A discussion
which recently started on Facebook and spilled over into the pages of my local
newspapers made me think about the role of the press and caused me to recall a
situation I encountered years ago.
Two things small
towns are famous for are gossip and rumors. There’s an old saying that a lie
can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on.
Nowhere is that more true than in a small community where “news” travels fast
and everybody knows everybody else.
When the media
gets wind of these rumors, what should reporters do? Especially when there is
nothing to substantiate the tales? No evidence, no proof, no nothing? Only
someone who says they heard it from someone who heard it from someone else who
swears that it’s so?
The press works
under a number of ethical and legal restraints. Reporters typically won’t run
with a story unless they have tangible proof of its truth. Libel laws exist for
a reason. No journalist worth his or her salt will knowingly print or broadcast
falsehoods because there’s a severe financial price to pay for doing so.
In the case
mentioned above, someone repeated rumors that an FBI investigation of at least
one local elected official is underway. The target of these rumors has, like
all public officials, made some political enemies. Gullible people – and let’s
face it, a large percentage of the electorate is gullible – will believe such
rumors without an ounce of proof to back them up. And such is the case in this
instance. No one has come forward with credible evidence to prove such an
investigation exists.
So, does the
press have a duty to report on the existence of these rumors? Should
journalists try to confirm them?
It’s reminiscent
of a situation I faced more than a dozen years ago when I was the editor of a
community newspaper. There were incessant rumors that a local elected official
had been arrested in Lexington on serious drug charges. The rumors spread like
wildfire, and more and more people were demanding that my newspaper cover the
story. They accused us of covering up a heinous crime, yet they could offer no
proof of their accusations. They’d heard it from someone who’d heard it from
someone who’d heard it from someone else.
Today, if someone
is arrested, you can find out about it almost instantaneously on the Internet.
There are several websites that prominently feature mug shots of people who are
booked into jails, and it usually doesn’t take long for them to hit cyberspace.
Many jails actually have prisoner listings available online.
Back then,
though, things were different. The Internet wasn’t as advanced as it is now. So
it took a little old-fashioned sleuthing to determine the facts of the matter.
One big red flag
was that the Lexington Herald-Leader had not reported on the alleged arrest.
The arrest of a local official in the paper’s circulation area on a major drug
charge would be big news. When the mayor of the town where I was working was
arrested for driving under the influence while on his tractor, the
Herald-Leader assigned a reporter to do a story – and as was customary back
then, the daily reporter checked with the local newspaper for information. The
H-L hadn’t checked in about this matter.
Finally, after
the umpteenth person demanded that we do the story and berated us for covering
up the truth, I made a few calls to Lexington. It didn’t take long to determine
that the event that so many people were absolutely, positively sure had
occurred had never happened at all.
What did I do? I
wrote a column about it. In that column, I stated that I had spoken with the
appropriate authorities in Fayette County and there was no record of the arrest
so many claimed happened. And I challenged the public to either provide
concrete, judgment-proof evidence of their accusations or to kindly shut up.
Not only did that
silence those who kept insisting that the paper cover this non-story of a
story, but I heard later from the official in question (whom I’d never met)
that my screed had helped quash the rumors that had even caused his children to
be harassed at school.
The FBI is
notoriously tight-lipped about their investigative activities. Often, they
won’t even confirm or deny that a probe is underway. And it’s not likely that a
target of an investigation is going to admit that bit of information. Often in
these cases, the target is not even made aware of the investigation until it’s
nearing its conclusion. In those cases, the agents are looking to see if the
subject will confirm what they already know, or if they can add a charge of
lying to the FBI to whatever else is going to be on the indictment. So, it’s
ludicrous to expect a reporter to ask an official if they’re under
investigation.
So, this is my
advice to those who want to spread rumors about investigations into official
misconduct: Prove what you’re saying. If an FBI agent has given you a business
card, take it to the newspaper office and play show-and-tell. Tell a reporter
the date, time and place you were interviewed. If you’ve been subpoenaed to
testify somewhere, give a journalist a copy of the subpoena. If you don’t have
proof, then don’t allow yourself to become a tool of someone with a political
agenda who’s trying to tear down their enemies. You may not like a certain
politician, but don’t stoop to telling lies and spreading unfounded rumors
about them.
Truth is an
absolute defense for libel where a public official is concerned, and no
newspaper I know of will shy away from publishing negative news about a
politician if it can be proven. However, people shouldn’t expect the press from
joining in on character assassination when there’s nothing to back up those
claims.
