“I’m trying really hard to not write about Kobe Bryant. I’m having little success. Jason Whitlock,” — The Kansas City Star, August 12
You’re not alone, Jason. The Kobe Bryant alleged rape story is a runaway train, with hundreds of journalists vying for the engineer’s seat.
It was no wonder, then, that a little paper in Aspen, Colo., made news with its decision not to run any more Bryant coverage creating a Kobe-free newspaper at least until the verdict is returned.
This 15,000-circulation paper located 75 miles from the scene of the Bryant trial has received lots of cheers (and a few jeers) for its stand. I think it’s a question of ethics, however, and I disagree wholeheartedly.
Ethics are principles of conduct governing moral duty and obligation. Journalists have a duty and obligation to inform readers. Certainly, editors make choices about what will appear either in print, onscreen or online. But refusing to cover a legitimate news story is not about choice. It’s about putting a blindfold on the reader.
Kobe Bryant is one of the best basketball players in the world, a sports personality, and now, a defendant in a rape charge. Coverage is plentiful. Aspen Daily News editor Rick Carroll is right when he says that readers can get the news elsewhere.
But that’s not the point.
As for those newspapers that haven’t decided to go Kobe-free, one important decision is where to play stories. Two readers recently asked whether The Star’s decision to run all Bryant stories in the Sports section is the right one.
I’m satisfied with this play for now. Readers can easily find the coverage in the same place, and the news being generated lately isn’t front-page news. However, that might change.
I asked editors if the paper would continue running the stories in Sports once the trial begins on Nov. 10. Managing Editor for News Steve Shirk said most likely but that the verdict would probably be front-page news.
Shirk said Sports is a good place for the Bryant coverage because Bryant’s status as a celebrated athlete is what’s driving this story. Other editors I talked to agreed.
One story brought up in comparison is O.J. Simpson’s murder trial. But Simpson was more than a celebrated athlete at the time of the trial. He was, for want of a better word, a superstar. And the details of the murder were some of the most heinous. That made the story front-page news.
In Aspen, The Daily News said it heard from hundreds of readers in agreement with its stand. Who were the ones decrying the decision? Journalists.
The question of readers’ wants vs. editors’ ideals is an interesting one. Let’s go back to the ethics argument. Bob Steele, faculty member at Poynter Institute for Journalists, has written three guiding principles for journalists:
Seek the truth and report it as fully as possible.
Act independently.
Minimize harm.
Downplaying Bryant or censoring stories about the case would not meet the guidelines.
Seek truth and report it as fully as possible: This is what journalism is all about. This guideline requires the media to report news even about Bryant.
Act independently: Daily News Editor Carroll has acted independently by defying his paper’s owner on the decision. But I believe Carroll could have provided coverage and avoided the so-called pack journalism he gave as reason to go Kobe-free.
Minimize harm: This is tricky. If journalists report stories as fully as possible, many facts, if published, could cause harm. Media organizations already went round and round about whether and when to release the name of the rape victim. What about digging up information about her family or his? How much harm do you do in the name of truth?
Crime reporting is complicated. When the accused has name recognition, the waters get murkier. But that’s no reason not to provide readers the coverage they deserve.
It’s our duty and our obligation.
Change in the weather
You complained and cajoled. Editors listened. On Friday, The Star changed the weather page to reflect reader concerns. Among the changes, we added cities to the Nation and World list; used larger type in some spots; made the Missouri and Kansas map smaller and the U.S. map larger; and Kansas lakes now join Missouri lakes.
