Courant Criticisms Pt. 2

When reading the Columbia Journalism Review's article of the Hartford Courant's coverage of a local hostage situation, I was immediately struck by how similar the dilemma that the Courant faced was to the one facing the writers of the San Francisco Chronicle, Vallejo Times-Herald and San Francisco Examiner in the Zodiac killings (memorably portrayed in David Fincher's best-of-the-decade masterpiece Zodiac). In Hartford, the hostage-taker demanded that if the Courant didn't un-publish a story about the situation, he would blow up the house in which both he and the hostage were holed up. In San Francisco, the Zodiac demanded the papers publish his letter to the respective editors or risk a killing spree. The Courant declined to remove the story and the Bay Area papers chose to publish the letters.

Now, there are obvious differences here but the dilemma that the papers faced are remarkably similar. The CJR points out that "there is disagreement on all these points, but we believe that journalists do bear some responsibility for the consequences of the stories they publish", a point which I agree with. However, a commented, "John P." makes a interesting point under the story:

Let's say I'm a sleazy businessman and I get word that the local paper is printing a damaging article about me tomorrow. I just need to get someone to call the paper and threaten to blow something up unless they cease publication. Sounds like fun.

The papers face a true conundrum here. Do they relent to a criminal, thus setting a dangerous precedent that their journalistic integrity can be compromised by what may be an idle threat? Or, do they stick to their story and see what happens? I tend to think that the second option is a better one, as I don't like where the first option leads to. If the papers are supposed to be spots of true journalism, they need to be willing to report the facts without fear of a backlash. They need to publish what they have discovered and stick by them. In both cases, the papers, to an extent, stood their ground. While Bay Area papers published the Zodiac letters, they initially buried them deeper in the paper until it became clear that the writer of the letters was a legitimate threat to public safety.

I'm not sure there is a true right or wrong answer here but it surely asks an interesting question. For those of you that haven't seen Zodiac, its absolutely worth seeking out, if for nothing else, a cinematic portrayal of the events described above.