Crime reporting: Criminal lying

“Journalism is not a crime.”

True. Well, most of the time anyway.

Journalists have the right to inform the public, for freedom of expression and to give those who go seldom unheard, a voice. But often, and especially in crime reporting, journalists come up against some serious legal problems that can impede their mission for news distribution and render their willing to speak freely, unjustified.

These days, the world is a scary place. Last year saw devastating attacks on Paris and Brussels, and 2017 kicked off with a mass shooting in an Istanbul nightclub in which 39 people were pronounced dead. Crime seems to be around every corner you look.

What twisted beliefs compelled the killers in these attacks to undertake the actions they did, I’m afraid I don’t know. But what I do know is, it will always be a journalist’s imperative to report on such events; to know the ins and outs of what happened and to show everyone’s side of the story.

Crime reporting can be extremely tricky. There are lots of grey areas, loopholes, legal and ethical issues and sensitive situations to consider. After all, when we are dealing with crime, it nearly always means that someone has gotten hurt.

Over recent years, the media has gained a serious reputation for being untruthful, inventing fake news and making assumptions. And they’ve, understandably, been heavily criticised for it. For journalists, there’s nothing more damaging to their reputation and career than getting the facts wrong or being accused (incorrectly or not) of making them up.

When reporting breaking crime stories, it’s crucial to get the facts straight. You don’t want someone thinking the house next to them was burgled when it was really 10 streets away or that the victim of a hit and run incident was a human when it was actually a dog. Worse still, errors in reporting serious crimes can have a knock on effect on many other damaging issues such as hurting those involved and their families, causing people to panic unnecessarily and wrongly swaying court evidence or decisions.

Things can step up a notch when media lies become defamation. Defamation is published lies that open the gates for hate, prejudice and negatively altering people’s opinions of someone. Slander and libel also come under this umbrella term. According to the BBC’s Journalism Academy, something is defamatory if it:

· Lowers them in the estimation of right-thinking members of the public; and/or

· Causes them to be shunned or avoided; and/or

· Disparages them in their office, trade or profession; and/or

· Exposes them to hatred ridicule or contempt.

Journalists have to be extremely careful not to wander into this territory. They’re told to “Be fair in dealing with incriminating and defamatory information unless it is of a clear public interest in doing otherwise.” But, the problem comes when it’s in the public interest for the killer, rapist, or criminal to be named. Where is the line drawn?

It’s when journalists put the need for the public to know above everything else that defamation occurs. In 2010, Joanna Claire Yeates’ body was found in Failand, Somerset. The leading suspect? Her landlord, Christopher Jefferies, who was held for three days by detectives and hounded by the media to try and get him to ‘confess’. In fact, what the poor man had done was diametrically opposed with what the media portrayed him as doing. Christopher Jefferies played no part in Joanna’s murder.

Whilst Jefferies was successful in sueing for libel, journalists completely destroyed this man’s life and forever tarnished his reputation, on the premise that the public needed to know. False criminal allegations are amongst the most serious forms of defamation and journalist’s need to be especially wary of falling into that trap when reporting on crime.

Whilst I and probably many others are quick to point out the mistakes the media makes in reporting, it would be fair to say we assume they’re the ones to blame. “It’s written by a bad journalist, they probably made something up, that paper never checks its facts”, we’d say. But, in crime reporting, that might not be the whole picture.

Journalists who deal with crime scenes, deal with victims. Naturally, victims and other people who may be shaken by the event, aren’t going to be the most reliable sources for gaining information. Quotes can be misinterpreted, victims might not be level-headed at the time of interview and people can be misinformed about what else is going on regarding the case. This can be problematic and journalist’s need to be aware that the information these people give, might not always be the truth.

On the other side, of course, are the criminals. I’m sure it’s not hard for many of us to imagine a convicted felon telling a fib or two in an attempt to save face. So while it would be foolish to pretend the media never tell lies, perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to judge. After all, journalists aim to present the public with truths, get to the bottom of what happened and discover who’s to blame for the crime.

Incidents such as the aforementioned do and will occur. Often, for a journalist, the best solution is to look to how similar events have been dealt with previously and mediate correspondingly. A Journalist will have a conscience that tells them truthfulness and release of information is imperative, but, it’s necessary that this information be verified before doing so. This way, the line between reporting on crime and criminal reporting, can remain distinct.

For more updates about journalism, follow this blog and my Twitter and Facebook pages.