|
Editor’s Note: On May
30, 2004, the Wilmington Star-News ran a
story examining admission standards at University
of North Carolina, focusing on student John Brian
Peck who had a criminal record and was reportedly
harassing and stalking his former girlfriend, Christen
Naujoks. Later that week, Peck shot and killed Naujoks
— then fled. He died a few days later after
apparently shooting himself during a confrontation
with police. The case sparked debate over the media's
reporting of domestic violence (see Editor
& Publisher). Here, Cathy Bullock, a communications
educator and researcher, offers her perspective.
As I’ve thought about the Star-News
and John B. Peck’s murder of Christen Naujoks,
I keep coming back to advice newspaperman Ron Thornburg
gives my introductory media class. When faced with
an ethics decision at the Standard-Examiner
in Ogden, Utah, Thornburg tells students, he starts
by finding out all the facts he can.
In the Peck case, that means more than understanding
the ins and outs of the University’s admissions
policies, the context for Peck’s criminal convictions,
and the reasons why Peck’s Naujok’s mother
didn’t want names used in the article. For those
covering domestic violence-related stories, like the
Peck case, it also means understanding domestic violence
and its patterns.
I don’t know what discussions took place among
Star-News reporters and editors before the
May 30 article ran, and I pass no judgment on their
news decisions. In the days since Peck killed his
ex-girlfriend, the newspaper has shed light on the
circumstances of Peck’s earlier convictions
as well as on the strengths and shortcomings of restraining
orders — important information that helps readers
make sense of the disturbing events.
However, there seems to be something lacking in newspaper
coverage in general when it comes to domestic violence
fatalities. I’ve studied coverage of such cases
by newspapers in Washington state and Utah. While
there were exceptions in both states, the coverage
tended to present common misconceptions about domestic
violence.
I suspect this is due in part to the time and other
constraints of newspaper work. However, I still wonder
how well reporters and editors understand the social
ill they’re writing about. If they don’t
understand domestic violence — what it is, the
characteristics that set it apart from other forms
of interpersonal violence, its patterns — they’re
not bringing all the relevant facts to bear when they’re
faced with questions about how to handle the coverage
(see, for instance, Restraining
Order Issue).
For example, it’s worth knowing that experts
believe domestic violence is about the abuser’s
need to dominate and control; that it often (but not
always) plays out as a repeating cycle of tension-building
then violence then remorse; that abusers may shift
the blame for their actions to others.
The more I learn about domestic violence, the more
I appreciate the fact that abusers have their own
way of looking at relationships and don’t necessarily
share others’ ideas about what’s logical
and reasonable.
Granted, knowing more about domestic violence isn’t
a fix-all that will allow reporters and editors to
predict with certainty what abusers will do next or
what effect coverage will have on their actions. But
understanding domestic violence would allow journalists
to better evaluate what’s at stake and better
judge the possible consequences of coverage —
not to mention better inform readers about an important
social problem.
As Thornburg suggests, understanding the facts surrounding
the issue is the first step in making sound ethical
decisions about coverage.
Many sources of information about domestic violence
are available. For basic information, a list of domestic
violence-related organizations, suggested readings,
and other information, see the National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence Web site at www.ncadv.org.
For more from the Dart Center on reporting
domestic violence, see:
Tacoma
Shootings Intensify Debate
and
Domestic Violence: A Look
at the Coverage
|
