The media is constantly criticized. There are those who contend that there is a pervasive liberal bias, others who believe that the media has no heart, and still others who decry the increasing "sleaze" factor in network programming, including the news. The intention in this report is to think about ethics in the media in relationship to the Richard Jewell case.
In an article first written and published over 40 years ago, Jessica Mitford (1979) denounced the practice of trial by headline, which she noted was increasingly the practice in newspapers. According to her, the media was irresponsible when it essentially tried a subject in the newspaper. She believed that the press needed to take strong action to police itself, or that the public would demand protections through legislation and court action. What is interesting about this article, besides her conclusion, is that it described a situation very similar to that of Richard Jewell. A suspect was identified by the police and the media essentially concluded that he was guilty. However, eventually another person admitted to the crime under consideration and the police eliminated the first suspect from consideration. A couple of the questions that Mitford asked about that case sound familiar, and are applicable to the Richard Jewell case. She asked: "Should police be permitted, prior to indictment and trial, to feed the press step by step details of their work?" and "Should the scramble for headlines, in turn, be permitted to build up such pressure on police to produce that careful, dispassionate, scientific investigation of the facts becomes a near impossibility?" These could easily be applied to the FBI and the Richard Jewell case.
In the Richard Jewell case, the media performed a role that Goldstein (1985) called "shaping" the news, rather than reporting the news. Because of the high profile of both Jewell and the Atlanta bombing case, the media determined that the c...