Jeff,
Well certainly, if I hear something negative about a person, I tend to treat that person with caution until I learn otherwise. But I know that there are bad people out there, and I need to be safe.
That being said, it's a heck of a lot different than the authorities or the government treating such a person as guilty. I'm not saying that they can't have "persons of interest" and even "suspects", and use whatever investigative powers that they have been granted, but surely they can do their investigation without ruining people's lives.
The SEC does it all the time - they investigate companies and refuse to say if a company is the subject of an investigation. Once they have sufficient evidence to initiate a proceeding, then they publicize it like crazy. Why can't citizens expect the same presumption of innocence as companies?
It may be turn out that the people we are talking about are both guilty as hell, regardless of my personal opinions, but, surely the state should have evidence before they start leaking information about people to the press. It smells like a cheap smear job.
As much as we like to say we are a nation of people founded on the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty, in reality, for whatever reason, we tend to assume the opposite... unless given sufficient reason to think otherwise.
I agree that the media has a big part to play in this. They are lazy and don't like to do real work. Since they are largely shareholder-owned conglomerates, they cut costs ruthlessly. It's a lot cheaper to create news, than go out and dig it up.
While I don't often get a chance to watch television, I happened to be living in a hotel on business for a few months last summer, and had a chance to watch CNN's coverage of Gary Condit. Personally, I think that he could have handled things better, and I think that the CA voters were right not to re-elect him.
That being said, I also think that CNN treated him in an extremly unfair manner. There was one commentator (a former prosecutor at that) that almost accused him of being a murderer on several occasions - and that was months before the unfortunate victim's body was found. Furthermore, it did nothing to further the investigation, since the focus was on the sensational aspect of the case (i.e., sex with a congressman). In the end it appears that he quite likely had nothing to do with her disappearance.
I think that these kinds of leaks and the resulting sensational coverage can severely hinder investigations, and will ultimately lead to people being less likely to cooperate with the police.
Suppose that someone who lived in my apartment building went missing, and that the police wanted to have a look around my suite. Would it be a good idea to let them in?
Regards,
John Sladek |
