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?