Disabling comments, and journalistic responsibility
A frequent poster to the crime blog and comments section on stories, Chamgreen102, takes exception to our disabling comments section on some stories -- the latest the boy who was abducted:
"You guys make great journalists, and you play right by the book. But when all citizens have access to the Judiciary Case Search it becomes apparent that the average citizen is sometimes able to see the rest of the story that you don't report."
She is talking about people who commented on a criminal history of a person who appeared in a story, and wondered why we didn't. "This is the kind of history that I want to know about, it makes a bit of sense out of the crime. The commenter's are the ones that often tell the rest of the story, the story that the Sun won't tell, yet is perfectly legal to report."
We turned off the comments on this story, as we do sometimes on others, because they had turned nasty and spiteful, with unsubstantiated personal attacks and filled with racist, demeaning statements. Some newspapers ban comments on crime stories altogether, realizing that it is seemingly impossible to have civil discourse on such a passionate subject. It's too bad that people cannot have a rational discussion on such an important topic.
For more:
Chamgreen is right -- public court databases make it easy for us, and everyone else, to research the criminal histories of people whose names appear in stories. And people are finding out what cops have known for years -- many people who are either victimized by or suspects in crimes have criminal records.
But the Maryland Judiciary Case Search is just one of the many tools we use when reporting on people. It is valuable, and oftentimes, as we did in the abduction story, we report on convictions. The suspects had drug and robbery convictions, and the abduction was tied to drugs. The convictions were relevant.
But not all cases are so clear-cut. Many times we see a dozen or so arrests and no convictions. Or the arrests involved alleged crimes that have nothing to do with the story. True, we don't always report everything we find on case search. Again, that website, while an invaluable service to the public, is for us a beginning. To do a proper job, we need to go to the courthouse and pull the files, read them, contact attorneys and examine sentences. Those files often lead reporters into unexpected directions, provide additional contacts and numbers and, more importantly, additional context for the story.
It's not that we ignore what we find in case search, or allow this new army of citizen journalists to find out what we refuse to report, but that we take great pains to be responsible and report what's relevant. We cannot allow comments that libel others, nor can we allow statements that infer guilt on someone based on a string of arrests that went nowhere in court. Perhaps the person is guilty and got off by our judicial system -- but to prove that takes far more time than a simple glance at the case search web site. It takes real reporting. It may be legal to recite what's on there, but it's hardly fair, or even, in some cases, accurate. And spouting off in print based on a quickly glance of a court docket would be irresponsible. The court docket is a guide to what can be a treasure-trove of information. But it takes work and time to get it.
Chamgreen notes a murder victim who a year earlier had filed a complaint against a man alleging assault and for non-support of child payments. The poster wishes we had included that in the story, to make sense of the crime. It does seem obvious but for us that simple finding provides fodder for more questions. We ask police if this man is a suspect, based on his past. Where is that person now? What happened to those charges? Is the woman involved in something else that might have gotten her killed? Unfortunately, there are far too many murders in this city to do such a thorough job -- again, it's more than looking at case search -- on each and every slaying, and I'm the first to admit that we often fall short. We pick cases to highlight that we think tell a bigger story about violence in Baltimore, and in that we sometimes miss the smaller cases that also could be interesting.
But to suggest that we have abdicated our journalistic responsibility because we don't simply regurgitate everything bit of information that is publicly available is just plain wrong. Actually, by only looking at Case Search, you are only getting a small part of information that's available. It's just that the information is not readily available on your home computer.
Case Search limits you to state court records. PACER gives you access to all federal court records, across the country, both civil and criminal. And unlike the Maryland court database, PACER gives you access to ALL the filings, not just the docket entries. But PACER costs money, and armchair journalists are not abt to pay for this service. We do.
I would like to see our citizen reporters lobby for the state court system and police to put more records on line. Why can't charging documents be linked to the docket entries and be available without having to go to the courthouse? (this is under consideration). That would make it easier for bloggers to have their own, fuller account of the cases.
Comments
People should be aware also that the Maryland Judiciary Case Search often has errors. Names are frequently misspelled. One that I looked at just yesterday had different dates of birth in the District Court and the Circuit Court cases for the same charges against a defendant (and the Circuit Court file had to be wrong since the defendant was asking to have his case transferred to a juvenile proceeding and therefore must have been under 18 when the alleged crime occurred). In another case that I followed, a defendant plead guilty to kidnapping (he put the adult victim in the trunk of his own car and drove around trying to get money using the victim's ATM card), but the charge showed up online as the kidnapping of a child. So it is absolutely true that one has to be careful about what shows up when court records are searched online.
At the same time, if one wants to attend court proceedings for a particular case, the ability to look up scheduling information is invaluable.
Posted by: Steve Gewirtz | July 13, 2011 9:33 AM
Thank you for that. The comments on here are generally hysterical, ignorant and racist.
Posted by: Jake | July 13, 2011 10:07 AM
I think your statements of journalistic responsibility are just great. I wish all publications abided by them.
Posted by: kay sieverding | July 13, 2011 1:12 PM
I agree with this policy specially when a disposition hasn't been met.
Posted by: Tif | July 13, 2011 5:26 PM
I echo others comments on you standing by the integrity of the discussion you're fostering here. In another Sun blog I made less than dazzling comments on students at MICA and the owner of said blog noted "I'm with you on your point but leave out the nasty stuff and I'll consider re-posting it" (paraphrased). Point is i HAD a good point but it was lost in all my personal attacks on people I felt were responsible for the problem. My initial argument was well-founded and logical but the rant part was what took center stage. Taking a day away and reformulating my post I got through to the point and made it even better, more clear, more powerful. All this to say I think that JF and PH, and others here, have the right to police the conversation - and insomuch that it makes it a more productive one instead of space for individuals to grandstand.
Posted by: baltobikeboi | July 14, 2011 12:05 AM
Peter, this is the kind of comment moderation that I've been wanting the Sun to do for years. Comment sections can be extremely enlightening and productive (Ta-Nehisis Coates's blog on The Atlantic comes to mind), but only when they're properly moderated. The Sun's comment sections have been a bad joke for a long time, and it's a shame. We need more proactive moderation!
Posted by: Chris | July 14, 2011 9:40 AM
For what it's worth, Chris, we've had many discussions in the newsroom about how we can improve our comments. To make a long story short, we don't have the manpower to police comments on the dozens of stories we post each day (that's not counting articles appearing on our site from partner sites such as Chicago Tribune and Reuters). We also are limited in our methods to control frequent problem accounts, but we're working on that.
Posted by: Justine | July 14, 2011 7:59 PM
What is a racist comment? Is it one that is filled with the n-word stating that the black man is inferior? Or, is it a comment made about a subset of the black population that although crass, is touching upon an absolute truth? Who are you to decide where the line of demarcation exists? Why are you allowed the luxury of free speech, but not those who you open up a forum to?
I've had comments deleted that stated nothing more than a need to look into why the poorest white cities do not have the staggering murder rates as that of the poorest black city. How is this racist?
Over 100 black men and women are dead and it's only July. I believe that the Baltimore Sun is just as culpable as those out there pulling the triggers. The act of selective omission is as offensive as any comment you deem racist, as it robs your readers of the entire story.
I hope you feel good about yourselves, you great white protectors of the poor black man. And that your view of journalistic arrogance comes to an end soon, so that we can finally start talking about what is killing people. Once we're able to admit the truth, we can start working towards a solution.
By the way - just for good measure. Can you tell me if there is any predominately white city in america that has 100+ white men/women shot or stabbed to death this yeat? I'll answer that for you. NO. If there were, this nation would be outraged. Why is it that black deaths don't warrant that kind of outrage?
Posted by: Mo'Nique | July 17, 2011 8:10 AM
Journalistic responsibility or journalistic censorship?
Posted by: Matt | July 17, 2011 8:15 AM