October 4, 2007
Should the Press Have Released Toxicology Results for Late Firefighters?
Last night, word broke out that firefighters Warren Payne and Paul Cahill, who perished in a blaze at the Tai Ho Restaurant, had drugs and/or alcohol in their system. This morning, many citizens are expressing outrage at the smear on their memories on the local news.
Several outlets are reporting that Warren Payne had cocaine in his system, and Paul Cahill was legally intoxicated. However, the report comes from, in the Globe's words, "A source who was briefed by a person with knowledge of the autopsies."
That sounds like a game of telephone. The news is twice removed. Now, if it is true, then the press has an absolute right to release it, and the press also has an absolute right to protect their sources. But if it is wrong or there's any question, then perhaps someone should have sat on it until it was airtight. A commenter on Universal Hub who knew Payne is already coming out saying that the results are bullshit.
The second Bostonist heard the news, the first thought that emerged was, "Did this come from the State Medical Examiner's Office?" Because, as we well know, they've had a few boo-boos and bungles in the past. They need to make sure that files--or bodies--didn't get mixed up along the way.
If it's true, it's true, but based on the description of events at the time of the fire, it wouldn't have mattered if Payne and Cahill were as sober as church mice. The real problem is that the Tai Ho Restaurant was coated in grease that sent that fire raging into the ceiling.
Adding another dimension to the debate is the fact that a judge stopped WHDH, who apparently had the news first, from printing it, whereas every other outlet went for it. Dan Kennedy is pissed. WHDH's website doesn't mention the story at all.
|
The Globe is being careful to report that they got two sources, both briefed independently, confirming the reported details. Newspapers often debate whether to go forward with stories based on anonymous tips - many decide not to because of the potential legal repercussions. But when they do, two independent anonymous sources providing the same details is grounds to run with the story.
True, prior restraint doesn't apply here, and the Globe has every legal right to report on any facts they can confirm about the autopsy reports.
But the first thing you learn in any journalism ethics class is to minimize harm. Who benefits from making this information public? Anyone? Or are the local media outlets just rushing to a scoop?
If they're trying to shed a light on a broader issue (substance abuse in the BFD?) their story requires a LOT more supporting evidence. As it stands right now, this is a pointless personal attack on these two men and their families.
You don't see the public interest in firefighters, or policemen for that matter, being drunk or impaired by drugs while on duty? That's outrageous to me.
If they are drunk and don't go into the field, that's one thing. But a drunk fighting a fire or trying to resuscitate someone whose heart stopped is not acceptable.
These families have to be devastated by this news on top of the tragic deaths of these men. How can one not feel bad for them. But, we have a right to know this sort of thing. Papers and TV stations are obligated to report it.
I know all about minimizing harm - I took the course, too, and I've applied it to real scenarios, real stories.
But a journalist also has an obligation to continue to flesh out and tell all of the story. That the autopsy report reportedly contains details about drug and alcohol found in the bloodstreams is part of the story, the same as results from the fire marshall's office about the blaze, the same as details about response times after the initial calls. Anything related to this fire and these deaths is worthy of followup.
There is no way that someone in a newsroom would receive information like that and decide not to follow up on it and try to get information because it's a sensitive issue. It's part of the job for the journalist to find out what went on - and to report it.