Bostonist: Should the Press Have Released Toxicology Results for Late Firefighters?

Victoria Welch

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:15:54 -0500

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.

MJG

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:12:29 -0500

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.

guest

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:48:14 -0500

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.

Victoria Welch

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:22:40 -0500

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.