11/17/24
August 30, 2007
Richard Jewell, 1962 - 2007: Hailed as the hero of the Atlanta Olympic bombing, then smeared as a suspect, Jewell's life was never the same after the controversy. When he passed away yesterday at the age of 44, he still had lawsuits pending against several media outlets, including the Atlanta Journal Constitution, linked above.
posted by The_Black_Hand to other at 07:16 AM - 25 comments
I agree bperk. AJC's attempt to justify their position in the lawsuit was tacky beyond belief in an article about this man's death.
posted by BikeNut at 08:53 AM on August 30, 2007
I like the treatment Jewell got from today's New York Times: Richard Jewell, 44, Hero of Atlanta Attack, Dies. The media bears responsibility for joining the headlong rush to declare this guy guilty -- especially the Atlanta Journal-Constitution because of its columnist. It's a crime that this bit of vindication, from one of the biggest papers in the world, is posthumous.
posted by rcade at 09:02 AM on August 30, 2007
Disgusting. It also feels like management had that whole little bit about not settling cooked up well in advance and then just dropped in. As a reporter, I would have told the editor who wanted to add that to fuck off.
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:18 AM on August 30, 2007
The media bears responsibility for joining the headlong rush to declare this guy guilty -- especially the Atlanta Journal-Constitution because of its columnist. I agree that the media and the AJC in particular bear responsibility for this, but whether they should be liable is another matter (and to be honest, I don't know enough about the case to say whether they should be, but I believe the law is generally willing to give the media a wide latitude so long as they are maliciously making stuff up). Still, awful how that was handled and pretty awful how the AJC covered the death. A statement about the fact that the AJC had been sued and that parts of the suit were dismissed while part was still pending would have been sufficient -- the protestations of innocence are unnecessary and in extraordinary poor taste.
posted by holden at 10:32 AM on August 30, 2007
I specifically wanted to post the AJC article, for the reasons posted above. I think they rushed to judgement when they could have waited, and I think they used the man's obit to try and protect and position themselves legally. In retrospect, I suppose I also should have included an obit from a newspaper that isn't still being sued by Jewell, or his estate, or however it works out, just for the sake of balance.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 10:38 AM on August 30, 2007
After he was cleared, Jewell sued the AJC and other media outlets for libel, arguing that their reports defamed him. Several news organizations settled, including NBC and CNN. The Journal-Constitution did not settle. The newspaper has contended that at the time it published its reports Jewell was a suspect, so the articles were accurate. The newspaper also has asserted that it was not reckless or malicious in its reports regarding Jewell. Much of Jewell's case was dismissed last year. One claim, based on reports about a 911 call, is pending trial. However, Jewell's death Wednesday "is not a day to consider lawsuits, rather a day to pay respect," said John Mellott, AJC publisher. What. The. Fuck. That article was flat out terrible.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 10:45 AM on August 30, 2007
As one who nearly lost a job because a reporter (note that I do not use the more dignified term "journalist" here) did not understand the difference between a "sea story" and facts, I have long held the opinion that reporters are the worst kind of snoops, nosy neighbors, and tattletales ever known to man. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution certainly lives down to this assessment. The posted article is easily the most self-serving piece of crap I have read in a long time. The editorial staff and management were wrong at the time, they know they were wrong, but with the worst sort of arrogance, they continue to try to defend their actions with hair-splitting semantics. The only fitting use for the Atlanta rag is to catch the excrement of Michael Vick's dogs. (OK, Howard, but how do you really feel?)
posted by Howard_T at 10:58 AM on August 30, 2007
I've had four experiences with reporters writing stories about someone in my life. In all 3, they turned out to be lying sociopathic scum who twisted everything beyond belief. In fact in the UK, one person I know sold their story to the Sunday Mirror newspaper, got a centre page spread etc... And then never got paid for it. So when people try and hold up newspaper reporters as being the honorable journo's of days of yore, I just laugh. That story is despicable.
posted by Drood at 11:40 AM on August 30, 2007
But would any of you accepted the AJC if they had completely left that little detail out of their obit for Jewell? It seems like there's no winning for losing here. Other than that, there's a bit of Hasty Generalization in tarring the entire media with so broad a brush.
posted by yerfatma at 12:04 PM on August 30, 2007
But would any of you accepted the AJC if they had completely left that little detail out of their obit for Jewell? It seems like there's no winning for losing here. There is a right way to do it here -- they needed to acknowledge the lawsuit (as disclosure of a potential conflict or bias that might color their reporting), but they did not need to state that they believe his suit is without merit. Something along the lines of: After he was cleared, Jewell sued the AJC and other media outlets for libel, arguing that their reports defamed him. Several news organizations settled, including NBC and CNN. Much of Jewell's case against the AJC was dismissed last year. One claim, based on reports about a 911 call, is pending trial. Hell, they could even throw in the "The Journal-Constitution did not settle" line and not come across as so petty.
posted by holden at 12:22 PM on August 30, 2007
I'm with holden on this one. The AJC articles stops just this side of dancing on the man's grave. Good for the NYT to call him a hero, though. He was and deserves to be remembered that way.
posted by Joey Michaels at 02:39 PM on August 30, 2007
Cool. I definitely prefer the NYT's approach, I was just wondering about how better to deal with it.
posted by yerfatma at 02:41 PM on August 30, 2007
This man's live should be memorialized by an epic poem at the least,an old style Hollywood film or even a Grand Opera.
posted by sickleguy at 08:28 AM on August 31, 2007
It has been well known for many years this man was innocent of these charges. And officially known once Rudolph was caught. Yet, sadly, I have to admit, I still remember him as the original suspect. None of these media outlets did much to reaffirm his status as a hero who probably saved many lives that night in downtaown Atlanta. It's a terrible shame he died as young as he did. And kudos to the Times. Hopefully more people will make the transition to seeing him as the hero he was rather than a 'cleared suspect'.
posted by Ricardo at 08:49 AM on August 31, 2007
Hey Drood,why don't you say what you REALLY think.Our press and associated media still,for the most part,tries to get it right.
posted by sickleguy at 11:06 AM on August 31, 2007
Our press and associated media still,for the most part,tries to get it right. sickleguy, please don't take this personally. You have the right to your opinion, and you may very well be correct, but it has been my experience that the print and electronic media have never let truth and accuracy get in the way of boosting circulation or audience. Both translate into higher advertising rates, and that means more money. Why should the media let the truth take money out of its pocket? Newspapers, magazines, TV stations, and radio are not a public service, in spite of the image they might try to convey. They are profit-making businesses, and profit is what (rightly) drives their operation. It has been that way since Gutenberg, and will persist (at least in free societies) as long as people seek the news. I don't think the pursuit of profit is a bad thing, nor do I think that the press needs to be censored (God forbid) in any way. I strongly believe that the public must recognize what drives the press, and exert whatever influence it can.
posted by Howard_T at 11:41 AM on August 31, 2007
I was watching the Royals/Twins game the day the bridge collapsed, and National News broke in with a live report. I don't remeber which talking head it was, but the quote was something like this: "A bridve on I-35 collapsed this evening, sending several cars into the river below. A bus carrying nearly 40 children..." and then there was a pause for drama..."narrowly avoided plunging into the river." Point being, even national news agencies feel the need to create drama. Don't tell me what didn't happen, tell me what happened.
posted by hawkguy at 11:51 AM on August 31, 2007
Newspapers, magazines, TV stations, and radio are not a public service, in spite of the image they might try to convey. I can't speak for newspapers, magazines, or TV, but I know that in every charter awarded to every radio station in America by the FCC, it states quite clearly that the station is there to "serve the public trust." It might not be what you think serving the public trust is, but we still do it. When we play the EAS alert to warn people of impending dangerous weather, we're serving the public trust; when we notify people of traffic jams and accidents, we're serving the public trust; with every charity appearance, every PSA that gets broadcast, well, you get the picture. I do share your views to some extent, but just because the Atlanta Journal Constitution is run by a bunch of doucebags (sorry, Summers Eve), and some reporter tried to destroy your reputation doesn't hide the fact that the media (well, radio anyway) still does a lot of good for Americans, every single day. It does disgust me what some outlets have become, and I worry for the future of mass media as the next generation takes their cues from what they're seeing on TV and hearing on the radio now (I don't worry about newpapers and magazines so much, since nobody seems to read much anymore), but hidden in the political blather, the bullshit, and the pursuit of the almighty dollar, there is still service to the American public, and some of us are proud to be a part of that. No malice, no snark, just me shuffling my two cents around the table.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:00 PM on August 31, 2007
I've had four experiences with reporters writing stories about someone in my life. In all 3, they turned out to be lying sociopathic scum who twisted everything beyond belief. You mean, like accurately counting the number of stories? 4? three? which is it? .
posted by tommybiden at 10:02 PM on August 31, 2007
Exposé!
posted by yerfatma at 12:45 PM on September 01, 2007
TBH just put me in charge of a major newspaper. Sweet. I can promise that no one would be remotely interested in news of any sort if reporters didn't have a flair for drama. If folks did want news minus drama, Jim Lehrer would be in Katie Couric's seat. That said, there is a tendency to over-do things, and TV news has been given enough rope to hang itself. They're tying the knot as we type. Similar to what TBH said, AJC might be a shitty paper -- or they may have made a bad decision in this case, I don't read it enough to know either way -- but as a whole our media aren't as horrible as we like to think. There are definite shortcomings but most of the cliches in this thread are seriously over-cooked. A lot of the problem right now (not so much in TV but in other media) is executives have unrealistic profit expectations. And some of that profit is being recouped at the expense of reporter positions. So reporters are expected to do too many stories at the same time. The result is the stories end up being shit. My hope is that the profitability gets sucked out, the big names jump ship and the mom-and-pop owners come back in to save the day. Also, it's not about reporters trying to increase circulation, that's so 1970. It's about reporters trying to keep their heads above water while their bosses expect more and more out of them. What concerns me is the shift towards blogs to get news. If we rely totally on blogs to give us the news we're all fucked. People already see and hear what they want to see and hear, sadly the interweb makes that worse. We have all this info at our fingertips, but so many of us only want to read what we agree with. So we go to buzzflash.com or newsmax.com and get our news fill. My fear is that no one's going to read a blog that doesn't fit into their political (or other) spectrum, so they only get one sde of the story further convincing themselves how right they are. There are very few blogs that are actually balanced. And I'm not talking about a slight slant to one side or another (like every paper is perceived to have) I'm talking about full-blown bias. I'm preaching to the choir here because most of us are well-informed, but you certainly can think of two or three people you know that fit the above mold. At least reading the paper or listening to a balanced newscast would give them some info from the other side. So save the newspaper, bring back radio news including -- and especially -- on music formats. Renew your subscription to the Atlantic and the Economist, and ... well... CNN and the rest of them can go to hell for all I care. All done. Happy Labor Day.
posted by SummersEve at 12:55 PM on September 01, 2007
TBH, I agree with your assessment of the public service function of at least the electronic media. One could say that a similar function is performed by the print media when they publish notices of public meetings, etc. My real message in taking the media to task is that the general public needs to sift through what they see, hear, and read, and understand that it is presented with an eye toward making money and not with some magnanimous public spirit. The profit motive is not a bad thing. Just recognise it as the driver behind the news media. SummersEve, you may have hit it on the head with your suggestion to avoid the network (and cable) newscasts, throw out most of the local rags, and go with the special interest magazines. I might suggest that the least biased (actually, almost completely unbiased) newspaper I have come across is the Christian Science Monitor in Boston. I check their op-ed stuff on Yahoo daily, and it is good, balanced writing.
posted by Howard_T at 03:31 PM on September 01, 2007
Actually, I have a friend who used to write for the CSM, and I agree with your assesment. A really well done publication, without much of the hysteria or hypocrisy of major news outlets.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:04 AM on September 02, 2007
It's almost cliche, but the media never spends as much time or space for retractions as it does for allegations.
posted by irunfromclones at 02:59 PM on September 04, 2007
The AJC are still full of a bunch of assholes, I see. They use Jewell's death as an opportunity to make their argument.