Brenda van Dam likens it to living in hell. That’s how she has described her life since her 7-year-old daughter, Danielle, disappeared from the family’s Sabre Springs home more than two weeks ago. As if she and her husband, Damon, are not under enough pressure, some in the media and here I’m referring primarily to talk show hosts have made the intolerable worse by broadcasting questions about their private life.
The angry van Dams have responded to the sensational accusations with dignity, saying they want to focus on the search for Danielle.
While reporters from The San Diego Union-Tribune became aware of the rumors early on, the first time the information was printed was on Feb. 8 six days after Danielle was reported missing in a front-page story based on an interview with the van Dams. By that time, the rumors had become fodder for talk show hosts.
The 25th paragraph of the Feb. 8 story that ran 28 paragraphs and was continued inside the paper said the van Dams are the subject of rumors about their lifestyle. The next paragraph quoted Brenda van Dam: “This is in no way related to the investigation.”
Another front-page story on Feb. 9 addressed accusations carried by other media. One radio talk show host, who claimed his information was from an unnamed law enforcement source, repeated the rumors for four hours during a single broadcast. In response, callers expressed anger at the van Dams.
While to date Union-Tribune coverage has been measured and subdued in comparison to some other media, the public’s ambivalence has been clear. Some are angry at the Union-Tribune for, as a reader put it, being “soft” on the van Dams. Others are angry at the newspaper for printing the information.
What shouldn’t escape journalists is that except for the unnamed source cited by the radio host, no one in law enforcement has said that the van Dams’ private life has anything to do with the disappearance. In fact, just the opposite.
A Union-Tribune story on Feb. 13 quoted Lt. Jim Duncan, the lead investigator, as saying the couple’s “lifestyle is not our focus. That is not the direction we are going to go; we want to solve this case.”
Will that put an end to the speculation? I doubt it. The speculation itself has become a story. It’s important to note it’s not the Union-Tribune that’s doing the speculating, however. The newspaper is reporting questions being raised by the community and on the Internet. Is that a legitimate story? Some would argue that it is; others would disagree.
“Each time we report the story, we should not be driven by what others in the media marketplace are doing,” said Robert Steele, ethicist with Florida’s Poynter Institute for Media Studies. “We have to recognize what others are doing, but each news organization should hold its own reporting up to its own standards of ethics and professionalism.” He said that applies to newspapers, talk radio, television and the national press.
Others, including some in the newsroom, have questioned the use of the name of van Dam neighbor David Westerfield who has been, as stories say, “the focus” of the police investigation.
As of Friday, no charges had been filed against Westerfield. What happened to “innocent until proved guilty,” one reader wanted to know. Will he become another Richard Jewell? Jewell is the security guard who fell under intense media scrutiny after the FBI said he was considered a suspect in the 1996 bombing of Centennial Olympic Park in the Atlanta area. Another suspect was identified later, and the FBI apologized to Jewell.
In Westerfield’s case, the Union-Tribune has been careful in its references to him although in a few instances, he has been described as a suspect after police identified him as one during a press conference.
“The key is if the paper decides to mention him in any way, to be extremely thoughtful and careful in any terms they use in reference to him,” Steele said. “Precision and care in language are essential in stories like these.”
Steele said that in the Jewell case, the problem wasn’t that he was named in news stories, but in the tone that was used. “Journalists crossed into serious danger areas when they characterized him in particular ways.” Questionable areas included descriptions of his past, his relationships with other people and his mannerisms.
“We should be exceptionally careful not to speculate in what we report,” Steele said. “We should make sure that the tone and substance of our reporting also discourage speculation by the public.”
Whether through his own doing or not, Westerfield has become part of the story for which, to date, there are no answers. It’s up to the newspaper to guard against sensationalism and unfairness, but still report the story completely.
Gina Lubrano’s column commenting on the media appears Mondays. It is the policy of The San Diego Union-Tribune to correct all errors. To discuss accuracy or fairness in the news, please write to Gina Lubrano, readers representative, Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, or telephone (619) 293-1525. Send e-mail to:
readers.rep@uniontrib.com.
Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
——————————————————————————–
