Most people do not understand that the “rights” enumerated in the “Bill of Rights” are coequal. One does not outweigh the other. The Bill of Rights doesn’t confer rights on the people. It limits government intrusion into the rights the people already have, endowed by their creator. This calls for a balancing act.
The MSM would have people believe that their “right” to inform the public trumps everything else. As a practical matter, with modern communications the effort to be the “firstest with the mostest,” results in misinforming the public.
When the reporting of the news was limited to newspapers hours or days might pass between the event and the reporting. This time allowed reporters to investigate and produce a more informed narrative. With the advent of TV news reporters are part of the story. Their reports are confined to the narrow focus of the camera lens. Oftentimes the initial story and the event observed after the passage of time bear no resemblance to one another.
When the event involves criminal activity, then other aspects of the “Bill of Rights” come into play. A defendant has a right to remain silent, be represented by an attorney and get a fair trial. Ah, you say, those things apply to the government, not the press!
Here is a hypothetical. The police arrest a suspect for a heinous crime. He invokes his rights and refuses to talk to police and requests a lawyer. Police terminate the interview and transfer him to the county jail. The transfer entails a “perp walk.” Although the transfer takes place in a secure area, not accessible to the public, the MSM is there. Intrepid reporters thrust cameras and microphones in the suspect’s face and shout questions at him.
The suspect is torn. He invoked his right to remain silent. On the other hand, this press feeding frenzy represents his one shot at the fifteen minutes of fame, that Andy Warhol promised. His mama will get to see him on TV! He makes statements implicating himself in the crime. Those statements are captured on tape and played on the six o’clock news. The District Attorney subpoenas the tapes of the newscast.
Had the police solicited the statements from the suspect, chances are the statements would have been suppressed. What about the press? They were granted access to a place not available to the public. The press continued an interview after the suspect clearly indicated he didn’t want to talk. In this case is the media an agent of the government?
How come the press gets to make up its own rules?
In this scenario the statements made to the press are probably admissible at trial. The defendant can move for a change of venue, that is have the trial moved to another city. This seems equitable. The state incurs additional costs, the public is titillated for thirty seconds and the TV news gets market share and increases their profit margin.
The reality is news is entertainment. The effort is not to inform but to cause the reader to buy the newspaper or sit through the commercials so that the true goal of the media can be fulfilled, selling stuff. Without the ads for toilet paper and tampons there would be no news.
Unfortunately, law enforcement has fallen victim to Andy Warhol’s pronouncement and is just as anxious to grab their fifteen minutes of fame. In that respect, law enforcement is complicit. There is a mechanism to protect the interests of everybody involved in a fast breaking news story, it is called investigative work product.
Law enforcement has no obligation to share with the press the process or results of an active investigation. This is not about keeping secrets. It is about conducting a fair and impartial investigation.
This may be the only time I have ever agreed with a left wing radical.
Abbie Hoffman, Chicago Seven