Brown Arm Ring Rule Violations

Just because you can do something that doesn't mean you have to do it. There are plenty of tall buildings where one can get access to the roof and jump, but it doesn't happen all that often that someone does jump, even though almost everybody could if they wanted to.

Just because you can always find a counter quote, or an "expert" who will say that evolution is a disputed science, or some guy who will tell you that Kerry didn't go to Cambodia doesn't mean you should repeat it.
--Joshuah Bearman, Even the Media Hates the Media, 30 Aug 2004

As I wrote in an editorial comment to a previous entry about overzealous journalism:

Review-Journal Editor Thomas Mitchell was quoted in the Freedom Forum Online article: "We are challenging this gag order on a fundamental principle. If a judge can dictate what the press may publish about factual matters in open court, that is censorship, pure and simple." What this guy seems to be too knee-jerk reactionary to understand is that, 1: all of the amendments in the U.S. Bill of Rights have equal import and weight and the rights of a free press do not supercede the right to privacy; 2: the victims are not perpetrators and do not, in my not so humble opinion, necessarily become public figures as a result of being victims; 3: even a suspect still has certain rights and one of those is the right to a fair trial, which can be compromised by the untimely reporting on certain pieces of evidence; 4: given that the judge must have heard arguments about whether or not to impose the gag order, the issue has almost certainly undergone a proper review process and the decision to impose the gag order stems from selection rather than from censorship; 5: even the First Amendment can be subject to reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions; 6: rape is a crime of violence and perforce a traumatic event, even moreso apparently than being mugged or assaulted, and the victims (even prostitutes) have a further right to heal from this violent attack on their psyches, which process will almost certainly be complicated or degraded by the victim having an awareness of the public's knowledge of their victimization. {Everybody is looking at me. . . They know! They know!}

There is apparently nothing in the gag order that prevents the newspaper from identifying and reporting on the perpetrator; hence, I can only chalk up this motion by the Review-Journal to petulant, politically correct whining. --MN

Plus, there's another issue at stake, although it's fairly esoteric. To my way of thinking: by writing about the victims, the reporter subtly alters the slant of the story so that it becomes an article about victimization instead of about criminal activity. The uncritical thinker is likely to perceive the story as not applying to his life because no one ever expects to become a victim. In each person's perception: That sort of thing only ever happens to other people. This would result in a failure to inculcate a proper level of caution among some individuals of the public, and that makes it more likely that they will become victims.

So why does the press insist on being so ham-handed? Ipse Dixit: Because that's the way we've always done it.

It harkens back to a knee-jerk defense of press freedoms. What the press doesn't understand is that just as with free speech, press freedoms can be and are subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. The press can no more slander a person than a private citizen can. All too often, though, media reactionaries see calls for reasonable restrictions as attempts to strip press freedoms out of the various constitutions that guarantee those freedoms. Of course, the overwhelming majority of such actions are exactly that, however, a hallmark of censorship is that the attack comes from outside. Outsiders always think that the restrictions they are trying to impose on others are perfectly reasonable. The result of media reactionism -- coupled with the general failures of the press as so clearly demonstrated in the U.S. since the WTC attack and complicated by a widespread misapprehension of free speech and press rights -- is a very poor perception of the press in the general public; one so bad that even industry insiders sometimes comment about it:

After all, what is a newspaperman? A peeper, an invader of privacy, a scandal peddler, a mischief maker, a busybody, a man content to wear out his hams sitting in marble corridors waiting for important people to lie to him, a comic-strip intellectual, a human pomposity dilating on his constitutional duty.
--Russell Baker, former New York Times columnist, 1989

Lately, when I tell people I work for a newspaper, I've detected subtle signs of disapproval: the dirty looks, the snide remarks, the severed animal heads in my bed.
--Dave Barry, syndicated columnist, 2003

The besetting sin of bigtime journalism is arrogance - the belief in our own omniscience, that we know so much we don't have to listen to criticism.
--David Broder, columnist, The Washington Post, 2003

This arrogance derives from journalists holding privileged positions, but taking that privilege for granted. In taking it for granted, they cannot understand the axiom: With great power comes great responsibility, and the ability to effect great consequences. Something they should be taught in Journalism 101 along with the idea of press freedom.

A call for a reasonable restriction that comes from within is more likely to be a response to changing social conditions. With the explosion of the Information Age onto the scene, journalists should be in the habit, now more than ever, of providing pertinent information and winnowing out the irrelevant. By subjecting materials to a critical review by category, certain information -- the names of victims -- can be deemed irrelevant and edited out on the fly by any reporter who keeps aware of what he is saying, as he is saying it. In short, the press needs to learn new habits. The habit of including all information, just because, is no longer appropriate; if it ever was. It is never censorship when you police yourself. A watchdog organization will eventually become politicized itself, of course, but that factor can be taken into account and corrected for when the time comes. In the meantime, such a watchdog organization is called for. One composed of people with long careers in journalism and who are respect ed for their integrity and high standards of ethics. The purpose of such an organization should be to weigh ethical issues of when to print, or when not to protect the confidentiality of "sources" who are manipulating and exploiting the press for their own criminal ends.

Such a group can render decisions that may be adopted or rejected by any individual newspaper at the sole discretion of the Editor in Chief, but the snag with this policy is bucking the opposition of publishers and owners who are certain to see it as outside interference with their businesses. It will be in the best interest of newspapers to adopt policies suggested by such a body, however, because it would result in higher quality journalism from raising the standard which reporting must meet or exceed. If participation in such a program is strictly voluntary, then politicized decisions can be rejected and dissatisfaction expressed by the participants voting with their feet. On the other hand, that leads us right back to the current situation where decisions are made because that's the way they've always been made. Editors who operate along those lines, however, are unlikely to participate in such a program in the first place.

Why should anybody want to have such a watchdog organization to begin with?

Consider the quotation: Who will watch these self-same watchers? This is actually a partial quotation and the context for its coining is largely unknown. It comes from a debate in the Roman Senate when one senator told another that he could never assure his wife's fidelty, and the second replied that he could lock her into her apartment and set watchmen at her door. The first replied, "And who will watch these self-same watchers? Your wife makes her plans accordingly and starts with them." In other words, she'll seduce them first so she can get out to see her regular lover.

So who will watch for any watchers, and in particular those who are self-appointed as the members of the press are? The answer is: we must watch out for each other. And this, in a nut shell, would be the mission of the proposed watchdog organization, just as it is the primary mission of the press itself.

By watching out for each other, we create a partnership, instead of the adversarial role created by having a body whose purpose is to watch and correct as an overriding authority. In that, the media can police itself with restrictions that are reasonable because they come from within.

Without such an organization, journalists should adopt and operate under John Miller's Brown Arm Ring Rule for themselves: If it's going to harm more people than it's going to help: don't publish.

Should the John Doe in the case this commentary is linked to have been identified? Only if he was a knowing participant in the alleged skullduggery of the church. If he was not, then he should not be treated as if he were a criminal. Publishing his name does not benefit me or anyone else at all, but it does stigmatize him and his family.

[Addendum (23 Sep 2004:) In a similar case, albeit from the other side of the fence, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf, on 21 Sep, declined a request from the ACLU to stop the Omaha World-Herald from naming an atheist who sued over a Ten Commandments monument displayed in a Plattsmouth park. Judge Kopf said there was no proof that putting the restraint on the newspaper was appropriate, even though the John Doe in question had received death threats. See the source article for more background. The ACLU did not agree with this action, but had to initiate it in light of the client's insistence. --MN]