Reader comments about a newspaper story show how wildly folks misunderstand how the media works.
The Napa Valley Register has reported that a Napa High School junior varsity softball coach was arrested on suspicion of child molestation. The Register staff has handled the story by the book, with comment from school district officials and an explanation gathered from the Napa Police concerning the allegations and circumstances surrounding the arrest.
It's news. It's public record. The coach hasn't been convicted of a crime.
The newspaper is doing the job the way it is supposed to be done.
As one reader commented, "This is exactly what should be reported in a local newspaper not who stole what from Wal-Mart last night." (Note: The newspaper reports the latter type tale, too. One story on the Register website reports an arrest involving an alleged counterfeit prescription request. How does that impact the community?)
Other readers responded to the coach's arrest and explanation of the charges as if the newspaper staff is doing more than providing information that is already public record.
"This is very dangerous for the paper to do. Even if not guilty, she (the coach) already got convicted by the community," one reader wrote. "In this case, innocent until proven guilty does not apply ..."
The newspaper staff gathered information from the police, then reported it to the community. Is the story of the arrest of a coach for alleged child molestation newsworthy? Seems like it would be in most any town. So, the reader is wrong to state that the newspaper did anything that is "dangerous."
The reader comments about the story and the allegations run wild, border on convicting the coach, and that is where the problem begins.
It is reported that the female coach was arrested after being involved in an ongoing relationship with an underage female athlete.
Readers insisted the school superintendent should've made immediate comment on the arrest. What could Barb Franco possibly have said about the arrest of a JV softball coach? Franco wouldn't have had more information than a reporter initially.
A reader wrote, "I would feel much better knowing the school was taking action ..."
Woa!
The coach hasn't been found guilty of a crime. The school shouldn't be doing anything. No action should've been taken, but readers jump to conclusions.
Almost immediately, a reader made the assumption that the coach was a certificated school district employee. School districts typically hire part-time coaches who aren't otherwise employed by the district. The coach isn't, as it turns out, a teacher.
It would've made it a lot easier for readers to lash out at the district, however, if the case did involve a teacher. So, they conclusion was drawn that a teacher was involved when the story reported no such thing.
The newspaper staff gathered information and reported it. Readers make assumptions and connect assumption to fact to create chaos. That's why the Napa Valley is better off relying on the Register staff for news than it would be with even the most conscientious community member armed only with interest in the case and a computer.
Reader comments don't reflect the work of the newspaper staff. Readers are too quick to judge and pass sentence based on facts the police provides the news staff.
Leave the news-gathering to news professionals.
Remember, always, that reader comments come from anonymous folks who don't know a thing more about the case than what was reported by the news professionals.
(Contact Ted Sillanpaa at tsillanpaa1956@gmail.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment