The Wichita Eagle reports that KSN has filed a motion with the Kansas Court of Appeals in its case ordering them to pay $1.1 million to the estate of a man who was revealed as a suspect in the BTK case. -Hal
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
KSN convicted him by the way they reported it. They'll lose the appeal and rightfully show. There's a right way to do something and a wrong way and they did it the wrong way.
They might win the appeal because juries tend to make statements rather than legal decisions. But right or wrong legally I can't believe the news director still has his or her job. I mean, KWCH fired a marketing manager over Borat (supposedly). From a pure publicity standpoint this would seem like a worse offense. A good manager has the finesse to get through situations like this without embarrassing the station. whether or not the jury was right the station and its staff should have never been put in this position.
Technically Emmis Communications (KSN's former owner) is appealing the verdict.
They would have to shell out the money...not KSN or its current owner New Vision Television.
If you actually read the brief and know something about the case, you would realize KSN should not have lost.
To win a verdict like this, you legally have to prove the station intentionally tried to harm Mr. Valadez. During the original trial the Judge decided not to instruct the jury on this part of Kansas law. Had he given the jury, the proper instructions about the law, I doubt they would have reached the same verdict.
Yes KWCH blogger, before you get your panties in a twist, I do work for KSN; however, I did not work for them at the time of this incident.
I am just amazed that some fellow members of the media do not grasp the impact a verdict like this has for our industry.
Go on crazy KWCH guy...tell me how I suck, my co-workers suck, and you are forever dominant....
Too many times, in this market and in others, newsrooms put ratings before responsibility.
You could just as easily have said they have a suspect, no charges have been filed and given details without a name.
In fact, of I remember right the other stations reported the name at first then backed off but KSN kept saying it over and over and over and that's why they are in trouble today.
The guy turned out not to be BTK but the damage was done. His life was ruined. There's no bigger scarlet letters you could have branded him with even when it turned out not to be him.
Personally, I have a big problem reporting someone's name before they are charged. Once they are charged then it's in the public record and fair game but until then, people are taken into custody all the time as suspect or Persons of Interest and released.
If this verdict means journalists are more responsible in their reporting then that's a good thing. Being first doesn't always translate to being right.
The last commenter has some decent points, but in this case I don't think it was about ratings. I think it was about some "pie in the sky" responsibility the media thinks it has. True, the responsibility exists when it comes to holding officials accountable, educating the public, informing people of an imminent danger and other similar circumstances. But too often the media doesn't know when to turn that off, when a fact or situation just isn't that imminent. As the previous poster notes, this was one of those times. The public would have been just as well served by holding off on the actual name until it was officially announced. But someone overthought this one and backed the station into a corner. I agree with the person who said good managers have the finesse to know how to decipher these situations. Right or wrong in court, this manager lacked that skill.
I do agree with the person who said this verdict has wide impact. Think of all the times the police are looking for someone and we post a picture. Even a "wanted" poster, for example. While those are smaller cases, and 99 percent of the time the person they're looking for is eventually charged, it still raises the question of whether ANYONE's name can be used at any time for any reason. By the way, if it's true you have to prove malicious intent, then I say this one should be overturned. No way that was the case.
Don't know "how" KSN reported it, as that may have impacted the decision, but some good points have been brought up.
I would say the police are more liable for releasing the name. If this ruling stands, could set a HUGE precident for instances when police are seeking a "person of interest" and the media reports that name and description, then later turns out not to be the perpetrator.
7 comments:
KSN convicted him by the way they reported it. They'll lose the appeal and rightfully show. There's a right way to do something and a wrong way and they did it the wrong way.
They might win the appeal because juries tend to make statements rather than legal decisions. But right or wrong legally I can't believe the news director still has his or her job. I mean, KWCH fired a marketing manager over Borat (supposedly). From a pure publicity standpoint this would seem like a worse offense. A good manager has the finesse to get through situations like this without embarrassing the station. whether or not the jury was right the station and its staff should have never been put in this position.
Technically Emmis Communications (KSN's former owner) is appealing the verdict.
They would have to shell out the money...not KSN or its current owner New Vision Television.
If you actually read the brief and know something about the case, you would realize KSN should not have lost.
To win a verdict like this, you legally have to prove the station intentionally tried to harm Mr. Valadez. During the original trial the Judge decided not to instruct the jury on this part of Kansas law. Had he given the jury, the proper instructions about the law, I doubt they would have reached the same verdict.
Yes KWCH blogger, before you get your panties in a twist, I do work for KSN; however, I did not work for them at the time of this incident.
I am just amazed that some fellow members of the media do not grasp the impact a verdict like this has for our industry.
Go on crazy KWCH guy...tell me how I suck, my co-workers suck, and you are forever dominant....
Too many times, in this market and in others, newsrooms put ratings before responsibility.
You could just as easily have said they have a suspect, no charges have been filed and given details without a name.
In fact, of I remember right the other stations reported the name at first then backed off but KSN kept saying it over and over and over and that's why they are in trouble today.
The guy turned out not to be BTK but the damage was done. His life was ruined. There's no bigger scarlet letters you could have branded him with even when it turned out not to be him.
Personally, I have a big problem reporting someone's name before they are charged. Once they are charged then it's in the public record and fair game but until then, people are taken into custody all the time as suspect or Persons of Interest and released.
If this verdict means journalists are more responsible in their reporting then that's a good thing. Being first doesn't always translate to being right.
The last commenter has some decent points, but in this case I don't think it was about ratings. I think it was about some "pie in the sky" responsibility the media thinks it has. True, the responsibility exists when it comes to holding officials accountable, educating the public, informing people of an imminent danger and other similar circumstances. But too often the media doesn't know when to turn that off, when a fact or situation just isn't that imminent. As the previous poster notes, this was one of those times. The public would have been just as well served by holding off on the actual name until it was officially announced. But someone overthought this one and backed the station into a corner. I agree with the person who said good managers have the finesse to know how to decipher these situations. Right or wrong in court, this manager lacked that skill.
I do agree with the person who said this verdict has wide impact. Think of all the times the police are looking for someone and we post a picture. Even a "wanted" poster, for example. While those are smaller cases, and 99 percent of the time the person they're looking for is eventually charged, it still raises the question of whether ANYONE's name can be used at any time for any reason. By the way, if it's true you have to prove malicious intent, then I say this one should be overturned. No way that was the case.
Don't know "how" KSN reported it, as that may have impacted the decision, but some good points have been brought up.
I would say the police are more liable for releasing the name. If this ruling stands, could set a HUGE precident for instances when police are seeking a "person of interest" and the media reports that name and description, then later turns out not to be the perpetrator.
Post a Comment