Skip to content

· Following the media on a ‘walk of shame’.

ONE THING LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies, especially in America, cannot resist is premature triumphalism. In this, the press is an eager accomplice. In big cities, such as New York, it’s the infamous ‘perp walk’, a melodramatic collaboration of the police department and the press to parade an arrested person before the cameras to show the law got its man. The media stampede is on – followed, after many months, by the selection of a jury who has seen the perp do his walk hundreds of times. In federal cases, the theatrics are more nuanced and suspenseful. The FBI leaks information about a ‘person of interest’ to the media. Reporters then hound a person who hasn’t even been arrested. In almost every case, the law is degraded and the press further despised, whether or not the alleged perp is guilty or innocent.

By CHARLEMAGNE [The Economist] – Perhaps inevitably, given the fame of Mr Strauss-Kahn and the anonymity of the chambermaid, more attention has been paid to the tribulations of the former IMF chief than to the plight of his alleged victim. Indeed, the images of Mr Strauss-Kahn in handcuffs during his “perp walk” are regarded by many in France as an assault on the defendant’s dignity, part of a flawed system of justice that places too much emphasis on retribution at the expense of the rights of the accused.

In France parading suspects in public is banned. In Britain, once a defendant is charged, until a trial is concluded only court proceedings may be reported. The aim is to avoid prejudicing jurors. Justice in these countries tends to be a sober affair, insulated as far as possible from external tumult. In America it is more theatrical, with lawyers fighting their case over the airwaves and cameras filming battles in the courtroom. To Americans this is all evidence of great openness.

Continued at The Economist |

Reporters as Pulitzer wannabes.

By RON OSTROW [Columbia University] – FBI Director Louis J. Freeh later expanded on the point when trying to explain to a Senate committee why the Bureau had been unable to identify the law enforcement source who leaked the information that Jewell had become a target of the investigation. “We identified approximately 10 agencies outside of the FBI who had individuals who were knowledgeable about his identity before it was released—over 500 investigators, prosecutors,” Freeh said. “Each of those people and each of those agencies has separate chains of command, so the secondary universe is much bigger”…

When two agents arrived at the parking lot of Jewell’s mother’s apartment where he was staying, they noticed a local television news crew and quickly pulled away to check with superiors. Almost three hours passed before the agents were instructed to try to contact Jewell, despite the media presence. By the time they returned, the Journal-Constitution’s replated extra had hit the streets, and the apartment complex was “swarming with media teams,” the Justice Department report said. When the agents talked to Jewell, he agreed voluntarily to be interviewed at the FBI offices downtown. He drove his own truck to the session, saying he was afraid that reporters jamming the parking lot would think he was in custody if he rode with the agents.

The questioning downtown was cut short by Jewell’s friend and initial attorney, G. Watson Bryant Jr., who incidentally and according to press reports, learned of Jewell as a suspect from the newspaper. But he was not able to stop the interview before the FBI agent committed what the Justice Department later described as “a major error of judgment.” He administered Miranda warnings to Jewell, saying he was doing so only because the Bureau was making a training video on what he called “first responders” to scenes of calamities. The ruse endangered the investigation, the Justice Department said, because a judge might well have ruled later that Jewell’s waiver of his rights against self-incrimination was not voluntary, knowing and intelligent, as required by law. In that event, any incriminating statements he might have made would have been inadmissible as evidence, along with anything else the statements had lead investigators to discover.

The replated edition of the paper also included a story on an inside page by Kent B. Walker, who, as one of two interns assigned to the Olympics, had interviewed Jewell sometime earlier. The story was headlined “Bomb suspect had sought limelight, press interviews.” It contrasted what it said was Jewell’s expectation that he was going to shake President Clinton’s hand because of his action at the park with the conclusion that the chances of anyone shaking his hand were in fact remote, now that he was suspected of planting the fatal bomb himself.

“Investigators now say that he may be a hero wannabe who planted the bomb so he could discover it later,” the story said.

Continued at Columbia University ‘Critical Issues in Journalism’ course readings | An edited version of this case study appears at the Pew Research Center‘s Project for Excellence in Journalism | More Chronicle & Notices.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x