What media knows and ethical and legal responsibility

You didn't answer the question. Are you saying the newspaper has less responsibility than a normal person would? Or that a normal person has no responsibility to alert the police either?

 

If you haven't read the paper's explanation of why they didn't run the story, you should.

This is different from Paterno/McQueary.

No one saw anything. Some guy said something.

I do not see a responsibility on the part of the paper at all.

 

This is not a comment at all on the credibility of the Syracuse accusers/victims:

But I think some people forget that all media outlets are regularly solicited by "Hey, do I have a story for you!" lone nuts with an agenda. Then, when it's crunch time, they can't provide the proof or corroboration to back up their wild claims. Most of these "stories" are not worth pursuing.

I don't know how much effort ESPN or the Post-Standard put into pursuing Bobby Davis' claims in 2003. Doria's explanation makes it seem like they actually did try to confirm that it was Laurie Fine (although I don't believe his excuse that they couldn't get her voice. Tell a PA to pick up the damn phone and call Fine's home when the Orange are on the road.)

But these types of claims are easy to dismiss, especially if no corroboration can quickly be found. ESPN has more resources than just about any other outlet, but even their reporters can't waste their time pursuing every crazy story (let alone reporting those claims to the police.) That's just not realistic.

 

Bit confused by this part of the comment. It seems like it'd be easier to report things to police than pursuing them yourself. Here, for instance, ESPN could have turned over the tape once it decided it wasn't pursuing the story. That doesn't seem like all that much of a burden.

 

There isn't a reporter in the world who would call up a shift commander and say, "Yeah, this kook's story doesn't check out, but we're going to pass his tip along so you can waste your time on it instead."

Do that once and everybody might have a good laugh about it. Do that twice and the cops will never take you seriously again. It's disrespectful among professionals.

Reporters at all levels hear hundreds of unsubstantiated rumors about illegal activity going on by people in power, especially from people with an axe to grind. They can't report all those tips to the cops or turn over all the "evidence" they receive. That's unrealistic.

 

Ah, OK, I misinterpreted what you were getting at. But you're also creating a bit of a strawman to avoid the crux of the initial post's question(s). Did the possession of this particular tape give rise to some moral responsibility? And is that point higher than it would be for a normal citizen? In your "kooks" hypothetical, most non-journalists wouldn't bring that information to the police either.

 

Just in terms of a timeline, Davis went to the Syracuse PD and they declined to prosecute because the statute of limitations had expired. Davis recorded the tape after the police turned him away. Then he told his story to ESPN and the Post in 2003, giving them the tape. In 2005 Syracuse U. did an internal investigation, but Davis did not turn the tape over to them.

As far as those media entities knew, authorities were being made aware of allegations at the same time they were learning of it. I can't speak to this, but I would imagine they could assume Davis was making the same material available to all.

The authorities those media could have alerted were already being contacted by Davis himself.

 

I keep hearing this. It makes it sound like he withheld it.

Do we know if they spoke to him? Do we know if they asked him for any and all evidence he had?

Or, did they just try to sweep it under the rug?

 

:

You sure seem to like to read people's minds on this board. If you don't think we're sincere here, you don't have to engage in conversation.

This is much different from the Sandusky shower incident where someone actually witnessed a sexual assault taking place, and did not report it. When a potential crime victim, especially an adult, comes forward on his own to tell you -- assuming you're not some kind of personal confidant, or someone with a prior relationship to the potential victim -- a story about alleged crimes that are many years old ... I think it's reasonable to assume that person has the wherewithal to contact the proper authorities, as well.

If you, as a human being, can reasonably judge the potential victim to be in any danger or at risk somehow to the point where s/he might feel unsafe or physically/psychologically/emotionally unable to report the crime to the proper authorities for whatever reason, then yes, you almost certainly would have a moral obligation to report the crimes yourself.

But I don't see any reason to believe that Davis would not or could not report the crimes to the authorities himself. And, clearly, we know he did do that. (And ESPN/The Post-Standard may have known that, too. In which case, they'd have even less of a moral obligation to make a second independent report on top of the one that's already been made.)

 

"Hey, lieutenant, we may have a tape over here of a wife maybe trying to get even with her husband. Not sure. And we're not sure if it's been edited or not, or if it's even her, because now she says it was recorded without her knowledge and stitched together out of other conversations. And none of the principals will comment on it or corroborate it. Shall I send it over?"

 

Here's what the Post-Standard says.

blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2011/11/why_the_post-standard_didnt_gi.html