Mark Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Politics

Paper Ethics

The News & Observer filed a motion yesterday in the Orange County Superior Court in order to have Eve Carson’s autopsy report unsealed. The News & Observer would have you think that they’re fighting for your right to obtain public information. But there is no overriding public need that justifies the paper’s intrusion of Eve Carson’s and her family’s privacy in the gruesome details of this case. 

Despite the fact that these court documents have been sealed, by Orange District Attorney Jim Woodall, for specific reasons related to the case, (which is apparently quite a rare occurrence) the paper pursues the report anyway. This move clearly exposes the News & Observer’s sensationalism-obsessed motives: they want to “get the story,” even if it means compromising some simple principles of journalistic ethics.

What does the News & Observer have to gain? Attention. Money. Power. As the News & Observer continually seeks these dominative goals, they have no taste. The paper is simply heckling the Superior Court to gain the vulgar, lurid details of this popular murder case for its own personal success.

Is this move out of desperation? The News & Observer already missed big with this case, as a much smaller Raleigh newspaper broke photos of the murder suspect and received national attention.  I can sympathize the notion of putting checks on the government, but at the cost of compassion towards the victim of a gross tragedy? Oh right, I forgot, it’s just business. 

Welcome to New Raleigh. We welcome your participation in the ongoing discussion. If you are new we invite you to register with our site. With registration you can upload a picture, message other users, and comment more easily. If you want to keep up with the site, subscribe to our RSS feed or get emailed every time we post.

  • RaleighRob05/14 03:13 PM

    True...I surely wouldn’t care to read these details when I pick up the paper to get the news.  Geez.
    If anything in that autopsy is pertinent to the criminal investigation & trial, then it will be soon enough be available in the public court documents as trial evidence, right?  Anything else isn’t necessary for the public to know, as far as I can tell.

  • Jim05/14 04:01 PM

    Didn’t the N&O;also tastefully reveal the identity of the woman at the center of the Duke Lacrosse scandal?  Not that she’s an angel (and certainly the lacrosse kids weren’t), but still.  Poor taste.

  • Lisa Jeffries05/14 05:14 PM

    “they have no taste”

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    This just goes to prove another reason that I rarely look to the N&O;for anything anymore. I hate reading their headlines because they’re always awful stories that just make you shake your head in disgust.

    It’s awful what happened to this girl and it’s twice as bad what the paper is doing here. We know she was brutally murdered - what does the general public really need to know about the shape her body was carelessly left in?

    I hope karma comes back around in a big way for these folks…

  • Melissa05/15 07:48 AM

    Eve was shot… I don’t know how interesting an autopsy report would be. Just an exclusive for the N&O;I guess. Unnecessary.

  • kg05/15 08:06 AM

    sad.

    this reminds me of that newspaper that was trying to get the autopsy photos of dale earnhardt released in 2001.

    nothing more than exploitation for profit.

  • Mark Turner05/15 12:27 PM

    More importantly, there are facts in the autopsy report that might jeopardize the case if they were revealed. While I am a proponent of open records, I wish to see justice served here. The N&O;(and Durham Sun) will have to wait.

  • Rusty05/15 03:56 PM

    Not that N&O;are necessarily right in pushing for releasing of these records right now… but there is precedent to what they are asking for here. Chapter 132 of the NC General Statutes says that the text of an autopsy report is public record and is required to be made fully accessible to the public.

    Photographs, Audio, or Video associated with an autopsy however, are all protected. The statute doesn’t make clear the time line under which they must be made public… If there is an exception with regards to evidence in a pending trial, it isn’t specified in the GS.

  • Rusty05/16 09:12 AM

    I’d also wager that the reason Woodall sealed the records has nothing to do with the privacy concerns of the family, and is entirely about getting a clean conviction & a fair trial for the defendant. He’s probably just trying to avoid prejudice in the jury, and in the process, close off one of the possible arguments for an appeal.

  • Mark05/16 10:09 AM

    Does the fact that they have an argument from a legal standpoint justify compromising common sense ethics? As the media checks the government, it’s the citizens’ obligation to put checks on the media.  I think you have to find the intentions behind their actions.  They don’t care about the family OR the case, and if the verdict is appealed, that’s more coverage for the paper. We shouldn’t let the media compromise the trial because the story is popular.  The facts of the case will come out due time.

  • Rusty05/16 10:26 AM

    I seriously doubt that Woodall will be moved by the motion filed by the News & Observer.

    I agree with your sentiment on it being the citizens’ obligation to put checks on the media, in a free market such as ours, the best way to speak to the N&O;is to cease to buying their product… I’m already not a supporter of their paper; so other than writing them a dirty letter… there isn’t much recourse.

    With the amount of government corruption and the current trend away from transparency at the local & national level… it seems to not be such a cut and dry issue. I’m personally sympathetic to the family here, but I wouldn’t expect an entity like the N&O;to suddenly grow a heart today.

  • Vee05/16 01:45 PM

    Yes, it’s despicable to push for her autopsy records. But it follows a long line of supply and demand. There are plenty of tasteless people out there who demand the dirty details of sordid crime, or the inane celebrity facts, etc. If we stopped demanding garbage from our news sources, they’d have to actually hire talented journalists instead of yellow journalists.

  • Fred05/16 10:40 PM

    I watch the news entirely too often, watch CNN all the time and read every local newspaper (yes, I am a news junkie) and I have to say that you are right.  I remember when the Raleigh Chronicle which you mentioned in your post broke the news about the second person in the car after they had the photo expert examine the photo.  The News & Observer ran the same story later without attributing the Chronicle, while WRAL and TV stations did give the Chronicle credit as I recall.  I guess that tells you something about their ethics and maybe now they’re trying to get “caught up” on the story after getting beat by a smaller paper.  I generally like the News & Observer’s coverage but I have to wonder what they’re thinking sometimes when they seem to try and offend their readers on purpose.





Remember my information for next time I comment

Send me an email of follow-up comments?