By Sophia Jones
The death of Miriam Carey and the Oct. 3, 2013, car chase she led capitol police on that resulted in her death, was newsworthy. The fact that Carey led the car chase, not with a weapon or any other illegal substances, but with a 14-month-old child in the backseat of her car, turned this story into a sensation. Leaving the child out of the story would have been faulty reporting. The child, Erica Francis, provided the novelty that made the story even more newsworthy, so it was necessary to include in coverage of the event. The child also played an integral part in the story and in the investigation because it was, according to Carey’s family, the source of Carey’s main mental illness that led to her delusion: post partum depression. However, was it necessary to name the innocent child? And, once Francis’ name was splashed across almost every media outlet, was it necessary to keep reporting on the Carey family’s custody battle over Francis weeks later?
The different ways that news outlets, both print and television, have handled the coverage of this sensitive event shows a distinction in ethical values and codes. Many in print media have run the child’s full name, while televised news stations have blurred Erica Francis’ face. In the early news coverage of the event, some major news outlets named the child (ABC,) while others, such as CNN, waited.
Why not follow the rules?
Just a few hours after the shooting occurred, ABC quoted Carey’s mother saying the child’s name. Carey’s mother released the name on the record, so the reporters have the right to run it. Was the fact that the girl’s name was Erica really important in that news coverage story? I do not think so. ABC reporters make no mention of trying to confirm Erica’s name with any other sources close to Casey. In the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, they list to “Seek truth and report it” as their number one rule; however, as a sub-value of that, they advise journalists to “Test the accuracy of information from all sources (Black & Roberts, p. 207.)” before releasing information to the public. Including the child’s first name did not add anything to this story. Yet, it didn’t harm it either. SPJ’s Code of Ethics also tells journalists to “Minimize harm” and to “Act independently (Black & Roberts, p. 183.)” To not run Erica Francis’ full name would be showing empathy to the innocent child and acting free of the public’s interest. However, because of the significance of this case and the amount of people (employers, neighbors and friends) willing to speak on their relationship with Carey, the child’s name would have come out anyway.
Who are the winners and losers?
Because most print media have used Erica Francis’ full name, she will lose. This story will follow her forever. Francis’ face is blurred in every picture and video footage of the situation. In blurring her face, televised media allow Erica Francis to benefit:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/04/politics/u-s-capitol-shooting/
http://mije.org/richardprince/do-racial-issues-still-push-some-over-edge
This type of sensitivity in televised media is a testimony to the fact that pictures can have even more impact than words. If Francis’ face had been shown, she may never be able to escape this incident. When Francis’ name was first reported on the day of the shooting, I thought that the Carey family was losing. However, as the news coverage evolved, the Carey family became winners. They have been able to use the news coverage as a tool. Carey’s sisters have used the media to communicate to the public that their sister was not bipolar or schizophrenic and raise awareness on post partum depression. They have also used the media to call attention to a larger issue, that the police potentially acted too early and shot Carey without proper justification (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/connecticut-woman-shot-dead-feared-obama-stalking-report-article-1.1476189.) If media continue to cover the custody battle , maybe the attention will help the family win the child (http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Family-Members-of-Miriam-Carey-Wage-Custody-Battle-For-Daughter-227458291.html.) If the court grants custody to Carey’s mother over Erica Francis’ father, will she lead a better life? In covering the custody battle, the public wins because they are concerned about the fate of the child. Yet, is there a way to cover the outcome of the custody battle without releasing every intimate detail? If the family is talking, why not keep covering the event? The news organizations and reporters speaking and releasing quotes from the family first will win by upping their credibility.
What’s it worth?
Our book covers what Clifford Christian calls “protonorms” or “universal values” for human life. Two of these values have conflicting ideals in naming Erica Francis. “Respect for human dignity” would push reporters not to run the name, while a “respect for truth telling” would urge reporters to name the child (Black & Roberts, p. 181.) By not running Erica Francis’ full name, reporters would have been giving the public the “selective truth.” Reporters must decide when to “balance truth telling against other compelling values (Black & Roberts, p. 199),” an issue that rides strongly in the Erica Francis case. Do the values of accountability, sensitivity and compassion outweigh the values of loyalty, honesty and independence? If the Carey family is willing to speak out on their struggle over their loved one’s death and their custody battle, it is fair to quote them and report the story. But, is it fair to Erica Francis? It is usually hard to consider the feelings and circumstance of someone who does is unable to speak for themselves. Under the value of “fairness,” the Society for News Design states that, “even when it is impossible to avoid harm in the pursuit of truth telling, we will work hard to minimize that harm (Black & Roberts, p. 208).” The televised media outlets were following this statement, when they made the choice to blur Erica Francis’ face. When looking at media codes of ethics from all aspects of news (Fig. 6.3, p. 183-187), authors of our book found three overriding values. The first, “social responsibility,” would lead reporters to print the name because of their social contract to the public to release the truth. Yet, this social contract also extends to having empathy for and protecting the name of an innocent child by not running the name. The second value leaves reporters free of “real, perceived or potential conflicts of interest,” meaning that news outlets can print the name and cover all intimate details of the custody battle, and disregard any loyalties they have to the government or courts system. The third value focuses on “obeying the Golden Rule,” the value television outlets seemed to follow in their decisions to blur the child’s face (Black & Roberts, p. 188.)
How’s your final decision going to look?
Although it will be potentially hurtful to the child, releasing the Erica Francis’ name was inevitable. Aside from the pressure they felt from competition, print media followed their values of “social responsibility” and “truth” in their decision to release the name. The speed at which the name was released, however, only several hours after the event without multiple source confirmation, was alarming to me. I favor the way CNN has handled the coverage of this story. With headlines like “Who Was Miriam Carey,” CNN shows that it is covering the core issues of the event, what the public really needs to know. CNN waited to run Erica Francis’ name, and only ran it in one story. The network let the public know that the was child is safe and moved on. Unlike most other news outlets, CNN has not covered the Carey’s custody battle over Erica Francis. In CNN’s televised interview with Miriam Carey’s sisters on Oct. 7, 2013, the interviewer did not even mention Erica Francis or her fate to the sisters. I agree that the televised media chose to blur the child’s face because, even more than a person’s name, a person’s physical characteristics are a major part of their identity. Instead of covering every intimate detail of the Carey’s custody battle over Erica Francis, news outlets could check back in with the family in a few weeks and do a general report on the fate of the child. Media coverage of the event could potentially sway the court’s decision.