Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras

Breaking News:

Subscribe

TEMPLE: Our decisions behind big story

By John Temple, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 7, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated June 7, 2008 at 12:23 a.m.

Text size  

More News Columns & Blogs

More stories »

"Breakthrough in Bronco's murder" read the headline.

Yet if you read all three pages dedicated to the story last Friday, you wouldn't have known the name of the person who provided the newspaper with the evidence implicating an inmate in the shooting of cornerback Darrent Williams.

Unlike with most major news stories, where we attribute critical information to a named person or agency, this blockbuster asked you to rely on the good name and credibility of the Rocky Mountain News.

The use of anonymous sources is a critical issue for American journalism. Today, there's a national debate over whether reporters should be protected from revealing their sources. Colorado law already limits what reporters can be compelled to disclose. But such matters are not always black and white, as this column may reveal.

Although we at the Rocky guard our First Amendment protections fervently, we are also citizens of this community and have obligations and responsibilities as such.

So when reporter Sara Burnett learned of a letter in which gang member Willie Clark was said to have admitted to a notorious murder, she and the newspaper faced an ethical dilemma.

We didn't know whether the letter would prove to be genuine. But if it did, we needed to know how we would treat it and the person who gave it to us.

The source was determined to go public. We felt that he needed to understand that going to a news organization was not enough.

We thought he should go to authorities with his information. If he didn't, we could not guarantee him anonymity. We believed that under Colorado's press shield law, it would be questionable whether we could keep his name secret from authorities who subpoenaed us. We also felt that if he was unwilling to share the information with authorities, it raised questions about the believability of his story. And we knew the best way for him to get the protection he might need was to put him into contact with authorities who could provide it. We believe he's more safe today as a result.

But most important, we felt the right thing for him to do was to help solve a murder, to make clear that Denver isn't a place where people can kill with impunity.

In Colorado, a reporter can't be forced to reveal information in a criminal or civil matter unless it is "directly relevant to a substantial issue" in a case. Clearly, the letter could be. A court must find that the information "cannot be obtained by any other reasonable means" - it almost certainly couldn't have been.

And it must rule that "a strong interest of the party seeking to subpoena the newsperson outweighs" the First Amendment interest of the journalist and of the public "in receiving news information."

Given the gravity of a murder case, we knew that the final question would weigh heavily on a judge, even one sympathetic to press freedom.

The source, a person with a long criminal record, told us he provided the letter to the Rocky because he believed it was the right thing to do and he wanted to bring Williams' family peace. Frankly, others weren't taking him seriously. Or at least he felt that way.

He had called the Broncos organization, which had offered a $100,000 reward in the case and didn't feel he was getting anywhere. And he didn't trust police.

When Sara and Managing Editor Deb Goeken explained to him how we saw things, we were relieved that he wanted to share the letter with authorities. He asked the paper to help arrange a meeting, which I did.

All this didn't mean we were close to publishing anything.

But it did mean we were in a position to report the story thoroughly. We had a clear understanding with our source of the potential ramifications of our work, including the risk he was taking personally and what we could - and couldn't - do to protect him.

In addition to hiring our own handwriting analyst, we took many steps, everything from confirming the source had been in a position to intercept the letter the way he said he had to exploring his background for examples of fraud or fabrication, and testing his handwriting against the letter.

In the end, it was clear that authorities reached the same conclusion we did: The letter was genuine, and the source was credible.

You might ask: Well, why publish anything? Why not just let the police do their work?

The answer is that our job is to share important information with the public, not to wait for authorities to tell us what to report and when.

It's probable that this information would never have come to light unless the source felt he could speak to a reporter. That is one of the benefits of an independent press.

That is why it's so important that there be protections for the press against prosecutors and civil litigants trying to use reporters as an arm of the law or a weapon against a foe.

Sara's story is testament to what a single intrepid reporter can accomplish, both for her newspaper and for her community.

John Temple can be reached at editor@RockyMountainNews.com or by mail at 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202.

Comments

  • June 7, 2008

    12:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    samsmargolis writes:

    "So when reporter Sara Burnett learned of a letter in which gang member Willie Clark was said to have admitted to a notorious murder, she and the newspaper faced an ethical dilemma." Not really. Doing the right thing is never an ethical dilemma. So, kudos to the RMN for getting the letters to the police. Swift kick in the butt to the RMN for publishing them WHILE THE GRAND JURY IS STILL SEATED!

    "Although we at the Rocky guard our First Amendment protections fervently, we are also citizens of this community and have obligations and responsibilities as such." Gotta give you a failing grade here, John. Even low-life cons can make simple connections (one con working in library plus one story tying a con to providing the letters = snitch. One con that used to work in the library has been recently moved so...guess who snitched?), so you neither protected the identity of the source nor did you act as responsible community members by publishing what may be critical evidence while the grand jury is in session.

    "...our job is to share important information with the public, not to wait for authorities to tell us what to report and when." Because, although you don't mention this, I'm betting the police and prosecutors asked you to hold the information. I can't imagine a rational world where the police and prosecution blessed your release of this information - would that be about right, John?

  • June 12, 2008

    3:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    samsmargolis writes:

    John....?

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints