Uh, libel problems anyone?

Forever_Town is right in that it is a bad headline that breaks the basic rules of how to deal with a crime story without using sloppy language to wrongfully accuse someone.

But, as an editor I once worked for used to say "Murderers don't sue for libel!" He liked to play fast and loose with the headlines, and I'm not sure he'd ever seen a man get arrested who surely wasn't guilty of something, but that's another story.

There's a grain of truth there. As long as you're right, you're fine.

I spent most of my career writing about crime. A few basic things in this thread should be cleared up.

SF_Express used the example "Man arrested for possessing drugs" as not cutting it for its blandness. Actually, it doesn't cut it because it is libelous if the man didn't possess drugs. The sentence construction doesn't leave room for lack of guilt. "Arrested for" should always be avoided. "Arrested on charges of" or something to that effect is always better for CYA purposes. I have seen "arrested for" a lot more in recent years -- particularly on web site headlines -- but just cause other people are using it, doesn't make it correct.

21's examples of "alleged" use are also dangerous. You really should never call someone a rapist, murderer or kidnapper before a conviction. If you wait until after conviction, you don't need the alleged. Beforehand, you need to say someone is accused of rape, charged with murder, suspected of kidnapping, or the like without calling them a rapist, murderer or kidnapper.

Calling someone an "alleged murderer" offers you no protection because one definition of "alleged" is that it is "asserted to be true." So you've just said, it is asserted to be true that he is a murderer. Whoops.

You can always write in a way that makes it clear someone has been accused without using "alleged."

Big Ragu, you're absolutely right, but a headline alone can still be libelous on its own -- even if the story clears up the libelous material. So it's important to be on the straight and narrow with your headline too.

 

Actually, FS, I meant it with regard to the latter.

 

My bad dude. Clearly I misunderstood your intent.

 

Well, then, I'm going to sue you for ... something. Give me a minute.

 

I'm not sure being an idiot is actionable. If so, I'm in big trouble ...

 

Absolutely correct....I guess it's a good thing I don't cover crime or write headlines.

I was just making the case (badly, it seems) that some crimes/charges are disputable, thus the need for 'alleged', while a man with a gun is by definition a gunman. Although maybe not, who the hell knows.

 

Down here deep in the hearta' we've had a rash of convicts freed because of exculpating DNA evidence. Does this put newspapers in play?

 

I spoke with a lawyer a couple months back who specializes in media law. He cautioned me that even the use of the word "alleged" or anything close to it can still keep one in play for a libel suit. His example was that if someone is called an "alleged terrorist" by the media, even if the guy isn't a terrorist, even the use of the word "alleged" couldn't soften a connotation that to many is so harmful the victim could still feel repercussions.

 

Doubt it; no negligence on the newspapers' part. They reported the official results of legal proceedings. Not a problem, I don't think.

 

If "you can sue the bishop of Boston for bastardy", frantic, all of us are in trouble.

 

Lack the "voice of God" attribution (see AJC and early Olympic bomb coverage) there is nothing in the hed that is actionable, except of course for a frivolous lawsuit.

I'm not losing any sleep.

As pointed out earlier, "alleged" or any of its feckless cousins are not any protection.

 

Several years ago I was perusing the Internet at home one night and happened to click on our site. A huge Breaking News banner was at the top of the home page.

Serial killer arrested.

I called the office and suggested someone might think about changing it.