I really tried to let this one go but the more I think about it, the more silly it becomes.  The News Republic should have just apologized. (In my opinion of course.)

You may remember that a local (Reedsburg) 13 year old, autistic child shot and killed his father recently.  It’s a sad situation no matter how you look at it. The Baraboo News Republic has been taking some heat for posting pictures of the sobbing child in court the very next morning. People are asking, Why show the pictures so quickly and what benefit did it serve?  Fair question, especially given that we are talking about putting on display an autistic minor child before anyone really had a handle of what was going on.  Well, the defense in today’s paper is that they were simply acting on YOUR right to know.  Really?

Today, George Athoff, publisher of the News Republic, published a piece defending or at least addressing the decision to post the pictures of 13 year old, accused murderer Michael Chisafulli the very next morning. I don’t envy the task, and I can’t say I agree with the conclusions either. The defense could be broken down into these simple ideas; Good judgment, test of critical thinking, everyone has their own opinion, others did it, they covered the story in more detail later, the public has a right to know, and they have a responsibility.  I think I covered it.

Obviously many of us lack such critical thinking abilities when it seems pretty apparent that the rush to publish caused a lack of good judgment in this case. The fact that there can be multiple opinions is not exactly a defense of good judgment either.  I’m also not sure how the public’s right to know even enters into it in this situation.

To clarify the point, the people “given pause”, are telling the press that the pictures have no bearing on their right to know. The point is that publishing them before the facts came to light was simply an act unnecessary sensationalism.  Good judgment should have caused the press to, well, “pause.”  They had a minor child, possibly autistic, and rumors of other problems.  In essence they had everything they needed to tell them to approach this story with caution.  Report yes, but with prudence.

What is even more troubling in today’s defense is the thought that even if this case is brought to juvenile court, the reasoning  becomes something like (paragraph 5 of the article),  ”Since we already let the horse out of the barn, his rights are toast, and that means it’s ok that we let the horse out of the barn in the first place… Did I read that right?

But in the end it’s this whole “Public’s right to know” thing that has me confused. I probably need a professional journalist to enlighten me.  In what way exactly is not showing a picture robbing citizens of the right to know?  Doesn’t this suggest that the written word is not adequate? Is reporting now lacking critical substance if not accompanied by a picture of a sobbing minor? Is he saying the press is simply defending our right to know what a young autistic boy looks like?  How is the public not served by simply holding troubling images of a minor back until more details (both factual & legal) are known?

For the exact reasons Mr. Althoff mentions in his article; good judgment and critical thinking, some citizens find publishing the photos to be a total fail.  The press should have understood that publishing the photos before a full telling of the story, and determination of the child’s status could create a backlash.  Instead of wrapping themselves up in such a convoluted justification they should have just stepped forward and said, “bad call. We’re sorry”.  Then the whole thing would have blown over.

Related Articles

1. Spring Faire 2010
2. Baraboo Bits # 2
3. Baraboo Bits
4. Everybody Loves A Clown?
5. “Adult Court” Is Not A Defense

4 Responses to “The Right To Know? Really?”