Journalists often must find a way to convey unpleasant, sometimes very disturbing, information, providing an accurate account of what has happened while trying to avoid causing unnecessary pain in the process.
That proved a monumental task this past week in relating the disintegration of the Randall family of Altamonte Springs.
Beginning with a weekend fisherman’s discovery of 4-year-old Regal Randall floating in a Maitland pond and culminating in a suicidal car crash in Lake Mary, the events left a father and two children dead, two more children fighting for their lives and family secrets humiliatingly exposed.
The events also left a team of journalists racing against deadline to explain the tragedy without further victimizing those who already were victims. And surely every member of the Randall family became a victim when husband and father, Bryan, chose to kill himself and his children.
Reporters soon uncovered damning information about the couple — some germane, some not — involving financial difficulties, marital infidelity and sexual coercion. The question soon became: How much of this belongs in the newspaper?
Several editors — including the top newsroom managers — huddled, discussed, debated and decided to report only the details that bore directly on Bryan Randall’s rage and decision to destroy his family. Still, it was lurid, and that level of very personal information disturbed some readers.
“Please, please, PLEASE stop including deeply personal details of Lisa Randall’s marriage and sex life in your articles,” an electronic-mail message that bore the name Lorie Thebaut implored the Sentinel. “. . . This woman will be carrying guilt and torment with her for the rest of her life. You have just added further humiliation.”
That, of course, is exactly what the editors had tried diligently to avoid — and, having seen the choices they made, I think they succeeded, with two exceptions:
* The coercion the articles described differed little from what most people would regard as sexual assault — victims of which the Sentinel does not ordinarily identify. Because there really was no way to avoid identifying the victim in this case, details of that coercion should have been less explicit.
* Because two of the Randall children remain to endure the emotional pain of their father’s fatal unraveling, the Sentinel should have thought twice about reporting an educator’s invasive comment about the family’s financial plight.
In an overall sense, though, Sentinel reporters and editors handled a very difficult case well. They gathered relevant information quickly; they conferred with one another rather than trying to make difficult decisions on their own; and they showed compassion for the victims.
That’s the essence of ethical journalism: reporting the truth as fully and accurately as possible while minimizing harm.
Journalists will go back and see things they might have done differently in this case, just as I will with this column. One thing we all wish was different is that this nightmare had never occurred.
