Ethics and Common Sense

[Ed.Note: Don't worry, I'll find a new topic soon - this is just one of those things that really frosts my cookies]

Media May Have Unwittingly Foreshadowed Sniper's Moves

By Dru Sefton

c.2002 Newhouse News

The Washington-area sniper may be taking cues from media coverage as to what his next move will be, experts say.

The evidence is mounting:

• Last Friday a former FBI profiler said on CNN, "I could see, he could keep going on down to Ashland, possibly all the way to Richmond ..." The next day, the sniper struck in Ashland, Va.
  
  
  
• On Oct. 15, The Washington Post ran a story headlined "Weekend Lulls in Shootings Could Offer Clue on Lifestyle," because each shooting had been on a weekday. The next victim was shot the following Saturday.
  
  
  
• On Oct. 4, 5 and 6, several criminal profilers were quoted on television and in print about how the sniper was "playing God" or "has a God complex." On Oct. 7 the sniper left a tarot card reading, in part, "I am God."
  
  
  
• On Oct. 3, a Montgomery County official appeared on several national networks, assuring nervous parents. "We feel children will be safe inside schools with us," he said on CNN. On Oct. 7, the sniper shot a student at a Bowie, Md., school.

Given the previous speculation about how much of an impact the media speculation is having on the sniper and his choices, I found this entire article quite interesting. In addition to the above examples, the article talks about how the on-air "profiling" by former FBI agents and former cops could actually lead the suspect to change how he acts in order to avoid conforming to the profile, and how it can also confuse the public. One concern is that if people hear too much about these armchair profiles (armchair because they don't have access to all the info), they might inadvertantly overlook a possible suspect if he doesn't fit what they think they're supposed to be looking for.

I know I've commented on this subject a few times already, but I find it quite disheartening that the media - print and TV - can comment on how the killer seems to be taking cues from the coverage, and yet they don't change how they're covering the case.  If their ethics don't dictate that should exercise more care, common sense should.

This is one of those times I wish Jack McCoy and the other heroes of "Law & Order" were real.  I have no doubt that if he were to see this kind of a pattern emerging - compete with the media recognizing that what they have to say may be helping this guy pick his targets and his timing - and go after the network editors for criminal charges based on their reckless disregard for human life.  The sticking point, of course, would be proving that he wouldn't have killed someone else even if the media wasn't reporting on it, so the case might not go very far, but just getting the charges filed might be sufficient to get a better national debate on where the news media should impose limits on themselves.

I don't mind them reporting the facts - that's their job.  Its the wild speculation that gives me concern.  Under these circumstances, not only does it make no sense, it is, in my opinion, unethical.  They're job is to report what has happened, not create news themselves - and I honestly think that in this case, even if they don't intend to, that is one of the side effects of what they are doing.