Irresponsible Journalism?

Forum guidelines BT super discount
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Irresponsible Journalism? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
2007-06-26 9:04 AM

User image

Expert
706
500100100
New Orleans
Subject: Irresponsible Journalism?

Check out this story. Tragedy about the corrections officer being killed, but the good sam definitely showed some cojones. I hope they give that inmate the chair.

The part that bother's me about the story is this part:

"Police did not identify the customer who wrested the gun from Allgier, saying he did not want to be identified.

KUTV said the customer was Eric Fullerton."

Why would either KUTV or CNN publish the guys name? CNN especially when they just finished saying that the guy didn't want to be identified? Any journalists want to chime in?

 

2007-06-26 9:17 AM
in reply to: #860441

User image

Elite
3221
20001000100100
the desert
Subject: RE: Irresponsible Journalism?

If he didn't want to be identified, why did he give the TV station a quote? He could have told them it wasn't him.

2007-06-26 9:19 AM
in reply to: #860441

User image

Giver
18427
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Irresponsible Journalism?

I don't think it's irresponsible. Just because a person who makes news doesn't want to be identified doesn't mean he shouldn't be identified. I'm sure the guy that did the killing probably would rather not be identified, either, but it would be irresponsible journalism not to publish his name. And yes...he obviously didn't mind being IDed, because he spoke to a TV reporter. Note that the story reported the the cop said the guy didn't want to be identified, not the guy himself.

 

jjweav - 2007-06-26 10:04 AM

Check out this story. Tragedy about the corrections officer being killed, but the good sam definitely showed some cojones. I hope they give that inmate the chair.

The part that bother's me about the story is this part:

"Police did not identify the customer who wrested the gun from Allgier, saying he did not want to be identified.

KUTV said the customer was Eric Fullerton."

Why would either KUTV or CNN publish the guys name? CNN especially when they just finished saying that the guy didn't want to be identified? Any journalists want to chime in?

 



Edited by run4yrlif 2007-06-26 9:21 AM
2007-06-26 9:30 AM
in reply to: #860481

User image

Expert
706
500100100
New Orleans
Subject: RE: Irresponsible Journalism?
run4yrlif - 2007-06-26 9:19 AM

I don't think it's irresponsible. Just because a person who makes news doesn't want to be identified doesn't mean he shouldn't be identified. I'm sure the guy that did the killing probably would rather not be identified, either, but it would be irresponsible journalism not to publish his name. And yes...he obviously didn't mind being IDed, because he spoke to a TV reporter. Note that the story reported the the cop said the guy didn't want to be identified, not the guy himself.

What is the benefit of printing this guy's name though? They could have told the story exactly how it was and left out that guys name and it wouldn't have changed the story a bit. One could argue that he requested his name be left out for safety reasons. It may be a stretch, but if you were the one responsible for that guy being captured, and he escaped again, would you want your name out there for all to see?

2007-06-26 9:36 AM
in reply to: #860510

User image

Giver
18427
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Irresponsible Journalism?
jjweav - 2007-06-26 10:30 AM

What is the benefit of printing this guy's name though? They could have told the story exactly how it was and left out that guys name and it wouldn't have changed the story a bit. One could argue that he requested his name be left out for safety reasons. It may be a stretch, but if you were the one responsible for that guy being captured, and he escaped again, would you want your name out there for all to see?

A couple of points: it's published because readers want to know. News stories answer who, what, when, where, why and how. "Who's" a big part of it; if you don't tell people, they'll be left scratching their heads. As to the safety thing, his name is public record. It's in the police report, adn therefore anyone can look it up.

2007-06-26 9:59 AM
in reply to: #860510

User image

Crystal Lake, IL
Subject: RE: Irresponsible Journalism?
jjweav - 2007-06-26 9:30 AM

What is the benefit of printing this guy's name though? They could have told the story exactly how it was and left out that guys name and it wouldn't have changed the story a bit.

You could have posted this and told exactly the same info without perpetuating the issue.  You could have left the guys name out and just said that they went on to say his name.  You didn't.  Why?  Cuz its already out there?  Maybe they felt the same way if, as Jim mentioned, the name will be part of public record in the police report.

2007-06-26 10:07 AM
in reply to: #860441

User image

Giver
18427
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Irresponsible Journalism?
Side note: dig the perp's face tattoos. That's some impressive .
2007-06-26 10:22 AM
in reply to: #860441

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: Irresponsible Journalism?
As a journalist I wouldn't print the name originally if the guy specifically told ME not to print it. Once another publication prints it or airs it, the embargo on the name stops and it's free game for publishing. But yeah, I see the point. I wouldn't want a bunch of skinheads to know who I was in that situation. Of course I would've been hiding under the table screaming like a wee lassie.
2007-06-26 10:44 AM
in reply to: #860441

User image

Expert
706
500100100
New Orleans
Subject: RE: Irresponsible Journalism?

hangloose - 2007-06-26 9:59 AM
jjweav - 2007-06-26 9:30 AM

What is the benefit of printing this guy's name though? They could have told the story exactly how it was and left out that guys name and it wouldn't have changed the story a bit.

You could have posted this and told exactly the same info without perpetuating the issue.  You could have left the guys name out and just said that they went on to say his name.  You didn't.  Why?  Cuz its already out there?  Maybe they felt the same way if, as Jim mentioned, the name will be part of public record in the police report.

Yeah I thought about that. But, like you said, I figured it was already out there. Not to mention that CNN has a little higher viewing than COJ, especially by the neo-nazi skinhead cop-killer types. But, guilty as charged.

I know it's public record, and the guy shouldn't have given any interviews if he didn't want his name out there and all that. My point was, if the guy did in fact ask for his name to be left out, why wouldn't the media respect that? Because it would take a lot more work and know-how to find this guys name through public record than it would to get it from a news story online, especially for a killer that breaks out of jail and is on the run.

I guess if it were me I'd be a little p!ssed, but that's just me. 

 

2007-06-26 10:51 AM
in reply to: #860441

User image

Coach
9167
5000200020001002525
Stairway to Seven
Subject: RE: Irresponsible Journalism?
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- Authorities said a prison inmate out for a medical appointment wrested a gun from a corrections officer and killed him Monday, then led police on a high-speed chase in a stolen sport utility vehicle before his capture at a fast-food restaurant.

Curtis Allgier, who wears a swastika and the words "skin head" on his heavily tattooed face, fired a shot in the Arby's that hit no one before a customer at the restaurant grabbed the gun, Salt Lake City police Sgt. Rich Brede said.

"It sounds like he was heroic, even though he's being humble about it," he said of the 59-year-old customer.

Allgier, 27, was captured in an office and taken to jail to await charges.

Allgier got the gun from corrections officer Stephen Anderson while he was in an examination room at the University of Utah orthopedic center awaiting an MRI for back pain around 7:45 a.m., university Police Chief Scott Folsom said.


a few things strike me. Was the MRI really medically necessary? Other than to satisfy curiosity about the cause of back pain, an MRI is really only needed if surgery is the next option...it shows the surgeon where to cut. I can diagnose a likely heriated disk with physical exam and history alone.

Second of all, despite his back pain which required an MRI, he was able to wrestle the officer down to the ground and shoot him.

When I was getting my MRI for back pain, I was barely able to step on and off of the shuttle bus without excrutiating pain.

Third, who paid for the MRI (or who was going to?)

I am all for prisoner's being given appropriate medical treatment, but judging by what is presented in teh article, it sounds like this visit was avoidable and unnecessary!

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Irresponsible Journalism? Rss Feed