Joe Welcome to Pull Quotes the podcast at the Review of Journalism. My name is Joe Fish. Each week we try to bring you in-depth analysis of some of the biggest issues in Canadian journalism. This episode we'll be talking to professor's Margaret Patterson and Romayne Smith Fullerton about crime reporting, how it differs around the world. And why here in Canada, we may want to think more deeply about why we as journalists make the decisions we do while covering crime. Emma How's it going? Joe I'm good. I'm good. Um, yeah, we're in the we're in the crunch of it. We're coming to the end of our, our master's degree, which is bittersweet, but at the same time... Emma Freedom? Joe F reedom, exactly. Unemployment, but freedom. Emma A lot of spare time on our hands. So you what's your story in the upcoming Ryerson review? Joe So I was working on a story about how courts are adapting to our so called new normal. So back in March of 2020, COVID-19 came to Canada in full force. And it forced the judiciary to pivot to remote hearings and postpone things like jury trials indefinitely. And I wanted to know how that was affecting journalists' ability to gain access to trials and hearings, and even, you know, things like gaining access to court documents. So I spoke to journalists primarily from Ontario, some from outside, just about how their experience had shifted during the Covid-19 pandemic. Emma Yeah, absolutely. Well, this is a super important conversation, especially because it looks like we're probably going to be doing, you know, zoom and online stuff is going to be a major factor of our life lives going forward. I don't think we're going back to the way everything was before the pandemic. Joe I mean, absolutely. And I think that's why it was important to have Professor Fullerton, and Professor Patterson on today, because, you know, it's not just about what we can get access to as journalists, but also about what we should do with the information that we can get access to. You know, in Canada, and the US and Britain, the sort of prevailing ethos is that we should print all information we get. So there hasn't really been much discussion surrounding, should we print the name of this person who's been accused in this case, even though they haven't been convicted yet. And, you know, in journalism school, it's not really something we've thought about, there sort of a way of reporting on court cases that's gone largely unchallenged for decades. And I think it is important as journalists, for us to sort of look inward and challenge some of our preconceived notions and really think more deeply about why it is we do certain things rather than just doing them because we do them. What you're about to hear is an abridged interview with professors Romayne Smith, Fullerton, and Maggie Jones Patterson, co authors of Murder in our Midst: Comparing crime coverage ethics in an age of globalized news. Okay, good morning, everybody. And thank you so much for joining me today. So my name is Joseph Fish, and I'm here in conversation with Maggie Patterson, who is a professor of journalism at Duquesne University. Good morning, Maggie. Maggie Good morning, Joe. Joe And I'm also here with Romayne Smith Patterson, who is an associate professor.... Maggie We're not married, Joe. Joe My sincere apologies. Romayne We're more close than a married couple. You know what, when you work with someone for 10 years, it's kind of like a marriage. Joe Let me try that off the top, I am here with Maggie Patterson, who is a professor of journalism at Duquesne University. Maggie Good morning. Joe And I'm also joined by Romayne Smith Fullerton who is an associate professor in the Faculty of information and Media Studies at the University of Western Ontario. Good morning. Romayne Good morning, Joe. Joe We're here to talk about your new book, which is about the ethics of crime coverage and comparing different styles of crime coverage across the globe. And we're also here to talk about a recent sentencing in the trial of well, we'll call him john doe for now. And then we'll unpack why we're doing that in in just a little bit. In your recent book, which is called murder in our midst comparing crime coverage ethics in an age of globalized news. You argue that that those regional approaches, we're sort of seeing them erode in modern times, and they're being replaced by this more sort of globalized approach to crime reporting. And I'm wondering if you could just just speak about why you see that as an issue and what it's sort of broader implications are? Romayne Well, I'll start with that one. I think when we say that, that the different approaches that we documented in the countries that we visited, are being challenged, in some instances, they're being eroded, but in some instances, they're just being challenged. So for example, in the Netherlands, where the default in the Netherlands, is that they routinely do not name persons accused or convicted of serious crimes. So in the same way that our default in North America is to name, their default is not to name. Is that practice being challenged? Yes, because we live in an internet age where, with one quick click of your mouse, you can find out virtually everything you might want to know about somebody. So what would then be practically the purpose of a mainstream media outlet, not naming someone who's accused or convicted. But in the Netherlands, for example, despite that practice being challenged by people's technology habits, most legacy media are in fact doubling down on their policy. They're saying there's a principle at stake, we're not going to name people not because they can't get access to that information. But because we believe we have an audience, because people believe like us that the names of people in the specific personal details aren't really a matter of importance to understand that a crime happened, or even to understand the context in which that crime happened. And in some respects, maybe those details can distract people from from that very understanding that they're trying to convey. But then in other instances, journalistic practices are being exported. So one of the examples that we talked a little bit about in the book, even though we don't deal specifically with the country of France, when Dominique Strauss-Kahn, then head of the International Monetary Fund was accused of sexual assault by a woman in a New York City hotel. That story, those allegations were written up by American media and others around the world and photographs were taken of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, doing what what we in the North American World considered fairly commonplace, this thing called the perp walk where people are shown in handcuffs being led from a building and being put into a police cruiser. Those images were being widely disseminated around the globe into countries including France, where they actually have laws that forbid that kind of image being allowed, because it implies a guilt that people ought not to have attached to them. So in those instances, it was a slightly different thing. The practices are being challenged by journalists in other countries, because journalists and other countries have either no awareness of or no consideration about the fact that other countries value identification of accused and convicted people in different ways than their own countries would. And that was a big takeaway from the book every time that we would interview someone anywhere. At the end of the interview, people would always ask "What are you finding in other places?" And when we told them what we were finding, for example, if you say to a North American journalist, journalists in the Netherlands routinely don't identify people, North American journalists and English and Irish journalists would express horror and disbelief. Oh my goodness, they don't identify. What kind of nonsense is that? That's a dereliction of your public duty. Then, you know, when you tell people in the Netherlands that North American and English and Irish journalists routinely name, a reporter there would cover her mouth with her hands and say, Oh, my word, why would you choose to identify someone? Joe When I was writing the story about the courts? I didn't even think twice about naming the accused in the story. It didn't even occur to me that I shouldn't and where does that sort of religious commitment to printing all available facts, where does it come from? Maggie Well, I think it comes from that commitment to keep the public's business in front of the public out of a skepticism about the integrity of government. And that it's our job as citizens to keep an eye on it. As Romayne was talking, I was thinking about this contrast between our system and the system in the Netherlands and Sweden, in particular. In Sweden, there are actually more public records than we have, they can find out anyone's salary, I could look up, my boss, my co worker, whoever. You can look up, if you're curious about who's driving in front of you, you can look up the license plate of anyone. And yet people don't do that, because they have a sense of privacy. It's considered impolite, but also maybe rooted in their history with the Nazis. The awareness, particularly, of course, in Germany, people talk to us about their history with fascism, and how that shaped their ideas about privacy, and the importance of it. But also, and maybe more importantly, even than that is that their criminal justice system is very much geared to the belief that most people who commit crimes can be rehabilitated. They do much less imprisonment. They're committed to rehabilitation programs of those who are in prison. Most people do some kind of community service. So the main reason that they don't use the name is to protect the families of criminals, but also to protect the convicted criminal himself, so that he can go back and be a productive citizen. In the US, and I believe in Canada as well, we make it almost impossible for a convicted felon to be a productive citizen again. Romayne Yeah, absolutely. And to follow up on what Maggie just said, our work doesn't suggest that Canadians, for example, or Americans ought not to name people convicted or accused. So when we cycle back to the Toronto van attack, we can have that discussion. The point is, we could look at how other people do this and why they make different decisions than we do, to compare that to how we Canadians or Americans make those decisions. Not to say that we're wrong to do it the way we do. But are we sure about why we're doing that? Have we examined those assumptions? Do we still believe in in those kinds of attitudes? Because it's clear that the practices reflect larger, very deeply held cultural attitudes, attitudes that go far beyond the institution of journalism. So we want to be sure that we as an institution, are reflecting those deeper beliefs. Beliefs can change, cultural attitudes can change, should practices change? And in some instances, maybe they should, but in some instances, maybe they shouldn't. It's really about becoming aware, and using that comparison so that we can learn from how others do it. Joe And I think I think we're starting to see that now. And I think, you know, especially for young journalists, we see that as sort of a positive thing. And a lot of older journalists, too. You mentioned the van attack, it seems to me that there's sort of two sides to this whole naming argument. On the one hand, we're talking about protection of the accused and his family and also protecting his future or potential future after he's served out his sentence. But on the other hand, the whole naming argument gets wrapped up in this discussion of do we want to valorize people who commit heinous acts after the fact by publicizing their name and publicizing intimate details about their life. And this came to the forefront recently, when Justice Anne Molloy in her sentencing decision in the Minassian trial decided to exclude his name, and instead refer to him as John Doe. So Romayne, I know an op ed was just published that you wrote in the Toronto Star, I believe that was yesterday on March 30th. And I was wondering if you if you wouldn't mind talking a little bit about your perspective on the whole issue? Romayne Yeah, I think one of the first things I'd say about that was I found it an interesting decision, I'd say in the last year and year and a half mainstream Canadian media have started to talk more openly about their decisions around naming and identifying accused and convicted persons. And the first time I noticed it was actually before the minassian trial and that was last year with the Nova Scotia shooter. And that person was initially not named on the CBC national that evening, I think the host Andrew Chan had mentioned that they weren't going to name him and they were going to put his name further down in the story. And they they did that. And that was the first time I remember mainstream media in Canada, saying, hey citizens, we're really considering how we're doing what we're doing and why we're doing this. And we want to explain to you why we're not naming the Nova Scotia shooter because we want to be sure that we are not sensationalizing him. We want to be sure that we're not encouraging copycat crimes. And we also want to pay some respect to victims and victims families. And then that got picked up in some respects by Justice Molloy's decision to refer to Alek Minassian as John Doe. And she said in her verdict, that she was choosing to deny him the one thing that he had repeatedly said he wanted, which was fame. And by choosing not to name him, she could deny him that. And she said something to the effect, and I'm paraphrasing, but it might be a naive wish on her part, but she hoped that others including media would follow suit. Then there was a hue and cry from mainstream media here in Canada about the judges request, which was a request, it wasn't a demand, she couldn't demand that, but she could ask media journalists to consider why they would name him. That makes some sense in that context. There is information and data and research that suggests in mass shootings, that it can have a contagion effect, the choices that journalists make around reporting in terms of size of headlines, prominence of photographs, types of photographs, can create conditions where other people who share those kinds of ideologies will want to copy that and borrow that fame and notoriety. That's a very different reason than wanting to protect someone's presumption of innocence, or someone's family from accusations, which is what's going on in other countries. So it's a bit of a different decision. But again, it's it's one where no one is demanding media do anything. But there was certainly some knee jerk reaction around that. I particularly pointed out Rosie DiManno's column, because the lede of her column was Alek Minassian, Alek Minassian, Alek Minassian. And that column, in the website version of the Toronto Star, had a very large photograph of Alek Minassian looking very cheerful. It looked like the boy next door shot. And it felt to me a little bit like she just wanted to use his name to show that she could. And I don't know that that's enough of a reason anymore for citizens to have buy in to that. I agree that media have the right to say that name. But we need to think about what responsible journalism looks like. We need to explain to the public why we're naming if we're naming and it shouldn't be for the purpose of shaming. It is not the job of media to shame. It's the job of media to record what's happening. Joe You know, Justice Molloy, it wasn't the first time she kind of stepped in it a little bit with the news media. Previously in the trial. a psychiatrist Alexander Westphal, who was testifying remotely from the States refused to testify, unless Justice Molloy agreed to preemptively seal videos of his therapy sessions with Alek Minassian. And she did, she acquiesce to that demand. And there was some arrangement where only news media could watch those videos by being allowed access to the Zoom hearing. But she definitely landed in hot water. And I'm wondering, does that cross the line from merely, you know, suggesting to media, into actively restricting access? Is that a more dangerous proposition? Romayne That's a tricky one to answer, Joe. I think I would make a couple of distinctions. First of all, I would say that Canadian courts are restricted in ways that American courts are not and they're restricted in ways that courts even in the Netherlands might not be. I mean, I'm not a legal scholar. So I want to be a little careful here. But I remember when Maggie and I first started doing this kind of work and I said something 'la la la publication ban' and Maggie said, Wait, wait, stop. Back up a minute. What are you even talking about? What do you mean publication ban? What do you mean, journalists can go into court, but then the judge has the authority to invoke a ban that says you will not name this person who's accused, you will not even enter what their plea is. I'm sorry, I don't even understand what you're talking about Romayne, because in the States, if court is open, then journalists have a right to report. And Maggie said to me, the assumption in the states is that if there are problems with with access, or there's problems with the dissemination of the information, that's not the journalists problem, or responsibility, that's the problem of the justice system. Whereas here in Canada, the justice system puts those responsibilities on journalists. I don't know enough about the legalities of what is and isn't allowed. But what I do see happening and did come up in our interviews, is that journalists in Canada feel very resentful when court makes decisions about their opportunities to access documents of any kind. They envy their American colleagues who have a more open system. And I think that's a good thing to think about. If our courts were more open, if it wasn't required that FOI's had to be filed all the time for access to fairly routine and mundane stuff. Maybe journalists would feel their responsibility more strongly to exercise their discretion. There's so much oversight and so much policing of information that journalists seem to often be pushing back against a system. And then they would say, Well, I want to publish everything that it's my legal right to publish, or it's the public's right to have. And the discussion of whether that information ought to be published, its value to society or to citizens is not always a part of the conversation. And I wish it were more often. Joe Right, right. So you know, romaine, you're, what you're what you're both doing with this book is really challenging some fundamental presuppositions of Western media. And Maggie, you're you're kind of right in the belly of the beast, right? Because you're a journalist and a journalism professor at at Duquesne University. And I'm wondering what has been the response among your colleagues and students to the work? Maggie Um, well, we've gotten a fair amount of interest, both in the United States and Canada, in the in the findings of the book. And of course, the interviews are being done by journalists. And so they're always quite interested in what we've had to say. I think because this is surprising. We think that, well, if we went to the Netherlands, it would be exactly the same. And here we are sending our news all over the world, with no inkling that our way is not the way. This project started, when I took some students to the Netherlands and I had heard a story before we left the United States about an attempt to assassinate the Queen there. And so journalists there were talking about that, and telling me that they didn't use the name. And that's when I first heard about this practice. And I thought, this is an international news story. Can you imagine if we had an attempt to assassinate our president that we would learn some things about that person, but not who exactly who he was? That was just astonishing to me. And I thought, how could I not know this? Unknown Speaker Yeah. And I think that's what we hear from other journalists, too. I think for a long time, there really hasn't been a lot of discussion amongst journalists and editors and news people about how they do their jobs. And we got a lot of interest just because we were interested. So people would say, Oh, you want to talk about how I do my job? Yes, please. Let's have that conversation. And the interview techniques that we used were grounded in those journalists stories. So we would open interviews by saying, we know that you covered the story of the attempted assassination of Queen Beatrix, do you remember where you were when you heard about the story? Can you tell us how you were assigned to that story? What kinds of decisions were you making right away? What were some details of that? What were you including? What were you excluding? And then we would circle back and say, could you explain in a little more detail why you made that decision? Because you can't just go to someone and say, okay, we noticed that you routinely don't name name people accused of serious crimes. Why do you do that? Because no one has an answer. Just like if someone said to you, Joe, why are you naming people in crime coverage, you'd say, well because they named him in the court. Well, because that's always what we do. So it was much more revealing to interview, and we interviewed nearly 200 people in 10 different countries, and then to look at the patterns about that behavior. And to come to some kind of an awareness of the ways in which those practices are informed by a variety of complex characteristics. And at the end of the day, you know, I say that the comparative aspect is really interesting to anyone who's interested in news and also in crime. And again, I think we probably all know that crime coverage has been and continues to be a staple in virtually every market, there's never been a time when crime coverage or crime stories aren't incredibly popular. So everybody is curious about crime. I mean, you only have to look at the number of podcasts around crime and true crime, or the fact that you can put a tiny crime story up on a website, and that will drive people to look at it. So I wasn't surprised that people were were interested, including ordinary folks who aren't journalists, and including journalists who want to talk about their jobs. And it's been really heartening and interesting for Maggie and I to explore all the reasons behind the practices and to bring forward things that we ourselves didn't know about, and to be surprised by them and to share those findings. Joe Right. And I'm glad you did, because it's like you said, it's it's rare that you that you read a document that forces you to see your own filters through which you see the world subconsciously. And that was very much the feeling. I had, you know, reading some of your work, and then reading the word watchdog, and then realizing that I had internalized that entire ethos, without even really thinking about it, just because that's, that's the environment I was raised in. You know, it's especially pertinent to us as students, both graduate and undergraduate, at The Review, the tagline is that we're the watchdog of the watchdogs, funnily enough, and, you know, our masthead is run entirely by students. And I'm wondering, what are the sort of pragmatic takeaways for young journalists like us, reading your work, and then questioning our own role within the broader journalistic ecosystem? Maggie I think that that one of the main things that we've written about repeatedly and not only in this book, but in other things that we've written, is that journalism, in our countries, Canada and the United States, identifies itself as having a public mission of being a public trust. Its primary duty is to help inform citizens in their decision making. If journalists keep that in the forefront of their decision making process, they're probably going to do fine. And we lose sight of that a lot. Of course, we are motivated by the fact that it's a good story, or this is really interesting or a juicy tidbit. But if that becomes primary, or at least it becomes primary too often, you start feeding some other ethic, rather than the public mission that journalism has as its very foundation. And then you lose people. You become kind of junk food. You're feeding their curiosity, but you're not really helping to shape the democracy to give them the tools that they need to shape the democracy. Romayne Yeah, I would agree exactly with what with what Maggie just said. And these findings are true, whether they're crime stories or not. So this idea of putting not what interests the public, but the public interest at the fore of your considerations means that you might need to move around some of the details, it might mean that you're not going to choose to lead your story with the name of the accused or convicted person. That might not be the most relevant information to the public in order that it has all the information it needs to think about whether its justice system is functioning effectively. We know that crime occurs not because a person is a bad apple and some kind of monster, they're not a one off. They're products of histories and cultures and current events. And things personal to them. They're very complex. And in some instances, when coverage becomes more about the person than about the public interest, we only result in stories that other people, and we make them into monsters. And then citizens can just shirk off the responsibility that all of us have for ongoing social conditions that give rise to more crime. So if we think about the AleK Minassian case, for example, these stories are riveting to public's, in part, because they signal that something's wrong in society, something's gone badly astray. When we're having young men who are claiming that they are 'incels', then we need to look at how it is that we treat women, we need to look at the construction of gender, we need to look at economics, we need to look at education, we need to look at history. And all of those things are probably relevant to the conversation. But just focusing on this man's name, does not equip citizenry, to make decisions and help influence the people that they elect to create policy around these things. So again, it's about what your obligation to your public is not what interests them, not playing off the most prurient details, not details just for the sake of details, but details that tell the larger picture, that sketch and paint crime as a part of a broader context so that those things can be addressed. Joe Well, that is certainly a lot of food for thought. And I think it's a good place to leave it today. So I just want to say heartfelt thanks to both of you for taking the time today to speak to some snot nosed graduate students. Romayne Thanks for having us. Maggie Yeah, thank you, Joe. Joe If you're interested in reading Romayne and Maggie's book Murder in our Midst, you can find it on Amazon or in bookstores everywhere. This episode of Pull Quotes was produced by Emma Jones with technical support by Lindsay Hanna. Our executive producer is Sonia Fata. If you're interested in reading my feature about how court reporters in Canada are adapting their methods to suit the pivot to Zoom justice. Be sure to pick up a copy of the Review of Journalism this spring. If you enjoyed this episode, and want to listen to more Pull Quotes, you can find us on Apple podcasts, Spotify, Google podcasts and Stitcher. My name is Joe fish. Stay safe and thanks for listening. Transcribed by https://otter.ai