JOURNALISTIC UNINTEGRITY

GUILTY BECAUSENANCY GRACE SHOW I SAY SO THE QUESTIONABLE ETHICS OF THE

Lauren Angelica Ebanks
In H.L. Menckens 1914 article on questionable journalistic ethics entitled, Newspaper Morals, he describes the primary aim of the newspaper journalist as being to please the crowd, to give a good show... by first selecting a deserving victim, and then putting him magnificently to the torture... it was their method when they were battling bravely and unselfishly for the public good, and so discharging the highest duty of their profession. Although referring to the actions of newspaper men in the early 20th century, Menckens sarcastic observations reflect the current means and methodology of reporting common to some personalitydriven current affairs programs. These current affairs showssons of broadcast newsthe issues of the day as seen through the eyes and opinions of showboating talking heads. As seen on CNN, Fox News, and the Headline News Network (HLN), the hosts of these programs are personalities geared for performance. Their credibility and appeal (or lack thereof ) lies in not what they say, but how they present it. Their stories run on the fuel of public emotional response. Perhaps the most vicious and outspoken personality is Nancy Grace: a bottle-blonde attack dog in jewel-coloured power-suits and oversized fake pearls. Shes armed with a disarming southern accent that can snap from sweet-tea sickly to angrily accusatory as fast as you can blink. A former criminal prosecutor and self-styled victims advocate, Grace is the star of her own eponymously titled show on HLN (a current affairs focused subsidiary channel of CNN). Her program predominantly covers sensationalist ongoing crime stories involving kidnappings, murder, and torture. The show purports to help the victims of these crimes by putting their stories on the air and discussing them ad nauseum with a panel of experts. Grace acts as a judge in the court of public opinion. If a panellist disagrees with Grace, they are instantly interrupted, their views dismissed as uninformed or illogical. Any family member of a victim who acts in a manner not keeping with Graces notions of grief is implicitly accused of committing the crime. Twenty-one-year-old Melinda Duckett was one of Graces guilties. She agreed to appear via phone on Nancy Grace on September 7, 2006. Her son Trent had gone missing from her house a few weeks earlier and she was ostensibly appearing on the program to get the word out about his disappearance in the hopes that it would lead to his return. Instead, Melinda Duckett was subjected to a barrage of hard-line questions about her whereabouts on the night of Trents disappearance. When Duckett refused to answer her questions, citing the ongoing police investigations and her wariness of the media, Grace and her panel of experts proceeded to attack Ducketts character and intimate that she was responsible for the disappearance of her son. Later that day, Melinda Duckett walked into a closet in her grandparents retirement home and shot herself with her grandfathers shotgun, She was found by relatives the next day with a suicide note which inferred that the public pressure had got to her. Despite being informed of Ducketts death, Nancy Grace televised the interview later that day. To the show producers credit, they did show some compassion by including an inconspicuous rolling text bar at the bottom of the screen which flashed the macabre news that Ducketts body had been found earlier in the day. On November 21 the family of Melinda Duckett filed a wrongful death lawsuit which alleged that Nancy Grace and CNN were partly responsible for the suicide of Duckett, citing emotional distress caused by the telephone interview. Nancy Grace and CNN called for the immediate dismissal of the lawsuit, but on July 31, 2008 U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges denied their motion for dismissal. The case is still ongoing. The suit alleges that Nancy Grace went too far in her quest for knowledge, but where do we draw the line? When does a journalist cross the line from valid accusations to wrongful death? An unregulated news media is imperative for a free society and a free media requires free speech. The first amendment to the United States constitution protects the right to free speech as a vital tool of democracy. It allows journalists to criticize governments and investigate abuse, but it does not allow journalists to say anything and everything they want to. There are laws against libellous or slanderous language but as with any good law there are a myriad of ways to get around it. Susan Dimock, Professor of Philosophy at York University, former director of the York Centre for Practical Ethics and an advocate for free speech, refers to the dance around defamation as the truth defence. People like Grace who put on sensationalist public affairs or current events programming avoid slander by prefacing things with, its my opinion that, and that makes it true because its their opinion. This gives them important wiggle room because if you believe what you said is true then it is true. In her accusations Grace was careful to say that Melindas actions didnt, make sense to her and it was, her opinion that Ducketts suicide was an admission of guilt. Professor Dimock cautions that in cases of possible defamatory language we should err on the side of the journalist to protect their right to free speech. Thats understandable, but should that right supersede basic human empathy? Much is made of the journalists rights and obligations to the public to present all the facts and

NOTE: This story is from June 2010, before Nancy Grace's settlement with the Duckett Family
investigate every angle, but often the lives affected by the performance of their obligations and rights are disregarded. After the suit was filed, Nancy Grace and CNN released a statement which said that if the suit went to trial it would severely chill other journalists from covering similar cases. Professor Dimock disagrees with Graces suppositions, I think its right to say that lawsuits of the slander, libel, defamation kind do put a chill on free speech. A free press is absolutely viable for a free society so we dont want anyone to be able to go around threatening or suing journalists unless they cross a very well defined legal line in terms of saying something that is both damaging and false. The problem with Nancys argument is shes not being sued for libellous or slanderous behaviour, shes being sued for wrongful death. The suit alleges that her reckless and persistent questioning contributed to Ducketts death. Dimock describes the suit as being more akin to a bullying or harassment case. Its obviously not acceptable for someone to bully someone or harass them to the point where they see suicide as their only way means of escape. Bullying is not vital for a free press or democracy. A suit like this would not chill journalists from covering cases, but it would chill bullying and the worst kind of journalistic abuse where people are engaged in relentless personal attacks for the sake of public entertainment, says Dimock. The Society of Professional Journalists is a professional organization made up of broadcasters, print, and online journalists. Members of this society share a commitment to ethical reporting, and they adhere to its voluntary code of ethics. This code includes a section on the journalists responsibility to the public, that is to minimize harm. They acknowledge that responsible journalists should realize private citizens have a greater right to control information about themselves than public officials and others who seek power, influence, or attention. They feel that an overriding public need is the only thing that can justify intrusion into anyones privacy. In Canada, the idea of overriding public need as the only reasonable excuse for intrusion into privacy is tacitly understood. Canadian journalists as a rule tend to shy away from sensationalist reporting about private citizens. In the United States, journalists seldom follow this rule, using the right to free speech to trump any other concerns. This often leads to sensationalism and other forms of journalistic abuse. Nancy Grace and other shows of that ilk have perfected a format that focuses on peoples fears and emotions rather than stretching their intellectual capabilities with salient information. Riding on the cult of personality, shows like Nancy Grace and The OReilly Factor, choose to focus on the people involved rather than the facts surrounding a story. In their world, the soft news of celebrity sex scandals are hard news stories and they are made to seem like they are through their repeated and relentless coverage of the events. Hard news is almost non-existent, relegated to flashing news tickers at the bottom or sides of the screen. Sadly, real news programs in the United States are following their format with such former bastions of truthful reporting as CNN covering Lindsay Lohans latest meltdown or Mel Gibsons latest recorded rant as breaking (and important) news. There is no one body regulating the ethics of the news-media. It is up to individual news organization to set their own ethical standards for reporting. Tony Burman, a former editor-in-chief of CBC news once described the individual ethics of news organizations as such: Every news organization has only its credibility and reputation to rely on. So why are personalities who diminish this credibility allowed to continue on air? The answer is obvious; they garner better ratings than blank newsreaders. The Project for Excellence in Journalism produces a yearly report on the state of the American news media. Their 2008 report showed that cable news channels like CNN, Fox News, and HLN were gaining a growing audience. The report found evidence to suggest that programs built around a case of hosts, often but not always, made up of the edgiest cable personalities contributed significantly to the channels growth. The business of broadcast news is more focused on ratings than public service, but to regulate the power of the news and those who report it would impinge on free speech and democracy. The only way to combat vicious personal attacks and journalistic bullying is to blame and shame the journalists who perpetrate this rotten form of news reporting. They should be held accountable for their actions by their peers and the public. The mere fact that the Duckett familys suit is allowed to proceed in court shows a growing public disenchantment with the way personalities present the news. Mencken summed up the newspaper mans reasoning for dumbing down and sensationalizing news with, In brief, he knows that it is hard for the plain people to think, about a thing, but easy for them to feel. Journalists shouldnt be content with taking the easy way out. An essential characteristic of any journalist is to aim at the truth. They might only get part of it, but the aim counts. The news should engage the intelligence of its viewers and encourage the difficult task of thinking rather than pander to base emotions. The Nancy Grace and Melinda Duckett case teaches us that broadcast journalism to remain a viable form of news needs to regulate itself to prevent gross journalist abuses of power and protect its viewers. It should be noted that not all television is created equal. Awesome award winning Current Affairs programmes that take journalism seriously do exist. Examples of this are CBSs 60 Minutes, ABCs 20/20, NBCs Dateline, and CBCs The Fifth Estate. F