News orgs have different standards for crime reporting; here’s a look at CDN’s

When crime news including a police arrest occurs on deadline, one question always leaps to the fore in newsrooms: “Do we name this suspect?”

The short answer at Cascadia Daily News: As a general rule, no. But it depends.

It’s complicated, with decisions made on a case-by-case basis. And different newsrooms have their own standards, which often makes it confusing to readers. But we do provide guidance to our staff, which for transparency purposes, I believe is important to share with the general public.

CDN recently reviewed and updated its policies on crime reporting moving forward. The core principles behind our practices are worth noting. Especially since our own policies depart from some competitors in the matter of:

• Naming or publishing images of a suspect who has not been formally charged.

• Avoiding the use of some terminology often used by police that might be prejudicial to suspects upon initial arrests.

Why this matters

Police agencies routinely release names and other identifying information about suspects arrested in connection with a crime. We appreciate this, and all other information provided by law enforcement. But on most occasions, suspects have initially been booked on suspicion of said crime (with varying degrees of evidence), but not formally charged. Most of them ultimately are charged. Some are not. And initial charges rarely wind up getting a hearing in a courtroom.

It has become common practice in most modern media organizations to simply release everything provided by police. We like to be as informative about crime as possible, but also consider the rights of the accused.

We often avoid naming suspects upon initial arrest; our policy moving forward is to do so only with an editor’s approval. There’s a good reason: Police, in making an arrest, obviously believe they have probable cause to incarcerate, and later convict, a suspect.

But the notion that said person is innocent until proven guilty — a core tenet of the U.S. justice system — matters. And some initial media decisions tend to convict, in the public mind, suspects in stories, or at least associate them with crimes for which they may never be charged.

It’s a modern-day reality that many charges initially anticipated by police get pulled off the table as a case winds its way through the judicial system. Suspects routinely avoid trial by pleading to a lesser offense — sometimes substantially lesser.

Initial reports live forever online

As an editor, I consider naming a suspect to be a “you break it, you own it” responsibility. Thanks to the magic of digital publishing, a story naming a suspect ensures those charges will remain associated with that individual’s name for the rest of their life — one Google search away.

Once a person is named, they can’t be “unnamed” even if the expected charges go away.

We take this responsibility very seriously, for reasons of both legal liability and fairness. That’s why we’ll often run an initial story about a person identified only by age and residence, reporting that they are arrested “in connection with” a suspected crime.

We can — and often will — name a suspect once charged, if the story is of sufficient public interest. At that point in the case, prosecutors have at least produced actionable facts via formal charges.

Either way, we believe naming a crime suspect brings with it the solemn responsibility of following that case through to completion. This provides a follow-up online trail about the disposition of a case initially linked to a person’s name.

This often means deciding not to initially publish something that “everyone else” is publishing. But we believe that the operational principle is critical to our role not just in informing the public, but protecting the legal rights of the accused.

Exceptions exist

As mentioned above, some exceptions exist:

• Active public safety concerns. When a suspect sought in connection with a crime is still at large, there’s significant public interest in that person’s identity to merit naming them and often even including a photograph. Here, public safety trumps private rights. Police, or sometimes another public institution such as an employer, in these instances have largely taken the “naming” question out of our hands.

• Notoriety. This may not be entirely fair, but it’s reality: If you’re the mayor and get arrested for a crime, it’s usually news. What constitutes a public figure is a judgment call, made by editors.

• Developing investigations. In rare instances, a suspect initially arrested in connection with what could be a broader series of crimes may have left a trail of additional victims, some of whom might come forward when presented with a name and even image.

Language matters

For mostly the same reasons, we try to be judicious about including profuse reports or images of “evidence” amassed by police upon making an additional arrest. Many are prejudicial; some suggest crimes never charged. Quoting directly from our policy:

All facts alleged by police in connection with a crime are only that: Allegations. They are initially unproven. They might be wrong. Even if right, they may not ever see a courtroom as most cases are pleaded out before trial. Write all crime stories, even briefs, with this in mind.

Key to this: We will not repeat police news release lingo such as, “… arrested on charges of …”  because only prosecutors can charge. We also attempt to ensure that all police descriptions of an alleged crime are attributed directly to police, unless we actually saw the crime occur. (This is why the clumsy word “alleged” or “allegedly” is likely to appear repeatedly in many of these stories, although we try to avoid its overuse by simply saying, “police said.”)

Further, we attempt to steer clear of speculative police details such as descriptions of “substances that appeared to be …” (in the case of an illegal drug), until this has been more firmly established through probable-cause documents.

We also weigh carefully the inclusion of a suspect’s prior criminal history, based on relevance to the charged crime, if any — and then only when we can verify it ourselves, through records. And importantly, specifying a charged individual’s race is generally not relevant except for purposes of describing a subject at large.

Police or jail photographs are also fraught with potential prejudice. We don’t have access to jail “mugshots” in Washington state, so this is not a regular concern. And while we do appreciate photographs provided by police agencies, we carefully review such imagery for news value.

These are all important steps in balancing the need between the public’s right (and need) to know — and police agencies’ legitimate need to do so — with rights of the accused. We welcome the opportunity to answer questions, or hear feedback, about our policy.  Send your thoughts to my email address below.

Ron Judd's column appears weekly; ronjudd@cascadiadaily.com; @roncjudd.