When someone gives testimony in court, they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This oath that they take is a promise not to withhold any information, even if it might be damaging to their side of the trial. As members of the media, are we responsible to uphold to the same standard? While we might not always be dealing with life or death situations, are we not expected to share the facts, as we know them?
At first glance the obvious answer would be, of course, but what if we learn secret information that has the potential to be extremely damaging to the good of society? Do we still share it? A secret is “something that is kept or meant to be kept unknown or unseen by others” for a reason. We all have our secrets. The reason we keep them secret is we believe that some damage could be caused if this information were to leak. I strongly believe that there is certain information that is meant to be kept a secret. Can you imagine how different the outcome would have been if the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden had been released? I believe that if everyone used common sense, they could determine what information is appropriate to release and what secrets should be kept just that- secrets.
An example of this type of situation in recent history was releasing the name of the woman who turned James “Whitey” Bulger in to the police. Whitey is a notorious Boston gangster who was wanted for 19 murders and was atop the FBI’s most wanted list. While I am not to sure of his fame outside of the Boston area, growing up in town everyone knew the name James “Whitey” Bulger. On June 22, 2011, after having been in hiding for 16 years, a tip from a woman in Iceland led the FBI to his house in Santa Monica, California. The 81-year-old Bulger and his longtime girlfriend Catherine Greig, were arrested and brought back to Massachusetts to finally be tried for their crimes.
Once the excitement of capturing Whitey diminished, everyone wanted to know who is was that turned him in. An anonymous tip from Iceland? Well, it turns out that former Miss Iceland and actress, Anna Bjornsdottir had been their neighbor in California and recognized them on a PSA that the FBI had released.
Was it wise though for The Boston Globe to release her name or should she have been kept anonymous? I would have to say probably not. I think that for her safety, this information should have been kept a secret. Even if Whitey is in jail, he still has his connections all throughout Boston and most likely, various parts of the world. I am sure that if Whitey wanted this woman dead, he would have no problem finding someone to do it. Because The Boston Globe released the secret identity of the tipster, this woman’s life could now be in serious danger. I also feel that the release of her name now compromises future tips from the public for fear that their name will not remain anonymous as well.
In an article from The Boston Globe, Jennifer Peter, the Globe’s deputy managing editor for local news, said, ““A great deal of thought and discussion went into the decision to name the tipster …it seemed imperative to give as accurate and full an accounting as we could.’’ Shelley Murphy and Maria Cramer were the reports that released Bjornsdottir’s information, (who I believe still work for the paper). Murphy claims to have told FBI that she planned on releasing the information and that they raised no concern. However, in the same article quotes the FBI as saying:
“In defending against public criticism about the decision to publish the name of the alleged tipster, reporters and editors from the [Globe] attempted to justify it by stating the FBI did not raise any objections in advance. That explanation suggested the FBI was culpable for the publishing of this information. To the contrary, the FBI’s silence on these inquiries should not be seen as acquiescence to that editorial decision. Had the FBI responded one way or the other, the effect would have been to confirm or deny the identity of one of the tipsters.’’
Personally, I do not agree with The Globes decision to release this information. I think that when push comes to shove, the line to determine if secret information is to be shared or not needs to be based on content. As members of the media we are bound to get caught up in some form of a secret but we must determine what information is actually beneficial to release. I believe that sometimes it is best to tell a white lie or omit some information if it will prevent harm and it best for the general public.
There was no evidence of a public's need to know the identity. The motivation behind The Globe's decision was clearly based on the public wanting to know. They were appealing to sensation that as you perfectly stated this man is an expert criminal. He has nothing to lose by trying to get outside forces to kill Anna Bjornsdottir.
ReplyDeleteWhat's even more shocking is how calculating Jenifer Peter justified her reckless abuse of information. Implicating the FBI silence for the release. So to Peter, Murphy and Cramer,I would suggest investing in a dictionary. The FBI is not a newspaper.
Great Post!