The Richmond Palladium-Item has had a dust-up concerning its policy with respect to publishing the names of suspects. The background to this dust-up concerns an incident that took place on May 13 involving Scott Porter, a prominent business man in Richmond. The police investigation suggests that he was driving near the Olde Richmond Inn when two couples going to prom were walking by. Porter apparently made some “inappropriate” remarks about the girls, their dates attempted to defend their honor, Porter flashed a pistol (Porter says it was actually a cell phone), got of the car and kicked one of the boys “in the groin.”
In today’s story, the Pal-Item made a statement concerning its policy with respect to naming suspects:
The Palladium-Item does not print the names of alleged victims of violence. Nor is it the newspaper’s policy to print the name of suspects before they are charged with any crime.
Apparently the failure to name this particular name riled up some of the readers who thought that Mr. Porter was being given special treatment. This led to 2 Pal-Item editor’s blog entries defending the practice.
With respect to the policy, the editor (somewhat jokingly) compared it to the Ten Commandments:
What many people suggest is that we break our policy. But policy is an institutional form of ethics and morality and their argument is akin to suggesting that we have morals but break them when the situation calls for it.
It’s like saying that the Ten Commandments forbid adultery but I can commit adultery if Angelina Jolie has stopped by my house. (Now, don’t think I wouldn’t give it serious consideration. But that’s another blog entirely.)
Trouble is, they had already published Mr. Porter’s name the day before:
NEWS: Police hand prosecutor results from investigation of local real estate agent
Local real estate agent J. Scott Porter has been the target of an investigation into allegations of battery and criminal recklessness for the past 10 days. Police sent the results of their probe to Wayne County Prosecutor Michael Shipman on Tuesday.
That link has since been pulled. So I don’t know if it was a mistake, momentary vacillation, or what. Richmond area blogger Chris Hardie noted some big holes (see comments to 5/24/06 11:00 entry) in the Palladium-Item’s policy.
I did want to ask if you could speak (or, type) to the difference between what it means to be “under police investigation” and just “under suspicion of wrongdoing”?
Using some of the Don Holbrook / EDC events (and your coverage of them) from earlier this year as a contrast, it would seem that someone who has allegedly done wrong (criminal, moral, or otherwise) enters into some sort of special protection (in the newspaper’s eye) at the point they start being investigated by official law enforcement. But up until that point, they’re not protected…?
If someone has just allegedly done something wrong but is not yet even (or ever) under police investigation, are they fair game for greater exposure in your pages as a result? Does the Pal-Item have a policy related to publishing someone’s name as a part of allegations against them, even though it may not be a matter of illegal activities? Or is this a case-by-case editorial decision?
Incidentally, I’m not blowing anybody’s cover. Porter was charged with 5 felonies today and the Palladium-Item published the name.
Leave a Reply