When Akron Police Chief Michael Matulavich told the media, “don’t put me on your time schedule,” it made me wonder what is an appropriate timetable for controversial stories.
He said that at yesterday’s news conference, called by the chief to criticize a Dec. 15 Akron Beacon Journal story. In it, a 74-year-old Akron resident said he was shoved to the ground and handcuffed by police in a case of mistaken identity. Turns out the real suspect was 45 years younger.
To say the chief “criticized” the story probably isn’t strong enough. Vilify would be more accurate.
Matulavich called the story “the most disgusting, despicable, irresponsible piece of reporting” he’s ever seen. In his words, it was an “unsubstantiated, uncorroborated story from a very confused 74-year-old man.”
Whether the incident actually happened is being disputed. The police cleared the officers of any wrongdoing and denied the complaint. The retired rubber worker, who has no criminal record and is active in the Good Shepherd Athletic Club, says otherwise.
The question for me, as public editor, is whether readers were served effectively by the Beacon Journal publishing the story without police comment.
In other words, how long should a newspaper wait while one side of a controversial issue withholds its side of the story?
The Beacon Journal faces this situation often. Despite determined efforts to contact everyone involved in an issue, sometimes those connections just don’t happen.
When appropriate, publication is delayed until all sides have their say. At some point, however, newspapers must decide whether to go ahead with a story without every side being represented.
Is that an unbalanced story? Absolutely. Would readers be better served with both sides? Again, yes.
Why would a newspaper do that? Because if it chooses to wait — a day, a week, a month — some stories might never get told. One side would always choose to stay silent.
Meanwhile, what does the paper say to the person who claims he was manhandled by police? Sorry, your story can’t be told until the police say it’s OK?
The timetable for this story is clear:
Dec. 8 — James Campbell is stopped by police at Chapel Hill Mall.
Dec. 10 — He files an official complaint against the police.
Dec. 12 — A reporter asks to speak with a police supervisor and is told he is “too busy to talk to you.”
Dec. 13 — The reporter makes requests from three different supervisors, including one in writing, and is told only that an investigation is ongoing.
Dec. 15 — The story appears without police comment.
Dec. 15 — Chief Matulavich hears comments critical of the police department on a local talk radio show and calls the show with comments about the story.
Dec. 17 — Police announce a news conference for Tuesday, Dec. 18, when the investigation report is released.
Readers demand balanced reporting. You also want your stories to be timely. Lastly, you want the media to give voice to people who find no other avenue for complaint.
In his news conference, Matulavich said he could walk up Main Street and find people saying they talk to Martians. His point was that newspapers have a responsibility to check out a person’s story before giving it the credibility it receives upon publication.
He makes a good point.
However, anyone who would answer the Beacon Journal phones for a day would hear all kinds of spurious charges made against neighbors, teachers, bosses and just about every branch of government. Most don’t turn into stories because they aren’t true or can’t be proven.
In this case, both the reporter and her editor say Campbell told a very credible and believable story. The reporter admits, however, that she should have asked for medical proof of the injuries he claimed.
Editors also wonder whether recent stories critical of the police — the Hannah Hill series and the story about a police cruiser crashing into a woman parking her car — may have contributed to their refusal to comment.
If so, neither the public nor Beacon Journal readers were served.
Matulavich railed against the Beacon Journal’s suggestion that police should have commented before the investigation was complete. “We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.”
Turns out, the same thing holds true for the media.
