Traffic fatalities carry a weight of grief beyond the ability of a small headline and news story to convey. The stark truth hits home with loved ones of those who died.
All the worse, then, for family and friends to read in such a story inaccurate or misleading information.
Twice recently, The Oregonian published stories that said the person killed had not used a seat belt when, in fact, that was not the case.
In addition, stories have said that police did not know whether alcohol or other drugs were involved, even though no evidence suggested that they might have been a factor. Sometimes a story reports that police are awaiting results of toxicology tests, leaving a question of whether police believe that a driver might have been intoxicated.
In all such cases, readers might form unwarranted judgments about drivers or passengers who took the usual precautions and did not drive unsafely.
The family of Lacy Dawn Harris, 17, of Roseburg, found their grief worsened by a news story in The Oregonian last month that said she was not wearing a seat belt when struck by another driver. She died. Her 9-month-old daughter, in a car seat, received severe bruises.
Family members wrote to The Oregonian expressing sadness and dismay at the cause of the death — a 16-year-old boy driving the other vehicle has been charged with manslaughter and assault — and at inaccurate information about use of a seat belt.
Jerry Harris, Lacy’s grandfather, said that Lacy, “whose personality was as bright and cheery as her smile,” had fastened her baby, Adriana Sanders, into “the best car seat she could find.”
In the urgency of the crash scene, Oregon State Police explained to me last week, emergency medical technicians trying to help Lacy removed a safety harness. Through a misunderstanding, a state trooper arriving later wrote in his report that she was not using a seat belt. That information mistakenly was given to a reporter who called for details.
Readers might wonder why the newspaper would make such references at all. Or why reporters and editors would include mention of toxicology tests.
The purpose is not to pass judgment. Rather, it is to provide readers with answers to likely questions.
“People want to know if they can apply the information to their own habits and lives,” said Therese Bottomly, managing editor for news at The Oregonian.
The use of child safety seats, seat belts and motorcycle helmets is a matter of “huge public policy,” Bottomly said. Public debate swirls around state laws on such issues. Reporting on the possible ramifications in crashes becomes a public service and part of the discussion. Similar debate relates to the use of life jackets when boating or allowing children to ride in the bed of a pickup truck.
Susan Gage, editor of the newsroom’s Crime, Justice and Public Safety reporting team, said that typically, police provide accurate information on the use of seat belts. The recent inaccurate reports — both of them since updated in print — do not indicate a pattern.
However, they do underscore a newspaper’s reliance on receiving accurate information from police and emergency services, especially when that information cannot be confirmed elsewhere.
References to possible use of alcohol or other drugs in an accident story can be trickier, even when accurate. Loosely worded information about commonly done toxicology tests could leave an unwarranted blot on someone’s reputation.
With these concerns in mind, Bottomly and Gage last week decided that The Oregonian would not routinely state that results of toxicology tests are pending.
Reporters need to ask enough questions of investigators to understand why the tests might be relevant in a specific case. The mere fact that the test is being done is not sufficient reason.
Such precautions will not lessen the pain of those grieving a loss, but they will help avoid making it worse.
