http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Editorial decisions call for judgment — what would you do?
Gazette Managing Editor Tom Woodman’s Editor’s Notes column appears monthly in the Sunday Opinion section. Send questions and comments to woodman@dailygazette. com or by mail to 2345 Maxon Road Extension, PO Box 1090, Schenectady, NY 12301-1090.

   Among the many questions journalists face in a day, editors and reporters fi nd consensus a surprising amount of the time, considering how contrary most of us are by nature. Sometimes, though, agreement is hard to come by and there is no clear answer. Even after a decision is reached and a story appears, uncertainties can linger.
   No set of policies could provide black-and-white rules about how reporters and editors should approach every situation we may encounter. So when questions arise, editors are not applying some kind of statutory code that says in situation A refer to Article B, section C of a newspaper policy book. Instead, they make judgment calls, drawing on experience, journalistic principles and values.
   Here’s a situation that generated extended discussion in our newsroom recently. What would you, the reader, do if you were the editor?
   Following Schenectady County’s adoption of a restriction effectively banning registered sex offenders from living in the city of Schenectady and many other areas, a reporter was looking into how city officials would enforce the law. As part of her research she spoke with city residents who lived near registered, level 3 offenders, the most serious category. The residency is public information and the neighbors generally were aware of the presence of the level 3 offenders.
   The story’s main theme was about Mayor Brian Stratton’s emphatic intention to enforce the new law aggressively. The article wasn’t about particular offenders but did try to give some feel for how regular residents feel about the issue.
   The question raised by one editor was: Should the story name the offenders whose neighbors were commenting for the story?
   The case for not identifying the offenders was that doing so would “out” the offenders unnecessarily, since their names weren’t central to the point of the story. The potential discomfort to them and their families might be disproportionate to the value of using the name.
   I think this concern contains some underlying questions: Does being named in a news article amount to punishment? And should the newspaper try to anticipate possible bad consequences of publicity and shape our work with those possibilities in mind?
   The case for naming the offenders included the reality that the names and addresses are publicly available and that neighbors already knew them. One argument held that naming the offenders humanized them, and made it clear that the law affected actual people, not abstract villains.
   And, the argument that I think carried the most weight in the end: Good journalism requires particular, specific information. The more details that are in a story, the more credibility it has. Sometimes we do withhold information but unless there is a compelling reason to do so we better fulfill our mission by providing facts.
   There are times when we shape coverage because of anticipated outcomes. We don’t generally name victims of sex crimes, because we believe that a number of bad consequences could befall the victim and the legal system if we do. Unless a bomb scare creates public disruption or has unusual news value, we don’t report on it. The reason is the worry that the publicity could encourage other scares.
   But we aren’t in a position to see clearly into the future and know how a story will change people’s lives. And even if we could, is it really up to us to decide which outcomes are good and which bad? In the case of the sex offender story, it’s easy to imagine good as well as bad consequences following from using the names.
   Our final decision was to use the names. What would you have done?

I think that the media is one of the major problems today. They print some stories that are not always fact and it could ruin some people's lives and families. Especially when it is the local stories.

Quoted Text

But we aren’t in a position to see clearly into the future and know how a story will change people’s lives.

So shut up!!!!!  

The use of the words...."probable", could be, maybe, looks like, posibly etc.....should be left out

If you ever notice, the media reports in 60 seconds, a 5 hour court hearing with only the prosecutor's testimony. Never the defendents. It's the media that makes the 'stupid listeners' believe people are guilty until proven inocent when in fact the law states otherwise. The media portrays everyone as evil and guilty. They took on the role of judge and jury and drag the 'stupid listeners' right in with them.

So as Senders said....'so SHUT UP'!!!