<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>
|