Court TV News

No Soul-Searching over Jewell at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution?

By Ann Woolner
Fulton County Daily Report
November 4, 1996

In the wake of the Richard Jewell fiasco, two organizations are getting most of the blame, but only one is doing any soul-searching: the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And well it should.

But what about the other one? What about The Atlanta Journal- Constitution?

While the FBI announces it's running two internal probes into its agents' conduct in the Richard Jewell investigation, the Journal-Constitution sticks to its guns. The AJC publishes a statement defending its Jewell coverage as "both accurate and appropriate" (on the same page with a story mentioning an inaccuracy in the AJC's original Jewell-as-suspect article).

The Journal-Constitution says it had a right, even an obligation, to report that the search for the Olympic bomber had zeroed in on the security guard who found the bomb. The paper points out that this central assertion, that Jewell had become a suspect, was true.

Is it the Journal-Constitution's fault that the feds had the wrong guy?

No, it's not. In fact, it's hard to argue that the newspaper should have withheld the story, once confirmed, that a man already known for saving lives was suspected of risking them to win public adoration. It's hard to argue that the story could have held for even a day, given how widespread the rumors, the eagerness of authorities to show progress in the probe, the importance of the story and the difficulty of conducting an FBI search in an apartment complex in secret.

But that's not where the debate over journalistic practice ends; it's where it begins. The content of the

stories, their play, the skimpy attribution and the virtual absence of skepticism or counterbalancing information gave the clear message that authorities were on the right trail. These were the stories that set the tone of the Jewell coverage. To say the paper did its job by merely reporting what authorities were doing is not enough.

TRUTH ISN'T ENOUGH
What's more, the veracity of the hero-turned-suspect story doesn't excuse the AJC from the table when talk turns to how the press should cover criminal investigations.

The Jewell matter offers a rare chance for journalists to explain their jobs and their roles to a public that just doesn't understand. It also offers an important opportunity for soul-searching, for news organizations to absorb the message critics seem to be giving and consider--just consider--whether the traditional way of covering criminal investigations should be re- evaluated.

A news organization that appears to dismiss criticism escalates it. It feeds the fury and gives substance to the public perception of an arrogant press when it refuses to discuss its news decisions publicly in the face of the outcry the Jewell case triggered.

"I hope it doesn't contribute to that," says AJC Managing Editor John Walter. In an interview last week, Walter defended the paper's virtual absence from the public debate and lack of introspection on two grounds: caution stemming from Jewell's promised libel suit against the paper, and the belief that journalists should not be part of the news.

He says Jewell's lawyers have tried to spin the story as "Jewell vs. the media, and Jewell vs. the Journal- Constitution in particular. We don't think that's the case," says Walter.

"The newspaper had an obligation to report the facts in the case," says Walter. "Mr. Jewell's attorneys need to say somebody did this to him. So we understand where they're coming from, but we don't agree."

Fine. But whether the AJC likes it or not, it became part of the Jewell story and sparked a national debate when it ripped out the planned lead story for its July 30 Olympic Extra edition and put in its place a 10-paragraph article headlined, "FBI suspects 'hero' guard may have planted bomb." Each news organization must answer for its own news decisions, but the AJC led a pack of hundreds of journalists from around the world onto Jewell's trail.

And it generated an outcry from people other than Jewell and his advocates.

U.S. District Court Judge J. Owen Forrester wrote in a court order that he found the press coverage "truly frightening." Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz called the Jewell story "a great moment of shame for the press." On the other hand, The New York Times' editorial page blamed the FBI for the hounding of Jewell, calling the AJC's handling of the story "not irresponsible."

The debate over what, if anything, went wrong rages in stories about the press coverage, on network news shows, and within newsrooms across the country. AJC news executives grant few interviews on the subject, turning down the Times, Nightline, 60 Minutes and others. When they do consent, they discuss few details, citing the libel suit Jewell's lawyers have promised.

As for internal debate, "We're always re-evaluating everything we do," says Walter. But, "It's premature for us to hold a post- mortem" on the Jewell coverage, he says. Official introspection and participation in the public debate will have to wait for the conclusion of any litigation that may follow, Walter says.

UNINDICTED BUT SMEARED
It's important for those questions to be asked in every newsroom, because Richard Jewell is not the first nor will he be the last suspect in a widely watched case who will walk away unindicted but smeared. Is the reporter's only obligation to confirm whether and why the cops are focusing on a particular suspect? The Jewell case points to the dangers of that.

In reporting a stunning development in a probe of international interest, our hometown paper could also have shown more skepticism as to whether the feds had the real bomber. Why not remind readers, in that very first Jewell-is- suspect story, that the caller who warned of the bomb had no perceptible accent and that Jewell speaks with a clear Southern drawl? Why not probe further into the logistics required for a lone bomber to place the bomb, make the warning call, find the bomb and rescue people while not endangering himself? How hard would it have been to double-check before writing that Jewell "has approached newspapers, including The Atlanta Journal- Constitution, seeking publicity for his actions"? In fact, an AT&T public relations man arranged the AJC interview, not Jewell. And Jewell consented to other news interviews because he was invited, not because he invited himself. If Jewell didn't seek publicity (but merely basked in it), does that weaken his alleged motive?

Admittedly, this is tinkering around the edges. More caution wouldn't have reduced the number of cameras in his apartment complex parking lot or prevented the international stigmatizing of an apparently innocent man.

But it would have produced more balanced and accurate stories and left open the possibility that Jewell might not have been a murderer. It might have pointed reporters to the story of FBI excesses. Too, the heat on American journalists might have been cooler by a degree or two, the threat of libel suits reduced and whatever little confidence the public has in journalists would not have suffered quite as big a blow.

But most important, by exercising greater skepticism and showing more balance, the AJC could have told the real story more completely, and sooner.

--Ann Woolner worked at the Journal-Constitution from 1973 till 1986. Her e-mail address is awoolner@counsel.com.