hierarchy in the media's organization. Ultimately, who has significant influence over each medium -- print and broadcast? Fill in the blank for each.

Other journalists who may affect how stories of crime and victimization are covered, or with whom service providers may have contact, include:

• Headline writers.
• Editorial page editors.
• Editorial boards.

Worksheet # 1 Chapter 22

Who Are the Media?

(Answers)

References

Black, J., Steele, B., & Barney, R. (1995). Doing ethics in journalism: A handbook with case studies (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn. (1975). 420 U.S. 469, p. 493.

Fritz, K. L. (1992). Television news coverage of tragic death and the grieving: Does It affect the bereavement process of the survivor?. Western Illinois University Department of Communications Arts and Sciences.

Greenfield, J. (1986). TV: The medium determines impact of crime stories. Crime Victims & the News Media. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University.

Grotta, G. R. (1986). Crime victims and the news media pilot survey. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University.

Guidelines on privacy issues. (1992). St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Hughes, K. W. (1990). Florida Star v. B. J. F.: Can the State regulate the press in the interest of protecting the privacy of rape victims?. Mercer Law Review.

Kilpatrick, D., Edmunds, C. & Seymour, A. (1992) Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. The National Women's Study. Charleston, SC: Medical University of South Carolina National Crime Victims Research and Arlington, VA: Treatment Center and National Victim Center.

Litter, S. R. & Litter, L. S. (Eds.). (1994, January/February). 1993 - The year in review: TV's leading news topics, reporters, and political jokes. Media Monitor. Washington, DC: Center for Media and Public Affairs.

Oukrop, C. E. (1982). Views of newspaper gatekeepers on rape ad rape coverage. Manhattan, KS: Kansas City University.

Seymour, A., & Lowrance, L. (1988). Crime victims and the news media. Fort Worth, TX: National Victim Center.

Sotomayer, E. (1987). A victim's race: Does it make a difference?. Crime Victims and the News Media. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University.

Thomason, T. & Babbili, A. (1988). American media and crime victims: Covering private individuals in the public spotlight. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University.

Winch, S. P. (1991). On naming rape victims: How editors stand on the issue. Paper presented at the national convention of AEJMC, Minneapolis, MN).

Thomason, T. & LaRocque, P. (1994). Newspaper Coverage of Rape: Editors Still Reluctant to Name the Victim. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University.

Back to NVAA

The information on this page is archived and provided for reference purposes only.