What is 'balanced' coverage?

Frontiersman editorial board

Coverage of the Suzette Welton trial and the hearings concerning the Tammy Barile case has generated some debate and commentary from readers, and cases that are emotional or potentially volatile afford the opportunity to consider the media's role and responsibilities regarding the courts.

While recent attitudes in the media have made the issue seem cloudy, it is actually a simple matter. The media's role is to report. The media's responsibility is to report accurately and fairly. The debate might, and probably should, end there, but for that clouding problem.

In the sometimes ravenous pursuit of higher ratings or increased readership, the tendency of late has been for the media to over cover stories that are not yet fully developed, and thus to risk influencing public opinion -- and perhaps the results. It should be of no surprise that the most sensational aspects of a story are also the ones that get the greatest overplay. As readers and viewers we have come to expect to read and see details that are more sensational than informational … over and over again.

It's easy to defend that sort of behavior by waving the First Amendment around and shouting about the public's "right to know," but is it responsible to overexpose a story simply because it's a slow news day? The danger is that repetition and undue attention to the tawdry can heighten the appearance of significance an event -- or an aspect of an event -- carries.

It's also easy for the media to take sides (puffing out a righteous chest) but still look unbiased. The trick is to choose the "winning" side. In court cases this tendency usually manifests itself as intense negative focus on the defendant -- or accused. It's easy, because the prosecution, by necessity, provides all the most interesting information. In most cases, the defense (again by necessity) prefers to keep information close to the vest and simply try to poke the proverbial hole in the prosecution's theories.

The question is, does that constitute ethical, fair and accurate coverage? It seems the best role for the media to play in its straight news coverage of such events is the role of reporter -- period. While it has become standard to perform public vivisections on the accused, that doesn't make it right. We're so used to seeing it that what may be truly balanced, accurate, coverage is now sometimes seen as defense-slanted. Don't settle for that. The bad news is, we really don't need to peer into every shadow of every accused person. The good news is, most of us don't have to sit on that jury, either. It's our right to know the facts of a case. It's the jury's job to decide what those facts mean.