 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
July 2009
Categories
Posts |
Many of you have asked why we showed the photo of the suspect in the serial rape case. Police have inferred that it was illegal for us to show it. Some wonder if by showing it the case against the suspect has been ruined. These are all good questions, and you deserve answers... Why use it? We showed the picture because it's news. Anthony Dias is accused of a series of horrible crimes. People want to see what he looks like. If you have ever watched a newscast or read a newspaper you've seen photos like that thousands of times. It's not unusual to show people accused of crimes. In fact, police routinely ask us to show these pictures hoping the publicity will encourage more victims to come forward. We showed the picture of Dias just as we have shown crime suspects thousands of other times — because it's news. Was it illegal? It was not illegal for KING to obtain or show the photograph. There is a question whether the source of that picture may have illegally released it, but it was in no way illegal or improper for KING to use it. When investigators requested that KING stop airing it because they wanted to use it in a photo line-up with one of the victims, we agreed to cooperate. The next day, that line-up happened and the photo was released. Is the case in jeopardy? Any of you reading this have watched enough CSI, Law & Order, Cops, NYPD Blue, and Dragnet to know that police detectives need a whole lot more evidence than an old mug shot — a lot more. The detectives in the case against Anthony Dias have indicated that in addition to strong witness testimony, they have impressive forensic evidence including DNA. The case is NOT in jeopardy. Police are upset that someone released the photo — not because their case was dependent on keeping that photo under wraps. 5 Comments |
I would like to ask you to not be as explicit when reporting on rape cases as in the recent trial of the accused gynecologist. I had to turn off the TV many times during the last couple of weeks as I do not want my children exposed to detailed descriptions of sexual assault during dinner preparation time. I am not sure what the viewers gained from listening to these womens explantions. Wouldn't it have sufficed to report that he was accused (which would warn other women and help other victims to come forward), and then that he was convicted, without the details. Don't you think that your viewers are disgusted enough and have enough fantasy to know how horrible it would be for a women on the examining table to be taken advantage off like that?
Hey Pat,
Will you keep that policy in place for lesser crimes as well. You know, minor stuff, like one of your on-air talents trying to run down a parking lot attendant at the Apple Cup this morning?
http://www.livejournal.com/community/seattle/3105291.html?nc=3
Names haven't been named... yet. Why don't you break the story, bet it would be a lot less embarassing.
While I do not disagree that King5 had the right to use the photograph I wonder where the guidelines for using material are drawn. The ideas that if it is news it should be shown is ridiculous. There are many newsworthy items that are not shown for various reasons. (beheadings of captured people in Iraq come to mind) Obviously those killings were newsworthy but King5 showed good judgement in not showing them. I would like to see the guidelines, if there are any, posted so we could better understand the considerations for showing pictures, videos, or any other newsworthy items.
Finally, while your acquisition is not illegal the person working within the department violated law or regulation I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Depending on the law or regulation they might have violated they should receive a consequence.
Most of what is displayed on the news is subjective anyway as to why it was placed there. There is really nothing significant about you showing the picture as opposed to any other event.
You often bolt-out the faces of criminal but are you afraid some respectifull citizen will recognise the offender?
coupon civilizing christens grumbles honeysuckle Patsy ruffian Columbus