“Judge: Holocaust museum shooting suspect not fit for court,” reads the CNN headline. The article begins, “The alleged shooter in this month’s deadly attack at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington is not yet…”
But James von Brunn is not “alleged” or “suspected.” He’s the shooter. There’s no doubt. Not a bit. There are questions about why he did it, and what punishment he deserves, but there is no question that he committed the act.
Yet CNN (and other news outlets) refer to him as a “suspect” or “alleged shooter.” What crap.
In some cases, hedging like that makes sense. Sometimes the police are pretty sure they’ve arrested the person, but there is still some doubt. In that case, news outlets are afraid of libel or slander suits if they refer to someone as a killer who is then acquitted.
But that caution only needs to apply when there’s doubt. There’s no libel risk in calling von Brunn the killer.
James von Brunn is the Holocaust Museum killer.
James von Brunn is the Holocaust Museum killer.
James von Brunn is the Holocaust Museum killer.
There. Sue me — if you can prove I’m lying.
No, von Brunn hasn’t been convicted, and in the eyes of the court he’s innocent until proven guilty. But that’s the court. Not the press. The press has taken a specific caution (“If there’s doubt, toss an ‘alleged’ in there) and made it all-encompassing. But guess what, guys: You can call him a killer. He’s not going to sue, because there is no doubt whatsoever. Really. You don’t have to worry about it.
* * *
In contrast, note how the Times of London doesn’t hedge:
James W von Brunn, who was convicted in 1983 for running towards the boardroom of Washington’s Federal Reserve building with a shotgun, entered the Holocaust Museum just before 1pm wearing a Confederate hat, and opened fire “indiscriminately” with a long rifle. Witnesses said that he had parked his red car directly outside, displaying a disabled badge….
Tommy says:
…presumed innocent until proven guilty…
It’s proper American journalism, you know that.
The trend in American journalism, and in our gossip-based culture, it happens all the time now, way too much. To convict before trial is a butt-fuck of our civil rights… even though he *is* the shooter.
The media gets news out faster than ever these days and in some ways that’s really good, but the manner in which news is released can tend to undermine that principle upon which our culture and law system is based.
Biasing the public before a fair trial can be held is not fair; it’s a violation of his civil rights, which he has until that trial’s been held. If he’s got a good lawyer, the media’s behavior could even be what gets him off scott free (although I doubt that will happen).
Not using the term ‘alleged’ is rather Fox-like, don’t you think?
Pardon my French – we had the same French teacher, so you understand…
T