You don’t have to be a member of the media to have a voice that carries deep into the public realm.
In our neck of the woods, all you need are a few strokes of the keyboard on Flin Flon Post It.
Post It, for the uninformed, is a Facebook page that encompasses everything from rants about the medical system to that-has-got-to-be-libelous accusations against fellow citizens.
The advent of Post It has prompted some Reminder readers to ask me about the media’s rule on naming names. When someone is accused of a crime, or even a non-criminal misdeed, how do reporters and editors decide whether to identify them?
Post It doesn’t appear to have any standards in this regard. Nor does Facebook as a whole. “Accuse away,” seems to be the mantra, because why bother with all that troublesome innocent until proven guilty stuff?
For the media, printing names is always fair game provided someone has a) been convicted of a crime and b) is not subject to a publication ban meant to protect the victims.
But what about those who have been charged with a crime but whose guilt has not been proven by judge and jury? In those cases, standards vary from publication to publication or website to website, Facebook notwithstanding.
Often media outlets simply follow the RCMP’s lead. If the Mounties issue a news release that identifies an alleged cocaine dealer as John Smith, then Smith’s name will be printed. If the RCMP refer to Smith only as a “43-year-old male from Flin Flon,” then that’s what the media will print, too.
Problematic
It’s a problematic system because it’s so haphazard. I respect the RCMP and their difficult job, but I have never understood their policy around naming accused criminals in news
releases.
Over the years, I have seen RCMP releases that identified people accused of owning one lonely marijuana plant; and others that withheld the names of folks arrested for peddling cocaine. Shouldn’t cocaine be the bigger concern?
The perils of printing names without a courtroom conviction have been starkly illustrated right here in northern Manitoba.
Geraldine Cockerill, then and still the mayor of Leaf Rapids, was arrested in 2012 on 28 counts of fraud, forgery and mail theft.
The media didn’t have to dig through police reports or court documents to find out about Cockerill’s calamity, as the RCMP promptly named her in a release.
Not surprisingly, reporters gleefully bequeathed ink and web space to a story that fit in nicely with their familiar “politicians are crooked” narrative.
Trouble was, the RCMP’s case against Cockerill rested on a weak foundation. This past June, she was cleared of all charges in court. The RCMP, as far as the law is concerned, got it wrong – 28 times.
The Mounties, who were so quick to disseminate Cockerill’s name when she was accused, weren’t required to issue a release declaring her innocence. I think they should have been.
When it comes to crime, naming names is serious business. Sure, it may be natural human curiosity to wonder “who done the deed,” or at least who is purported to have.
But aside from major crimes such as homicide, I would much rather see that petty nosiness go malnourished than watch innocent people like Geraldine Cockerill have their names dragged through the mud of media reports or Facebook posts.
After all, the next Geraldine Cockerill could be your wife or mother, your father or husband. And yes, it could even be you.
Local Angle runs Fridays.
