A clarification…

“Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.”

So says the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics and so shall we do here at the News-Times.

We’ve gotten quite a few angry phone calls this week inquiring as to why we haven’t printed an incident that’s swept through the rumor mill recently with a vengeance.

The fact of the matter is just because we haven’t reported a specific incident does not mean we haven’t made the calls and done the footwork into a possible story. However, when our reporting will hinder an investigation or cause undue harm to the subject or family, we are compelled to treat the incident with great sensitivity.

It’s likely the readers of this blog already understand this and I’m simply preaching to the choir here, but in the hopes that this reaches those outside the regular readership I’d just like to say that we have been and are looking into the incident but are trying to be especially sensitive while doing so.

About Admin

This blog is brought to you by the El Dorado News-Times, the Voice of South Arkansas.
This entry was posted in Between Editions, By Allison Gatlin. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A clarification…

  1. AFM says:

    As a friend to both involved I appreciate your sensitivity to all involved. Yes, rumors have been widespread and no doubt very hurtfull to the family. Again, when the details and results of the thorough investigation are revealed, then maybe a story can appear in print. Thank you all again. AFM

  2. Ana Nimmus says:

    I don’t know anything about that case, but I wonder why you never explained last month how Eric Paul Worth escaped a 16 year sentence in 2008 and so was free to commit the exact same crime?

  3. Admin says:

    It depends on what you mean by “escaped,” Ana. The innocent until proven guilty rule still exists; we can’t assume that he was guilty then just because he is now, no matter how much human nature pushes us to do so.

  4. Ana Nimmus says:

    As I read the documents he was found guilty but appealed, and at best was let loose on a technicality? Doesn’t that backstory deserve reporting again?

  5. Admin says:

    It does and I’ll admit that it’s something I should have included in the original story. The fact will undoubtedly come up in court but I’ll do some background in the meantime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>