Stephen Hardwick: This case appears to show one downside of the “Fair” Report Privilege most reporters get. I intentionally put “fair” in scare quotes because the rule generally immunizes journalists from defamation claims if they parrot what cops tell them, even flat-out lies, but not for anything the reporters add.

This case appears to show one downside of the “Fair” Report Privilege most reporters get. I intentionally put “fair” in scare quotes because the rule generally immunizes journalists from defamation claims if they parrot what cops tell them, even flat-out lies, but not for anything the reporters add.

This euphemism may be the cops’ fault if they only told reporters that the woman used “racial statements.”

Fair Report Privilegefirstamendment.mtsu.edu The fair report privilege is a state-law defense to defamation claims used by journalists, although the level of protection may vary by state. Under the privilege, a journalist is insulated from a def...

How could I not know about this? It seems very important. Is this partially behind what some people call "cop-tense" or "exonerative-tense" in reporting on shootings by police? Locutions like "officer-involved" shootings etc.?

This. Plus, some beat reporters tend to get too cozy with the cops & prosecutors they cover.

The privilege to repeat cop lies is a big part of why the Atlanta Journal Constitution escaped liability for repeating law enforcement’s false allegations against Richard Jewell. Most journalists today seem to think it’s good that they can falsely slime people with unverified statements from cops.

Libelous truth? - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Presswww.rcfp.org AP PHOTO BY GREG GIBSON Photographers surround Richard Jewell prior to his testifying before a Congressional hearing.

Thanks for the reference to Jewell! That makes it make more sense to me. I'm sympathetic to the challenge reporters face when they first get details of "crimes," almost always from cops. The way to not libel someone is to say less, not reiterate a cop's impromptu riff, often what it amounts to.

This phenomenon I am extremely familiar with. :) In NYC there are also a lot of reporters who grew up in cop families or have a parent or important relative who is a cop. Sometimes they are even sleeping with them. (It happens.)

I try my best not to use the term (you may find a few uses from me dating back to the late '10s), but I get why a lot of reporters fall into the trap, especially when they're under pressure to put something online fast. Passive voice gives wiggle-room if, say, the guy shot himself in front of cops.

Of course, there are better ways to say it than "officer-involved shooting" in a first pass of a story. But news shops without the resources may never be able to send reporters to the scene to talk to witnesses, and some PDs don't release follow-up details for months or years, under duress.

I recognize there've been standard practices. As you know, AP style changed, and that's positive. I totally realize you (and others) rn have major resource restraints on the crime beat. Here's the thing, I think crime beat reporting has damaged America. Often the wrong people are blamed. ––>

From the first days of the Eyewitness News local TV model (if it bleeds, it leads), and decades of sensationalized print news, even though the societal reality has changed, people still bang on the crime drum. Question: how can journalists do less harm? Could reporters only print what they know?

Thanks for the reference to Jewell! That makes it make more sense to me. I'm sympathetic to the challenge reporters face when they first get details of "crimes," almost always from cops. The way to not libel someone is to say less, not reiterate a cop's impromptu riff, often what it amounts to.

Post