Ethics in Journalism - Article 1

Issue 1 - Two Sides to a Story
Click on this link for the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/24/bank.hoax.indictment/index.html

The story here concerns a New Mexico man who has allegedly sent threatening letters to Chase bank offices and other governmental regulatory offices. He has been in federal custody since February 2nd and was indicted on Tuesday, Feb. 24th, 2009.

Journalism is primarily concerned with facts and making sure to verify the accuracy and fairness of the story. According to the SPJ, journalists should consider "diligently seek(ing) out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing". Some articles may not always have an opposing side to the story, but many times there are notes within the story that state the efforts that were made to obtain the other side of the story. In this particular case, the article does not seem to have any quotes from either the man indicted, or even his lawyer(s), family, friends, etc. There is no one to speak on behalf of the man who has been accused of sending threatening letters. Much of the story refers to the official indictment, which only speaks of what it "alleges" Goyette did, making sure to use his name several times instead of referring only to the document itself, and ends with the possible consequences Richard Goyette is facing.

This seems to indicate that the man has no other side, which brings many questions to mind. Were efforts made to contact the accused? How was the case investigated? What other information is there that might indicate it was not Goyette? The article uses sources that are obviously not in favor of Goyette, including the U.S. Attorney James Jacks and the official indictment. One phrase that caught my eye in particular: "Government documents cite an e-mail in which Goyette allegedly said he would "pursue any path to get the return of my investment."" This puts a real personal touch to the information - stating Goyette "allegedly said", and using "he" instead of just referring to the information in the e-mail. There might be better ways to phrase the last statement that could get the point across without making it seem as if Goyette himself did indeed write these things. Assuming we're still based on a system that presumes "innocent until proven guilty", this could potentially influence the reader to presume that Goyette is indeed guilty. As a reader, I would like to know what his position might be - and if no information can be gathered regarding his position, I'd like to know what efforts were made to contact reliable sources that could provide more information on the case itself. If a man is indicted, he's going to have some sort of position on what he has been accused of, and so will his lawyer(s), loved ones, etc.