The tiny headline appeared on the second page of Monday’s Metro section, so small it was easy to miss . . . one of those sad little matter-of-fact reports all too common in big-city newspapers: “Robber, 15, fatally shot by would-be victim.”
The story under it described how a 25-year-old Cleveland man had shot and killed 15-year-old Arthur C. Buford the previous Saturday, after the youth had tried to rob him at gunpoint.
In content, it didn’t appear much different from the short item we ran in November about the two car mechanics who stabbed to death a 19-year-old man with a gun who was trying to rob them. Or the story last August about the 59-year-old man who pulled a knife and killed a 16-year-old boy, one of four attackers who were beating him and trying to rob him.
There were 119 homicides in 2006 – and as of Friday, 35 so far this year. Most of them wound up being reported the same way, with small stories inside the Metro section that dispassionately summed up the grim details and let it go at that. But Saturday’s act of self-defense by Damon Wells blossomed into an ongoing tale that has made the front page five times and engaged the attention of Northeast Ohioans all week long, in a way that few news stories do.
What was the difference?
The difference was that Metro Editor Chris Quinn asked a question at Monday morning’s staff meeting: Did the robbery victim have a concealed-carry weapons permit?
The answer, as everyone who can read a newspaper or turn on a television knows by now, was “yes,” and it turned a routine story into a cause clbre. Concealed carry is a hot-button issue for people on both sides of the Second Amendment fence, and throughout the week, Plain Dealer stories and columns defined the public conversation.
This column’s role is to take apart newsroom decisions and criticize them, support them or explain them.
Today a compliment is in order. This is the kind of coverage that makes a daily newspaper so important to its readers and its community. It was not a deep investigative piece and it didn’t send anyone to jail, but the newspaper’s job is to pursue stories that are relevant to people’s lives, and this one obviously struck a strong chord with you.
“The story probably would have gotten more examination anyway,” Quinn said. “Everyone can identify with a robbery victim who saves his own life and kills his attacker. But the concealed-carry aspect made it more universal. This was exactly what most people who supported the law had in mind.”
Having praised the initiative and the stories, let’s consider some comments about the coverage that are worth review:
Many readers called to complain that, along with the story, we published a photo of a street memorial for the dead teen inside the paper. “He was killed trying to rob somebody,” said one. “Why glorify the robber?”
The simple answer is that it’s part of the story. A full report demands that we cover all aspects of the story, including the incongruity of a tribute to someone who died committing a crime. The more complicated answer is that we must be careful to be complete but not sympathetic. After that first memorial, Buford’s friends held other gatherings, including a candlelight vigil. You have not seen photos of them in The Plain Dealer.
Some wondered why we published comments from Buford’s relatives. “Where were they when he was pulling a gun on people?” one asked. “I’m sick of The Plain Dealer letting the relatives talk about how wonderful these criminals are.”
Same answer as above. Nothing is one-dimensional. Printing a comment from a relative or friend doesn’t indicate acceptance or agreement. It gives readers information about that person’s viewpoint.
The Tuesday headline, “A boy dies, and a gun debate is reignited,” drew some criticism. “What debate?” some asked.
The headline was pegged to a line in the story that said essentially the same thing. But there was precious little, either in that story or in any of our coverage in the days since, to back that up. I’d agree with the critics. Nobody in the story – not even a spokeswoman for an anti-gun group – suggested that the law was misused or that Wells was wrong to defend himself.
Some readers suggested that the headline proved a Plain Dealer anti-gun bias. That is nonsense. Nobody would have even known about the concealed-carry aspect of this incident, or that the law might have saved an innocent man’s life, without The Plain Dealer’s initiative on the story. I thought the paper played it down the middle with its reporting on this story, but if anything, wouldn’t a concealed-carry advocate be pleased that the issue was brought to the forefront?
A reader wrote to correct an error in the first story, which said it was the first time a concealed-carry permit holder shot and killed an attacker. Rick Troha of North Olmsted is living proof that editors take readers’ comments seriously – his e-mail helped the paper correct the record the following day. You can find a more thorough look at other incidents in today’s paper, on A4.
Why did we call it a “murder?” A Friday story erroneously used that word. As all of our other stories emphasized, police consider the Buford shooting to be justifiable self-defense, not murder.
A newspaper’s role is to provide information and cover the news but it is also to spark debate and get people to think about issues. The Metro staff and columnists Phillip Morris, Regina Brett and Kevin O’Brien led the way and set the tone for the conversation on what has been an important “talk” story in Northeast Ohio all week – a story that would not have seen the light of day without someone from this newspaper asking the right questions.
