news-record.com

BLOGS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

The Editor's Log

Where the Nazis meet

We knew the location where the Neo-Nazis met, but we didn't publish it.

As I watched television cover the anti-racism protest downtown, they noted that they didn't know where the Nazi group was meeting. Actually, the location wasn't difficult to pinpoint. Our folks figured it out by listening to police scanner traffic. Reporter Taft Wireback went to the motel, found the group and interviewed the organizer.

When police discovered that we knew the location, they asked us not to publish it for fear that the Nazis and the protesters might re-enact one of the uglier incidents in the city's history.

We don't normally pay much attention to requests to leave information out of stories. We get them with some routine; they're usually motivated by a desire to make the subject look good or shield them from criticism. This was different.

In the discussion I had with editor Eddie Wooten, we focused on two questions: Would the public be served in publishing the location? What was the possibility harm would be caused if we did publish?

Neither of us could come up with any public service value of publishing, but we could guess at harm that could result. We didn't think it likely, given the police presence at the motel, but it was distinctly possible.

So we agreed not to identify the location.

Update: Now that the "threat" is over, I fully expected someone to ask the motel be identified. No one did. In any case, in what I would consider a laugh out loud irony, they stayed at La Quinta.

Permalink
Tags: News judgment, Ethics

Posted by John Robinson on Sunday, August 30, 2009 at 8:37 am

What do you think?

23 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Other Recent Entries

RSS: Subscribe to this blog

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

newkid

August 30, 2009 - 9:34 am EDT

Tough ethical call and I understand your concerns, but a newspaper's job is to report news and the location of the neo-nazi gathering was definitely news. If you applied an equal standard, you also would have excluded the location of the anti-hate protest, or the quotes from specific clergy members about their church-based actions this weekend.

You have stepped onto a slippery slope. Let's hope you can pull yourselves back to the solid ground of reporting the news--good, bad, and ugly as it may be.

SueP

August 30, 2009 - 10:04 am EDT

I disagree with your decision, like I disagree that the home page of the NR site wasn't updated yesterday with info in today's story (that happened yesterday). In this case, I'm not even going to say that I understand your reasons. You left out a salient fact and I'm hard-pressed to find a similar case (excepting victims of sexual crimes). You DO publish the names and often the addresses of crime VICTIMS but you're withholding this location? Sorry, JR. This is the second time this week I disagree with a news decision.

SueP

August 30, 2009 - 10:05 am EDT

But I am pleased (and a bit stunned) that 2 years after we asked for porch delivery for our 30-year-old subscription, it started yesterday.

John Robinson

August 30, 2009 - 2:52 pm EDT

A couple reasons the site wasn't updated. On Saturdays we don't have anyone on site. (It is a low, low traffic day.) We didn't have anyone to do it. The reporter was at various locations reporting, and, as the story states, nothing really was happening that required a news update.

We'd like to have staff operating and updating 23/7. We just don't have the manpower.

John Robinson

August 30, 2009 - 10:04 am EDT

Thanks, newkid. I knew the decision was controversial. Help me understand. I'm open to hearing how the public would have been served in knowing where the Nazis were meeting. In a closed, not open to the public, session. What was the value of knowing?

newkid

August 30, 2009 - 10:14 am EDT

As a newspaper, I don't believe you should be making decisions about what news is in the public interest. That is applying a form of censorship that is not the role of a news media outlet. Reporting news is in the public interest. Period. Report it fairly and without bias and you have done your duty to the public.

One other point: if newspapers used the criteria of not reporting on closed meetings, I shudder to think of the potential consequences.

I appreciate that you've asked for comments. I hope you reconsider the principles that you apply and reevaluate your role of a news organization.

Andrew Brod

August 30, 2009 - 10:10 am EDT

I agree with newkid and Sue. Your job is to report the news.

SueP

August 30, 2009 - 10:57 am EDT

Thanks, Andrew.

JR, it's the slippery slope. What's the NEXT law-enforcement withholding you're going to be asked to do? What's the next decision you have to make about reporting facts? In fact, what PRIOR hold-backs have you omitted from stories? Very slippery. Suggest you get snow-chains now.

John Robinson

August 30, 2009 - 2:49 pm EDT

We turn down more law enforcement requests than we get. I can't remember the last time we omitted information upon law enforcement request.

newkid

August 30, 2009 - 10:15 am EDT

[moved by author]

pixelpusher

August 30, 2009 - 11:41 am EDT

If the N&R would have published the location and there would have been deaths as a result of that revelation, these "you-should-report-the-news types" would be the first ones bashing the decision TO reveal the location.

It was a tough decision. Life is full of 'em. Good job JR.

gsostudent

August 30, 2009 - 11:53 am EDT

Well you would hope that the police would actually do their job this time and keep the Neo-Nazis from killing anyone. Why aren't these armed gangbangers stopped and searched when they come to town and arrested on trumped up charges in order to prevent a perceived threat? The GPD do that to plenty of people of color all day long, but I guess that's unacceptable when it comes to Neo-Nazis?? If people were killed it wouldn't be the N&R fault, it would have been the Neo-Nazis and the GPD's fault- just like thirty years ago.

scharrison

August 30, 2009 - 12:49 pm EDT

I think you did the right thing, John. Media doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the line between reporting events and affecting the outcome of events can get crossed pretty quickly. While I believe we should "shine a light" on dangerous groups like the Nazis and not allow them to fly under the radar, preserving the peace by not encouraging conflict is something we all should aspire to, including (especially?) the media.

I checked out the anti-hate rally for a little while yesterday. My Celtic blood draws me to drums, and those folks were jammin'. One thing I did notice, and it may mean nothing, but...I only saw like one cop anywhere near the protestors. The group itself didn't seem to need any policing, as they were pretty well-behaved, but they didn't have much protection, either. I don't know.

John Robinson

August 30, 2009 - 2:47 pm EDT

Thanks, all.
We leave information out of stories all the time. Because space in the paper is limited, we have to chose information to include and exclude. We base those decisions on what we think has relevance and serve some purpose.

The thing I'm wondering is what purpose the name of the motel would have served. Why is it important to you that you know the name of the place?

newkid

August 30, 2009 - 9:35 pm EDT

I'm sorry you don't seem to get this Journalism 101 concept--YOU BROKE THE PUBLIC TRUST BY CENSORING THE NEWS! Not for "lack of space", but at the request of a government agency acting without judicial sanction. I bet the Washington Post got pressure to censor its coverage of Watergate too.

How was the name of the hotel relevant? Look at your stories in the week leading up to the event, filled with uncertainty and speculation about the location of the event--the very subject that you censored when you found the answer. How is it relevant? A hate group was meeting in a hotel that serves the public and the public has the right to know. And yes, if protesters wanted to confront the neo-nazi group at that location, they had the right to know as well. Would that more people had stood up to the previous incarnation of Nazis in Germany before the second world war!

Sorry John, it's time to take a drive along Edward R. Murrow Boulevard and do some real reflection.

John Robinson

August 31, 2009 - 8:30 am EDT

Comparing this with Watergate or the actions of Murrow is silly. I ask again. What is the purpose of knowing the name of the hotel? How would that have aided your understanding of the story? What would you have done with that information?

newkid

August 31, 2009 - 8:58 am EDT

Neither of your last questions are your concern: just report the darn news. Your lack of understanding about your role as member of the fourth estate is appalling. I can only imagine what other news the N&R is keeping from the public:

--Closed meetings? Well, we won't cover them, after all they're closed meetings.

--The city government wants us to put a lid on a controversial piece of information? Sure, that's probably in the best interests of the public.

--Oh that story is just silly, the public doesn't need that information, it might cause trouble. We'll keep that under wraps.

And yeah, Ed Murrow WOULD be incredulous!

John Robinson

August 31, 2009 - 9:07 am EDT

If you think that it's not a vital role of editors to think about the reaction readers have to what they report, you're mistaken. You're exaggerating to make a point, which I understand, but you're comparing apples and dogs. Now, to your points:
-- We cover closed meetings of government. But private companies and private organizations can legally prevent us from entering. As you can tell, we wrote about what went on at the meeting the best we could without being inside.
-- As I have said other places, we don't pay much attention to requests to withhold information. In this case, we decided the request made sense. And no one has made a strong case to that the information has value to the public other than shouting that it is news.
-- Under your scenario, you would publish troop movements in wartime, right? Murrow didn't.

Dogwood

August 31, 2009 - 2:05 pm EDT

Invoking Edward R. Murrow's name reminds me of his reporting from "somewhere in London". He described the stuka nazi pilot bombings, etc. If the newkid thinks for one minute Murrow described his location or the US troop locations or any thing else he is mistaken.
My question is how dumb does one have to be to not figure out where the neo's booked a 40 seat conference room on a budget. Lazied, want my newspaper to do what I want, folk need to be dumped into Polecat Creek.

Dogwood

August 30, 2009 - 2:53 pm EDT

I saw a lampshade made out of human skin at Daucha. Even thirty years later, the odor of the gas chambers was was not erased. Joe and Taft witnessed skinned heads with tattos of a creed , cheap jewlery and a sickness that no one needed to see. Hopefully the socialists caught piggy flu while together and didn't hurt their backs by the doors slamming into their backsides.

Tony Wilkins

August 30, 2009 - 11:28 pm EDT

John Robinson actually said: "I'm open to hearing how the public would have been served in knowing where the Nazis were meeting."
Since when is your paper interested in "serving" the public instead of informing the public?

Doug Johnson

August 31, 2009 - 5:34 am EDT

Hell has froze over last week, I agree with Doug Clark, today John Robinson.
I can not see what would be served by knowing the location.
Newkid, news outlets withhold news every day.
If you read my post, I complain about it regular.

cloman

August 31, 2009 - 9:39 am EDT

It's not censorship when a newspaper decides what stories to run and what information to include. It's news judgment. Nobody can cover everything going on in a community every day, nor would readers want that.

This decision is much like the one not to run names of sexual assault victims. The information serves no purpose.

I work at the News & Record, and while I had nothing to do with the decision, I know it was not made lightly. And I agree that the potential danger outweighs any benefit to our readers of knowing that location.