Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (906)	3/16/2001 3:39:32 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 1397

Re: 3/12/01 - Boston Globe: The risks of using unnamed sources The risks of using unnamed sources By Bob Giles, 3/12/2001 THE TRUE STORY of the Dartmouth College murders may not be known for months, but the risks of relying on unidentified sources are rarely as clearly or tragically demonstrated as they have been in the coverage of the murder of professors Half and Susanne Zantop. The Boston Globe published a front-page story on Feb. 16 saying that investigators believed the killings were crimes of passion resulting from an adulterous love affair involving Half Zantop. The story quoted unnamed law enforcement officials involved in the investigation of the crime. These sources declined to give Globe reporters evidence to substantiate the allegation, refusing to identity the woman they said was involved or how they developed their theory about the relationship. The newspaper and its readers were left to rely on the expectation that the relationship between the reporters and their sources was a trusting one. Following the arrest of two youths in Indiana, the Globe's sources conceded that their theory was not accurate and, in a front-page message to readers, Editor Matt Storin made a forthright statement of regret. The law enforcement officials may believe the information was correct to the best of their knowledge at the time, as the Globe reported. The newspaper may have accepted it in good faith. Still, this episode raises serious questions about the delicate practice of relying on unnamed sources who are willing to share only the sketchiest details, without any public accountability when they are wrong. Journalists need to be particularly wary of the motives of crime investigators who are offering information on the condition of anonymity. Law enforcement officials investigating a murder are under pressure to solve the crime. Their job is to make an arrest. They use information to serve this goal by suggesting they have identified a motive, or by misleading possible suspects, or by giving the impression they are moving toward an arrest, or by simply putting the best public face on the investigation. Sometimes, they confide details anonymously to reporters only to serve these goals. In agreeing to take information without attribution, reporters should not only be very clear about the motives of their sources, but be willing to describe the motives to their readers. Reporters monitoring the work of the law enforcement officials on our behalf should tell us whether the sources are in a position to know, and why. In the case of the three law enforcement officers who spoke to the Globe, did they get the information independent of each other or were they simply sharing the same story? The Globe should have informed its readers whether it attempted to verify the information independently. It was not apparent in the story whether anyone else in authority was asked if the report was true. For example, Globe reporters may have asked Nick Giaccone, the Hanover police chief, to confirm or deny the report of an affair, but that was not clear from the story. Absent that sort of inquiry, it might appear to the reader that the Globe was just passing along a rumor; surely not the kind of journalism for which the newspaper is known. Most surprising was the willingness of Globe editors to run a story in which anonymous sources offered a personal attack on Mr. Zantop; in this case, that he was an adulterer. This violates a basic journalistic standard. Were he still alive, he could at least have defended himself. When journalists agree to take information in exchange for not naming the source, our expectation as readers is that the news is reliable. Part of the bargain is that the newspaper will protect the identity of its sources. This is sacred in journalism. The courts generally have upheld the legality of this practice; and when they haven't, journalists have been willing to go to jail, rather than disclose the identity of an anonymous source. Still, it is fair to ask what happens when the newspaper and its readers have been badly misled? The investigators are public servants, after all. The people of Hanover, N.H., are entitled to know their identities and to have a fuller explanation of their actions. The newspaper made the painfully correct choice to be accountable to its readers. No less should be expected from the three anonymous law enforcement officials. Bob Giles is curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. This story ran on page A11 of the Boston Globe on 3/12/2001. © Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company. boston.com

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (906)	3/22/2001 1:47:11 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1397

Re: 3/20/01 - YDN: Courant corrects Van de Velde stalker story; Paper now says women didn't file harassment complaints Published Tuesday, March 20, 2001 Courant corrects Van de Velde stalker story Paper now says women didn't file harassment complaints BY ANDREW PACIOREK YDN Staff Reporter Okay, so maybe it wasn't all accurate. More than two years after running an article over which James Van de Velde '82 filed a libel lawsuit in January, the Hartford Courant retracted part of its story last Thursday. In the correction, the Courant said it now believes that neither of the two women originally reported to have filed police complaints against Van de Velde actually did so. Van de Velde's attorney, David Grudberg '82, declined to comment on the retraction Monday and would not say what effect it might have on the pending lawsuit. As a matter of law, the retraction would not absolve the Courant of liability if the original statements were in fact libelous. "The general rule is that a retraction does not undo the defamation," Quinnipiac Law School professor William Dunlap said. "But what it might do is reduce damages, by reducing the injury that the plaintiff actually suffered." Nor does the Courant's action imply a weakening of its own case in the lawsuit, although it presumably will prevent the newspaper from claiming truth as a defense. The original article, entitled "From Pillar to Pariah," was a profile of Van de Velde, whom Yale officials named as a police suspect in the December 1998 murder of Suzanne Jovin '99 when they cancelled his classes for the 1999 spring semester. Citing an unnamed source, the Courant reported in the Jan. 13, 1999, article that two female television news reporters had filed complaints against Van de Velde with the New Haven Police Department and that one complained because Van de Velde had harassed her after she ended a "fledgling relationship." Van de Velde filed suit against the newspaper earlier this year, alleging that the article's claims about the reporters were defamatory and "utterly false." In Thursday's correction, the Courant said one of the two women told New Haven police during an interview related to the Jovin investigation that she believed Van de Velde had been spying on her, but did not file a complaint. The other woman complained formally to Branford police that she had been getting hang-up phone calls and speculated that Van de Velde might be responsible, but had no evidence to corroborate her supposition. Courant Managing Editor Cliff Teutsch, who said in January the paper believed the story was accurate, could not be reached for comment Monday. Copyright © 2001 Yale Daily News. All rights reserved. yaledailynews.com