December 14, 2004
Limiting Freedom of the Press?
A judge in MA hears a case of an 18 year old defendant accused of the statutory rape of a 14 year old girl (the defendant was 17 when the rape occurred). Sentencing guidelines apparently required that the judge either give 5 years of jail time for an unrelated charge or no time at all. The judge chose no time, putting him on probation for 8 years and releasing a fire storm of criticism. That's where the story starts.
The Boston herald (the conservative Boston paper) ran an article which claimed the judge said the 14 year old victim needed to 'get over it', which apparently never happened. The judge didn't make a statement, after the citing rules on closed judicial discussions. Then all hell seemed to break loose.
Meanwhile, [a sports columnist in Boston]," began referring to Murphy as "Easy Ernie" on the popular morning radio show...
In St. Maarten [on vacation], Murphy received a call from his daughter Adrienne. She read him a column in the Feb. 20 Herald by Howie Carr titled "Easy Ernie judges daughter's teasing to be out of order." She faxed him pages from Carr's follow-up Internet chat.
"If there were real justice in this world the 'poor rapist' would go to Easy Ernie's house and rape all of HIS daughters twice," said one. Another typed: "Publish his street address and then tell him to 'get over it.' He's a public employee and the public has the right to know!" And one reader volunteered: "Easy Ernie doesn't reside in Sherborn. Reliable info has him residing in neighboring Dover."
"That was it for me," said Keenan, Murphy's wife. Jessica and Emily were sent back home, where they found police guarding their house. They collected some clothes and schoolbooks. Under police escort, Emily went to stay with their grandmother in Quincy, and Jessica bunked with one of her friends. The girls were told only that too many reporters were hanging around. But reading the newspaper, Jessica learned about the threats. "My mom and dad cried when they told me what was really going on," she said.
The next week, Teri Taylor appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor." Host Bill O'Reilly promised her, "We're going to stay on this story and hopefully we'll get the Massachusetts politicians involved and get this guy, Murphy, off the bench." Meanwhile, Greta Van Susteren of Fox News told her "On the Record" audience, "Judge Murphy advised the girl, 'Get over it.' While she ponders the judge's callous advice, maybe Massachusetts should ponder this: Get rid of him."
Well, it turns out that not only was the comment attributed to Murphy wrong, the reporter made up other elements of the story:
So the judge is suing for libel, which is almost unheard of, and the press is watching with baited breadth to see what the outcome is.
Should the reporter be held liable for stories they make up, or embellish? Where would the line for this, be? If the reporter is found guilty, what effect would it have to the press overall? Would Dan Rather have run the unfortunate 'Guard Papers' if Bush could sue him for libel? What about Kerry and the swift boat ads. True, the ads themselves are protected by first amendment rights, but what about all of the news reporting surrounding the ads?
I'll admit, that I would welcome a move in the press where reporters report, and stop reporting on reporting. In other words, getting away from the trend where the reporters, themselves, become news because they reported on some breaking news. That whole practice has elevated the tabloid nature of news shows, and made the news a parody of themselves, in my opinion.
On the other hand, I recognize that any finding of fault here could have the effect of preventing news agencies from reporting on / criticizing public figures, and that would be worse than having overly sensationalistic reporting.
The truth lies in the details. Wedge made the same mistake Rather and CBS made. They got lazy. He relied on one source, and didn't corroborate. If Wedge had limited himself to a story on Murphy's [alleged] leniency, he would have been okay. When he added details based off the hearsay of one person, then made up facts to embellish a story, he crossed a journalistic integrity line. Should the first amendment stop being shield at that point, at least offer him less protection?
Maybe - I'm just not sure how this would be accomplished without public figures then using whatever rule may be carved, as a weapon against any criticism.
Comments:Susie Hernandez said (at January 24, 2005 02:37 AM):
I believe that the media is brainwashing society with their anti communist seniments. leave the poor cubans alone. if they feel like governing their country that way its their choice damnit. And the dispute with Iraq, its just like the vietnam war. Were sticking our noses where we don't belong and sooner or later this imperialistic country is going to have a bunch of pissed off countries after it.And the Indians in the 19th century were killed off like the jews in the holicaust. THE THING THAT BOTHERS ME THE MOST IS THAT AMERICA IS ALWAYS JUDGING OTHER COUNTRIES MISTAKES BUT THEY DONT TAKE THE TIME TO FIX THEIR SCREW UPS, LOOK AT ALL THESE SLUMS IN THE CITIES, THEIR WORSE THAN SOME PLACES IN MEXICO. hAVE ANY OF YOU EVER BEEN TO SPARKS? YEA DIDNT THINK SO. GOVERNMENT, YOU SHOULD BE MORE CONSERNED ABOUT FIXING THINGS IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY THAN GOING TO OTHER PLACES THAT CONVENIENCE YOU, LIKE SAY IRAQ FOR THE OIL. TAX PAYER MONEY SHOULD GO TO SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES. WELL THATS ALL i REALLY NEEDED TO SAY. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPERTUNITY BY PUTTING ON A LITTLE COMMENT WINDOW ON THE WEB SITE. AND IM NOT ILLITERATE, IM JUST REALLY PISSED OFF AND TYPING FAST.