Trial by Blogger
[Updated: In response to my critique, Behrens changed his headline and, as noted below and in his comment, he did use the terms "allegedly" and "according to the LAPD," so I'd be remiss not to correct my own mistake here]
Sometimes it saddens me what other fellow members of the media — loosely defined — claim to believe is acceptable "journalism."
Yesterday, Zach Behrens, editor of LAist, the Los Angeles-focused child of the Gothamist network, posted a brief news piece announcing that, as his headline put it, "LAPD Arrests Sex Fiend Taxi Cab Driver." In the piece, he named the suspect, though at no point did he mention that he was only a suspect and had been alleged to have sexually assaulted a passenger on May 17. Instead, . He presented the suspect as already guilty, mentioned how police believed there had been more victims and posted information about how other crimes could be reported to police. Behrens also posted a picture of what he described as the suspect's taxi, although there is no unique identifier in the picture besides the cab company's name, leaving the possibility of retaliation or lost business to the suspect's fellow drivers, regardless of their danger or safety.
I wrote a long comment on Behrens's piece that I will repost here after the jump. What I didn't mention in the comment is the fact that Behrens has been open in previous pieces about volunteering for the LAPD. He is also a neighborhood councilman in Sherman Oaks. Neither of those roles should preclude him from writing his blog, especially because his bio on LAist describes his writings as "observations" of L.A. Nonetheless, those facts should make Behrens additionally judicious about clarifying his motivations for his posts and he should make extra effort to disclose his influences when posting about the LAPD.
Still, this doesn't change the fact that the suspect in this case has not yet been convicted of any crime (in this instance — a previous record isn't mentioned either) nor has any information supporting the claim the accused is a "sex fiend" been presented. Behrens, his colleagues, and anyone with the public's attention has a responsibility to caution the public not to rush to judgment. That is what the courts are and should be for. Our legal system may be imperfect, but it's far more perfect in casting judgment than browsers of the Web presented with selected bits of information can be.
My original analysis posted in the comments section of Behrens' LAist post gets to the point more articulately and directly. Continue reading to see it:
"While I believe it's important to share important information with the public, I'm rather troubled by the presentation of this post from both a journalistic perspective and as a supporter of the American legal system's assurance of innocence until proving guilty.
The ability to provide information to society about possible risks effectively is diminished by posts like this. The headline of this post condemns Ayvazian before a trial ever occurs. Claiming publicly he is a "sex fiend" not only alarms the public without the full facts available, your inclusion of a picture of "his cab" endangers anyone who drives an Independent Cab. Co. cab and happens to resemble him. Should readers of your blog see one of those cabs they may act without the full facts of this case. More importantly, characterizing Mr. Ayvazian as a "sex fiend" before his trial and without further evidence also threatens the impartiality of any potential jury in his prosecution. If he is guilty, it opens up doubt about the ability to find and impanel a jury capable of rendering a stable, credible verdict. If he is not, you have tremendously hindered his ability to have a fair trial.
It is rash, hasty reporting like this that discredits all journalists in this time of rapid changes to the industry. Journalists and those who claim to be journalists are shifting to Web based platforms more readily. Yet when the public continues to distrust the credibility of "bloggers," posts like this do nothing to help the field.
I might add that this sort of reporting also endangers our legal system. It contributes to the public shock when individuals are acquitted of crimes. When suspects are treated in the media as guilty from the moment of their arrest, it not only affects the quality of the jury pool, it also increases the dissonance the public feels when a jury, examining the facts and arguments presented by both sides in a trial, does not side with the prosecution. The more the public feels our legal system "protects" criminals or otherwise carries unexpected consequences, the less able it is to operate effectively and fairly. This legal system, while imperfect, is the core of our democracy as we know it, and we should work to fix its flaws, ensure its fairness, and remain committed to the ideals of justice we purport to believe in.
Should we be reporting about arrests if we cover local news? Yes. Is sexual assault an allegation to be taken seriously? Yes. But it's one thing to be accused of, arrested for and charged with any crime. It's another thing to be convicted of one."
