Walking Through the Minefield

Each of the Kristof examples provides an opportunity for a reporter to do great harm by the choice of which information should be made public. The first two examples are fairly easy to negotiate. In the case of the seized chemicals, the link to terrorism is inferred, so presenting the event as a story would be a disservice to the community as well as an injustice to the men being questioned. In the second example, there is obvious manipulation on the part of the "friendly officer" who is providing the information.  A responsible reporter should be wary of taking the bait in a case like this. Again, there is no story beyond the fact that police are still investigating this cold case without a breakthrough.

The third example presents a real dilemma. It is reminiscent of the scandals in the Catholic Church that drew so much attention in the 1990s. Priests under suspicion were moved around without being charged, similar to the way the coach is moving between school districts. If there is such a cover up, students in other districts could be harmed. It is also important to maintain the assumption of innocence for the coach. The real story needs to be established. There could be a cover up, or an innocent man may be suffering unfair persecution in an environment of suspicion. The reporter must sift through the information carefully and present this story with the right amount of sensitivity.