An Editorial Debate
Reggie slammed the laptop closed in disgust.
‘Reporting standards these days stink!!! Why didn’t an editor pick that up? Now I’m sunk; the Feds will be on my tail, just because of that stupid headline….’ Reggie fell into a brown study. At dinner time he had little interest in his meal and merely grunted when questioned. Still pensive, he retreated into his den and began to pound out his thoughts:
Letter to the editor, NBC Bay Area:
Dear Sir,
I would like to point out the necessity of raising the editing standards of your so-called ‘news’ outlet. I have noticed, in growing unease, a serious decline over the past months. I generously credited this to temporary staffing issues, likely due to the effects of the pandemic, and hoped it would soon be rectified. On seeing your headline of Wednesday, however, I felt impelled to write in. Pandemic or no pandemic, serious attention must be given to correct reporting and editing - you have a responsibility to the people! This sort of sloppy presentation could lead to serious problems, even rendering the paper liable for legal damages! In this instance, the difference between a state and a federal crime, implied by your headline, could have grave consequences.
I remain respectfully yours,
Fed Up in Montana
He hit send and wondered what the chances were of a reply, and more importantly, a correction. Probably low, he thought cynically.
Later that day…..
Dear Fed Up, thank you for your letter. We do indeed have a commitment to integrity of journalism for the people we serve, so we have carefully reviewed the headline you took particular issue with, article linked below:
(Oops, said the editor as he re-read his reply - maybe Fed Up has a point about our standards, we’ve even got a typo in that url.)
We can agree that this headline could have been a bit ambiguous, and would perhaps have been better worded as ‘Fatal Bear attack in Montana, California woman pulled from tent’ or ‘California woman pulled from tent in Montana, killed by bear’. However, we do not feel that the article lent itself to misunderstanding, as the location of the entire incident was clearly identified as taking place in Ovando, Montana.
Presumably you refer to the implication, certainly one way of reading it, that the bear dragged the woman from her tent in California and then took her across state lines to kill her in Montana.
This is an unfortunate construction, but we feel any readers of the article itself would have swiftly grasped the true state of affairs.
We have taken legal counsel on whether the headline could be said to be prejudicial or unduly influence the outcome of any prospective action against the perpetrator. We now have it on good authority that kidnapping as a federal crime applies only to human actions. Therefore we can confidently state that legal jurisdiction is not in question since the alleged perpetrator was a bear.
In either case, whether the attack on the woman took place in state or she was dragged across state lines, it would be wildlife officials, rather than state or federal agents, who would be responsible for assessing the situation and making a determination on the treatment of the suspect. We think it probable that in this instance, a blatant and apparently unprovoked attack, officials will not hesitate to take strong action.
Yours sincerely,
Editor in chief
NBC Bay Area
‘Dang it!’ growled Reggie. ‘I’ll have to get out of town. No time for lunch, I’ll pick up some chicken on the way.”
