The Importance of Reporting Disturbing Information in the Duncan Death Penalty Case

Inevitably, whenever we put disturbing information of some sort in a newscast, I get calls and e-mails, and nothing I can remember has been more disturbing than the details in the Joseph Duncan death sentencing hearing.  One particularly articulate woman called me giving her reasons why, "You don't have to air this type of information."  Well, yes we do ... within reason ... and here's why.

The federal government is pursuing this case because they want to commit the most serious act they can outside of warfare.  The government that represents you and me wants to take a man's life.  This is a very serious matter on an issue that is very controversial in our society.  There are probably people you know who oppose the death penalty in all forms.  They believe society should lock up certain people for life, but does not have the moral justification to take a life in a planned, pre-meditated matter.  Maybe you agree, maybe you disagree, but the point is that if we do not objectively communicate information the government believes justifies putting Joseph Duncan to death, we are misleading you.  We are distorting what's really going on and not reporting the truth on a matter of great controversy and importance.

We can't do that.  Here's an example as to why.  Years ago, I was getting frequent complaints about coverage of the Iraqi war when things were going very badly.  Viewers told me the media, including us, was giving a negatively distorted picture.  As it turned out, the facts were dead on.  What followed was a change in tactics and a dramatic drop in U.S. casualties.  It's an example of how the truth can help Americans make sound decisions that bring positive change and even save lives.

Difficult stories like the Duncan case impact us too.  Many on our staff were deeply troubled after the revelations.  Some had to endure things we would never report on TV.  One staff member made a point of going home at the end of the day and hugging her child.  Personally, there's a part of me that wishes the federal charges against Joseph Duncan had never been pursued.  That prosecutors would have just let things be knowing Duncan would spend the rest of his life behind bars.  I don't object to the federal death penalty in deserving cases (like Timothy McVeigh), but this all seems so unnecessary simply to put a man to death (who I think wants to be put to death) who would otherwise spend the rest of his life in a maximum security prison.

But that wasn't my call.  The decision to use the disturbing video as evidence wasn't my call.  Once those decisions were made, we at 'Today's 6 News' had only one option ... to tell you the truth about it as best we can so you can know what's really happening and can make an informed decision as to whether your government is acting appropriately.  Sure, we use discretion, but we cannot simply ignore facts that the government believes are critical to their argument for death.

I understand some people disagree with that decision.  Some say we shouldn't be covering it at all.  The woman I spoke about earlier believes our coverage will cost us viewers.  Perhaps, but what's the alternative?  To 'sugarcoat' the information to the point of being misleading?  To ignore critical information that is the very heart of a death penalty case?  To avoid stories or certain important information because some viewers might find it offensive?

That's not journalism, that is the very definition of 'ignorance' ... as in to willingly 'ignor.'  People can make personal decisions to ignore certain important events like a death penalty trial because they find it too distasteful, but a free press in America exists for those who want the freedom of choice to choose a different course.

Comments

[Ezekiel Messenger]

How dare you attempt to justify your exploitation.

Thank you for aiding in the torture of Dillon's father. Your station served as a partner in crime with our corrupt judicial system in glorifying the actions of this terrible creature. Day after day the horrifying details were repeated endlessly on your news station. How can you possibly justify the continuous sensational coverage. Unfortunately your station was not alone. KTVB seemed to be competing with KIVITV for the exploitation prize. The fact that court representatives appeared to delight in the frenzy is bad enough. We have come to expect very little of our legal system. The fact that your news station was willing to cover it in this manner speaks volumes of the true nature of your station.

[Lynn]

I read your blog and certainly I understand the responsibility the media has to objectively inform the public without censoring the news. I have to tell you, though, that I just could not watch what I understood were very graphic, violent videos that Duncan made while he tortured those children and eventually killed the little boy - in fact, I just started walking out of the room any time your station did the tagline for the Duncan case because I knew video clips were coming. It is sufficient for me to know that Duncan violently killed the mother and boyfriend, and an older sibling, in order to take these two young children and do unspeakable things to them. I don't have to see what he did to them.

My concern is that there are violent pedophiles in our world, and showing these videos could certainly be giving them a road map of new and gruesome acts to commit on children. Somehow, that means to me that as a society we should not be giving the Duncans of the world this much exposure, and as a society, we should value and protect our children more than we do - the effect of the publicity on the sole survivor of this crime is probably immeasurable, and will go on for a life time.

[I love Idaho]

I'm not sure I understand Lynn's post. I don't work for KIVI, but I am a journalist. I know for sure KIVI didn't air any clips of Duncan's videos because cameras weren't allowed in the courtroom and the windows were covered.

[Toni from CDA]

People have a right to know, plain and simple. We have the freedom of speech. If we let everything govern our rights, we will have none. If you don't want to listen, that is your right. The reporting has been, in my opinion, direct without going into full details. This is a gruesome case, one of the worse ever. Just like the book that is being written by someone local here in CDA. You can read it or not, it is up to you.