×

Don’t believe all you read

Alex Eggleston

Minot

I understand that the public should be made aware of local criminal activity going on in the region, and I think that since we live in a relatively small community, many people may find these stories fascinating to read, and then talk about.

However, I feel that in many instances this is done improperly.

The word “allegedly” doesn’t have much meaning in a crime section story. This is because readers see it every day in the paper. From and initial appearance, to a sometimes eventual trial. “According to court documents” is broad and misleading. I believe most casual readers would regard it as authoritative and decisive. By far, the most referenced “court document” is the affidavit of probable cause. This is a story written by a police officer who is sometimes already writing second-hand information. It gets read and interpreted in court, then reported by the news.

In contrast, I don’t believe I’ve seen a journalist in town request a short interview of an accused person.

It troubles me that media outlets in this country enjoy the right to a free press without government censorship, and instead choose to do the opposite by pertetuating a government narrative and running it as a story without much journalism going in.

Public perception is real, and really powerful. People tend to trust their choice of news, so if they read a sensationalized headline, they remember it.

I believe stories that may seriously affect people’s lives and futures should be handled with a bit more care. I mean – would you expect a fair trial of your peers, if journalists were selling shock at your expense?

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today