From a story on the arrest of the entertainer R. Kelly on child-pornography charges:<p> Kelly's indictment resulted from a 26-minute videotape sent anonymously to the Chicago Sun-Times in February, copies of which have
been sold on street corners nationwide, which appears to depict Kelly, whose given name is Robert, engaging in sex acts with a girl. The paper turned the video over to the police.<p>***No. We do NOT turn videos over to the police. We might investigate such things and write about them, but we do NOT act as tipsters to the police. There would be obvious exceptions but I'm having trouble remembering any.***

BY ABDON PALLASCH
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER <p>It was hardly a ticker-tape parade that awaited R&B star R. Kelly when he flew into Chicago this morning.<p>***Hardly.***<p>Kelly had to turn himself in on a 21-count indictment announced Wednesday charging him with violating state laws against child pornography. A videotape sent anonymously to the Sun-Times appears to show Kelly engaging in various sex acts with a 14-year-old girl. The Sun-Times turned the videotape over to Chicago police, resulting in the charges. (Chicago Sun-Times)<p>***Not only did the newspaper give the police the evidence, evidently it is proud of it.***

small world, I used to work with that guy at the Tampa Trib. <p>the reporter, I mean. not R. Kelly.

Funny...a few years ago, our paper was being raked over the coals for refusing to turn over unpublished photos taken during a college riot. Our argument, of course, was that we were not cops, and that acting like we were endangered photographers and reporters and kept them from doing their jobs.<p>In fact, one of our photogs was seriously injured by a guy who had gotten in trouble because of a (published) photo taken of him during a previous riot.<p>I agree that the Chicago paper faced a serious moral dilemma, with a lot more at stake than the smashed windows and streetlights that we covered. But bragging about its choice was 100 percent unnecessary.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sanvean:
I agree that the Chicago paper faced a serious moral dilemma, with a lot more at stake than the smashed windows and streetlights that we covered. But bragging about its choice was 100 percent unnecessary.<hr></blockquote><p>I don't mean to understate the gravity of the alleged crime, but the Sun-Times is involved here only because it involves a pop star. If I mailed the Sun-Times a tape of, say, an British editor having sex with an underage intern, it wouldn't be forwarded to the police.
If the Sun-Times wanted to do an underage sex story, it might make inquiries into the hundreds of underage girls who give birth in the city every year. How often is there a prosecution there? Oh, sorry. No pop stars. Never mind.

"Because of the appearance of the commission of a crime, we felt obliged to do something about that," says John Cruickshank, Sun-Times vice-president of editorial. "There is no principle that says the press is not obliged to act in the public interest. . . . We're on the side of justice. That's what this newspaper is about. We're not natural enemies of anybody else." (Chicago Magazine)<p>***Maybe that sort of crap will fly in Canada, but that's NOT how we do it here, where we have the "First Amendment" and ethical standards.***<p>[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: blanp ]</p>

Blanp, what should the Sun-Times have done with the tape? If it has evidence that a pop star (or a bishop) is having sex with minors, that is news, isn't it? They should have given it to an expert to authenticate and then run a story and waited for the subpoena. But you seem to suggest that it's not a story at all.

From what I've heard and read, copies of the tape were all over town. Authenticate the tape (if it can be done, and you want to bother with it), watch what the police do about the copy they buy on the street, and then run the story on the gossip page.<p>Rumors of such a proclivity have been around a long time, so there's no crime story until he's arrested. The paper didn't need to get involved.<p>I'm not excusing such behavior by a star or anyone else. We'll see if he's convicted.<p>Maybe there's a story to be written about famous people making sex tapes that get them in trouble, make lots of money for them, or both.<p>That's my opinion. Blanp needs no mouthpiece.<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
Blanp, what should the Sun-Times have done with the tape? If it has evidence that a pop star (or a bishop) is having sex with minors, that is news, isn't it? They should have given it to an expert to authenticate and then run a story and waited for the subpoena. But you seem to suggest that it's not a story at all.<hr></blockquote><p>[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Wayne Countryman ]</p>

I am not saying that there is "no story." I am saying that you do NOT give "evidence" to the police. That's not what we do.<p>I am also saying that the Sun-Times gave this "story" attention in the first place only because it involves a "pop star," and one whose work clearly does not meet the performance standards of the newspaper's proprietors.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by blanp:
I am not saying that there is "no story." I am saying that you do NOT give "evidence" to the police. That's not what we do.
<hr></blockquote><p>By this logic if they'd uncovered the 9/11 plot they'd have sat on their scoop. Because our job is not to help the FBI foil terrorists, either. <p>Extreme example? Sure. Is the Sun Times run by self-serving idiots? Sure. <p>But you can't just say "we don't give evidence to the cops." <p>We do if there's anything at stake; they chose badly and cooperated on a nothing case, meaning the cops will expect them to cooperate in more nothing investigations.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
<p>But you can't just say "we don't give evidence to the cops." <hr></blockquote><p>***I said in the first message in this thread that there are obvious exceptions, but I can think of a lot of information about the "war on terrorism" that a newspaper might have and the FBI might want. It's certainly not automatic that it would be provided.***

Blanp: would you like to debate/discuss journalism vs. citizenship? If not I'll drop it. <p>It's been so long since I had one of these fundamental debates that I've forgotten what all the arguments are.

So we agree that it is a story that this guy was having sex with a minor. I take your point that the media are way too obsessed with sex and celebrities, but that's a thread for another time. I'm still not sure what you think the Sun-Times should have done with the tape. It had three choices: 1) Ignore it. 2) Run a story without going to the cops. 3) Show the tape to the cops and then run a story. <p>I don't think that they could ignore the story. I suppose option #2 is the most attractive, but you'd want to authenticate the tape somehow, and I can imagine a scenario in which the only way to do so would be to go to the cops or DA. (I don't know if that's what happened in this case.) What if you had a tape of Gary Condit strangling Chandra Levy? Would you suppress it rather than turn it over to the police?

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:

I don't think that they could ignore the story. I suppose option #2 is the most attractive, but you'd want to authenticate the tape somehow, and I can imagine a scenario in which the only way to do so would be to go to the cops or DA. (I don't know if that's what happened in this case.) What if you had a tape of Gary Condit strangling Chandra Levy? Would you suppress it rather than turn it over to the police?<hr></blockquote><p>To build upon this sentiment, just because we become journalists doesn't mean we give up our responsibility as members of society and good citizenship, does it? Of course not. We must remain fair and impartial in our reportage, but we also must be a part of the community or communities that we serve. That means acting responsibly. As long as the newspaper chooses to turn in the tape, and isn't forced or subpoenaed, then the First Amendment is served, as far as I can tell.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
So we agree that it is a story that this guy was having sex with a minor. I take your point that the media are way too obsessed with sex and celebrities, but that's a thread for another time. I'm still not sure what you think the Sun-Times should have done with the tape. It had three choices: 1) Ignore it. 2) Run a story without going to the cops. 3) Show the tape to the cops and then run a story. <p>I don't think that they could ignore the story. I suppose option #2 is the most attractive, but you'd want to authenticate the tape somehow, and I can imagine a scenario in which the only way to do so would be to go to the cops or DA. (I don't know if that's what happened in this case.) What if you had a tape of Gary Condit strangling Chandra Levy? Would you suppress it rather than turn it over to the police?<hr></blockquote><p>1. People say it's a tape of R. Kelly with a minor. That doesn't make it true that it was him, or that the girl was underage.
2. The police didn't need the paper to get the tape -- it's available nationwide, isn't it?
3. Has the tape been "authenticated"? What does that mean?
4. There are no absolutes. As has been said before here, there might be a time for turning over evidence. But in the rare instances when that's appropriate, you don't need to show off the way the paper did in this.

Are we saying that the paper's editors displayed good citizenship by turning over the tape without being asked, but would be wrong to turn over that tape if somehow "forced," or subpoenaed?<p>I think we can all agree that we should be good citizens, as well as good journalists who, among other things, uphold the First Amendment. What I don't understand is how turning over the tape IN THIS CASE was the right thing to do.<p>
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by newsy01:
<p>To build upon this sentiment, just because we become journalists doesn't mean we give up our responsibility as members of society and good citizenship, does it? Of course not. We must remain fair and impartial in our reportage, but we also must be a part of the community or communities that we serve. That means acting responsibly. As long as the newspaper chooses to turn in the tape, and isn't forced or subpoenaed, then the First Amendment is served, as far as I can tell.<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wayne Countryman:
<p>1. People say it's a tape of R. Kelly with a minor. That doesn't make it true that it was him, or that the girl was underage.<p>*That's why it needs to be authenticated.*<p>2. The police didn't need the paper to get the tape -- it's available nationwide, isn't it?<p>*I don't know.*<p>3. Has the tape been "authenticated"? What does that mean?<p>*It means that someone has determined that the tape appears not to be a fake. I suppose you'd have to have the tape examined by an expert and you'd have to interview witnesses. If a newspaper can make such a determination on its own, fine. But what if it can't? Does it ignore the story or turn the tape over to the authorities (who have subpoena power, etc.)?*<p>4. There are no absolutes. As has been said before here, there might be a time for turning over evidence. But in the rare instances when that's appropriate, you don't need to show off the way the paper did in this.<hr></blockquote><p>If you had a tape of Gary Condit strangling Chandra Levy but lacked the ability to authenticate it, would you ignore the story? Likewise, if you had a tape of a bishop having sex with a minor, would you ignore the story?
I'd like to see your answers to those questions before continuing the discussion.<p>[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: ADKbrown ]</p>

Maybe that sort of crap will fly in Canada, but that's NOT how we do it here, where we have the "First Amendment" and ethical standards.***<p> .....And what is this crap about "will fly in Canada"? Not from where I sit. The evidence of the Sun-Times behaviour reveals that IS how you do it there.<p>[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: canuck ]</p>

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by canuck:
.....And what is this crap about "will fly in Canada"? Not from where I sit. The evidence of the Sun-Times behaviour reveals that IS how you do it there.<p>[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: canuck ]<hr></blockquote><p>I meant no disrespect toward Canada, which is a very clean country indeed. My disdain was directed at the management of the Sun-Times (where I used to work), which ran a couple of awful newspapers in Canada and, among other things, has no patience for ethical standards. I'm sure other newspapers in the United States and Canada would have done what the Sun-Times did, too, and they would be just as guilty.<p>To repeat, everyone: We are not cops. We investigate for our readers, not law-enforcement agencies. It's also worth mentioning that should the R. Kelly thing ever go to trial, the Sun-Times will find itself involved in the case to the point where management just might regret the decision to give the tape to the cops.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
<p>If you had a tape of Gary Condit strangling Chandra Levy but lacked the ability to authenticate it, would you ignore the story? Likewise, if you had a tape of a bishop having sex with a minor, would you ignore the story?
I'd like to see your answers to those questions before continuing the discussion.<p>[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: ADKbrown ]<hr></blockquote><p>If I had a tape of Gary Condit strangling Chandra Levy, or even one that might show that, I would not ignore the story. One way or another, I'd pursue it. (I wouldn't merely leave the tape on the shelf, between my exclusive tapes of "Who Shot JFK" and "The Disposal of Jimmy Hoffa's Body.")<p>If I had a tape I knew showed a priest sexually abusing a minor, I would not ignore the story. I would do something, depending on further circumstances; turning it over to the police would be one option considered.<p>Different stories, and different situations, require different approaches.<p>Here on my office computer with speedy Internet access, I've been searching for stories I'd read over the past few months about the tape that got R. Kelly charged. Archiving being as shoddy as it is, I lack access to many, including what I'd read about the Chicago police saying they didn't need the Sun-Times' copy of the tape.<p> I did find that at the Chicago police news conference, the PIO said possessing copies of the tape was illegal, and that when reporters looked at their own stashed copies, he said they wouldn't be arrested.<p>Also found in the sleaze search, which I hope won't get me fired: Copies -- for free or fee -- of the tape. These were available within days of the paper turning over its copy to the police. So was another tape purported to show Kelly having sex with women of various ages. These could be found on the street in VHS or DVD form. Whether the paper received the very first copy, I don't know.<p>Also found: The "authentication," which I've yet to see defined, for the Chicago police was done by the FBI. I still wonder what was "authenticated" -- that sex took place? that R. Kelly was involved? that minors were involved?<p> Was the paper's tape the original, or a copy? Did the paper make a copy? When was the tape made? On what kind of machine? Many people made money off this tape, and others had a motive -- would we have answers to these questions if the paper had gone to its own experts first, instead of the police?

Something we haven't discussed is whether going to the police is always the best way to fight an injustice. What if Woodward had gone from Deep Throat to the police after their first meeting, instead of to his editors?<p>What we can expect is that Chicago's police department and prosecutors will tell news departments to turn over "evidence" all the time. (So might judges, and the public.) After all, this police department is setting up a plan to require the fingerprinting of reporters seeking press credentials; background checks will be run. This plan has been stalled by technological problems, not policy concerns.<p>Giving evidence to police should be a last resort.<p>[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Wayne Countryman ]</p>

Of course, newspapers ought not to turn over evidence to police as a matter of routine. And I don't know what happened in the Sun-Times case, so I am not defending the paper's conduct. However, if you receive an anonymous video in the mail that purports to be R. Kelly having sex with a minor, you have to ask yourself two questions: Is this real? Is it newsworthy? For the sake of our argument, let's assume that it's newsworthy.<p>In this day and age, we cannot assume that a video has not been doctored. Furthermore, the quality of the video might not be that good. In fact, I believe R. Kelly is contending that it's not him. It's possible that authenticating such a video might be beyond the capabilities of a newspaper. I imagine you'd have to subject it a sophisticated analysis, perhaps using voice recognition software, or whatever. If the newspaper can do this on its own, great. But if not, what do you do? Wouldn't it be irresponsible to run a story saying you have a video of R. Kelly unless you are fairly certain it is him? Under such circumstances, I don't think it's a big deal to turn to video over to authorities. If they verify it's him, you have a story. If not, you don't.<p>I don't see what journalistic principle is at stake here. If we fail to turn the tape over, we are not protecting a source; we are protecting only a man who might be guilty of statutory rape. If we do turn over the tape, it doesn't follow that the police are then free to ransack newspaper offices across the land in search of evidence.<p>We are not cops. True, but we do expose wrongdoing, whether criminal or ethical. We do this, I assume, because we think it serves the greater good if wrongdoers are caught (or because scandals sell newspapers). This journalistic principle would be compromised if a newspaper suppressed evidence of wrongdoing. <p>Again, I am speaking about a hypotheticals. I think the argument is stronger if in the case of a bishop having sex with an altar boy. If the choice is between suppressing the story for lack of verification or turning over the video to the cops, what would you do?

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
Of course, newspapers ought not to turn over evidence to police as a matter of routine. And I don't know what happened in the Sun-Times case, so I am not defending the paper's conduct. However, if you receive an anonymous video in the mail that purports to be R. Kelly having sex with a minor, you have to ask yourself two questions: Is this real? Is it newsworthy? For the sake of our argument, let's assume that it's newsworthy.<p>In this day and age, we cannot assume that a video has not been doctored. Furthermore, the quality of the video might not be that good. In fact, I believe R. Kelly is contending that it's not him. It's possible that authenticating such a video might be beyond the capabilities of a newspaper. I imagine you'd have to subject it a sophisticated analysis, perhaps using voice recognition software, or whatever. If the newspaper can do this on its own, great. But if not, what do you do? Wouldn't it be irresponsible to run a story saying you have a video of R. Kelly unless you are fairly certain it is him? Under such circumstances, I don't think it's a big deal to turn to video over to authorities. If they verify it's him, you have a story. If not, you don't.<p>I don't see what journalistic principle is at stake here. If we fail to turn the tape over, we are not protecting a source; we are protecting only a man who might be guilty of statutory rape. If we do turn over the tape, it doesn't follow that the police are then free to ransack newspaper offices across the land in search of evidence.<p>We are not cops. True, but we do expose wrongdoing, whether criminal or ethical. We do this, I assume, because we think it serves the greater good if wrongdoers are caught (or because scandals sell newspapers). This journalistic principle would be compromised if a newspaper suppressed evidence of wrongdoing. <p>Again, I am speaking about a hypotheticals. I think the argument is stronger if in the case of a bishop having sex with an altar boy. If the choice is between suppressing the story for lack of verification or turning over the video to the cops, what would you do?<hr></blockquote><p>i agree with almost everything you say.<p>i don't think anyone here is suggesting running a story without verification or suppressing an important story. <p>i don't see that the choice is suppression vs. turning over the video, though, because i don't see "authentication" (which i STILL haven't seen defined) as impossible without having the police handle it. the police can't do it themselves -- they have to send it out. why can't the paper send it out? <p>as for journalistic principle: we can see cases all around the country where prosecutors are taking papers and editors and reporters to court in search of evidence. sometimes the courts side with newsrooms, sometimes not. newsrooms lose either way -- it's just a matter of degree. the more often newsroom give in, the worse this will get.<p>also, this will silence prospective sources. <p>apparently i don't trust the police or prosecutors as much as some folks do. maybe what's left of the Daley machine in Chicago will protect newsrooms. i wouldn't count on it.

OK, no use in beating this dead horse if we agree on most points.

Seems to me the most cogent argument so far has been ADKbrown's, above:<p>I don't see what journalistic principle is at stake here. If we fail to turn the tape over, we are not protecting a source; we are protecting only a man who might be guilty of statutory rape.<p>Usually, when a controversy gathers around authorities demanding something of a newspaper, it's because they're crossing that line -- asking the paper to violate a confidentiality agreement with a source -- or similar intrusions such as demanding a reporter's notes/tapes (not that anyone could have understood my raw notes back when I was reporting) or a photographer's unpublished rolls.<p>So far as I know, no one's automatically obligated to provide evidence or testimony in a criminal matter until a court can be convinced to issue a subpoena. But on the other hand, I think we'd all agree that if we were victims of a crime, we'd want anybody who could help get the perp to come forward. (Was anybody this upset when papers turned over the originals of letters by the Unabomber, the anthrax mailer or the recent mailbox bomber to the FBI?)<p>So I don't have an objection to a newspaper releasing something like the purported R. Kelly tape that was submitted anonymously -- just to their bragging about it as if it were an act of unprecedented, selfless citizenship. But unfortunately, self-marketing has been forcing its way into newsrooms for some time (mine isn't immune, either).