NYC Janitor Cleared of Charges, Reputation Forever Damaged by Local Media

[TVMattNYC]

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_082150727.html

When are we finally going to get a grip and stop taking the word of a child as gospel and prematurely destroy people's reputations?

Oh wait, that's right ... sensationalize, sensationalize, sensationalize. That's the mantra of local news. To hell with people's lives! As long as you have a lead story for the 11!

[Diplomat]

To paraphrase Raymond Donovan, to which office does he go to get his reputation back? Even if he gets his job back, there will be those who believe he beat the rap and is really guilty. That is a shame.

Matt, the story you posted indicates this child had made similar reports in the past. Why hasn't someone in authority had her evaluated? She obviously has issues.

Thanks for posting this.

[Pennywise]

The man scrubs toilets for a living. What kind of reputation does he have anyway?

[Another side]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_082150727.html

When are we finally going to get a grip and stop taking the word of a child as gospel and prematurely destroy people's reputations?

Oh wait, that's right ... sensationalize, sensationalize, sensationalize. That's the mantra of local news. To hell with people's lives! As long as you have a lead story for the 11!What's your solution, Matt? Are you saying when police arrest a school janitor for suspicion of multiple rapes of an 8-year-old girl on school property, that it's not a story?

The problem here is not the local media ... the problem here is why police arrested the man in the first place solely (apparently) on the word of an 8-year-old with a prior history of making up similar stories.

It's not "sensationalism" when the media reports the local cops believe the school district has a janitor raping 8-year-olds and has taken him into custody for investigation of those charges. It's news, and it's a text book example of the people's right to know.

The story is also a little confusing in that the DA says all charges were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence, but the reporter adds the court reduced the suspect's bond to "almost nothing."

And in the text on the website,it says he was released on an own recognizance (signature) bond.

Why is he still on bond at all, if charges were dropped and the suspect released? It doesn't make sense.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Pennywise:
The man scrubs toilets for a living. What kind of reputation does he have anyway?Wow. That's about the most ignorant and elitist thing I've EVER seen posted on these message boards.

EVERYONE has some degree of self-respect and dignity.

Shame on you.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_082150727.html

When are we finally going to get a grip and stop taking the word of a child as gospel and prematurely destroy people's reputations?

Oh wait, that's right ... sensationalize, sensationalize, sensationalize. That's the mantra of local news. To hell with people's lives! As long as you have a lead story for the 11!What's your solution, Matt? Are you saying when police arrest a school janitor for suspicion of multiple rapes of an 8-year-old girl on school property, that it's not a story?

The problem here is not the local media ... the problem here is why police arrested the man in the first place solely (apparently) on the word of an 8-year-old with a prior history of making up similar stories.

It's not "sensationalism" when the media reports the local cops believe the school district has a janitor raping 8-year-olds and has taken him into custody for investigation of those charges. It's news, and it's a text book example of the people's right to know.

The story is also a little confusing in that the DA says all charges were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence, but the reporter adds the court reduced the suspect's bond to "almost nothing."

And in the text on the website,it says he was released on an own recognizance (signature) bond.

Why is he still on bond at all, if charges were dropped and the suspect released? It doesn't make sense.</font>[/QUOTE]My solution?

Maybe such stories shouldn't be reported AT ALL until there's a conviction.

Without a conviction, it's all just accusations and speculation. Unfortunately, once the local media gets a hold of the story, the poor sap has already been convicted on the screen, and in the court of public opinion, regardless of his guilt or innocence.

This is a grave misuse of television.

[2:30]

Matt-

It wasn't the local media that damaged his reputation. It was the police leading him out in handcuffs in front of the children at his school. By the time the media reported it, the reputation was pretty much in tatters.

[Steve Scott]

Originally posted by Pennywise:
The man scrubs toilets for a living. What kind of reputation does he have anyway?That's a terrible thing to say. Some one has to scrub the toilets and mop the floors. I don't know about you, but I find honor in an honest day's work.

[Diplomat]

Well said, Steve.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Steve Scott:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pennywise:
The man scrubs toilets for a living. What kind of reputation does he have anyway?That's a terrible thing to say. Some one has to scrub the toilets and mop the floors. I don't know about you, but I find honor in an honest day's work.</font>[/QUOTE]You do realize Pennywise is the latest incarnation of Mighty Dyckerson, right? Keep that in mind when considering what he might consider an honest day's work.

[ewink]

Another reason why rape shield laws should go both ways.

[Another side]

Originally posted by ewink:
Another reason why rape shield laws should go both ways.So ... you don't want to know whether a suspected child-rapist -- or worse, an incurable pedophile -- is living in your neighborhood, maybe even next door?

I'm not in favor of rape-shield laws. I think most news managers would withhold the purported victim's name, anyway. If you're entitled to report the name of the suspect, you should be entitled to report the name of the person accusing the suspect of the crime.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ewink:
Another reason why rape shield laws should go both ways.So ... you don't want to know whether a suspected child-rapist -- or worse, an incurable pedophile -- is living in your neighborhood, maybe even next door?
</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, no. I don't. If the evidence is that strong then the suspected child-rapist shouldn't get out on bond. And an incurable pedophile, which may be redundant, how have we arrived at this label? If by conviction, then yes, I want to know. If only by an 8-year-old's unsubstantiated allegation, no. Not until there's better evidence.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Steve Scott:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pennywise:
The man scrubs toilets for a living. What kind of reputation does he have anyway?That's a terrible thing to say. Some one has to scrub the toilets and mop the floors. I don't know about you, but I find honor in an honest day's work.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, scrubbing toilets is very similar to producing. You have to put up with a lot of crap, things are always floating, and eventually, it all goes down the drain.

[Produce man]

Originally posted by Pennywise:
The man scrubs toilets for a living. What kind of reputation does he have anyway?You just made Head Janitor cry.

[hardened &amp; jaded]

There's no dishonor in scrubbing toilets for a living. Nor did I feel dishonor for being splashed, splattered, and sprayed with manure and urine while milking cows for several years during high school. There was something about seeing 22,000 pounds of milk swirling around in the big bulk tank at the end of the day that gave me infinitely more satisfaction than any of the newscasts I've anchored in 23 years.

[Big City]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
Oh wait, that's right ... sensationalize, sensationalize, sensationalize. That's the mantra of local news. To hell with people's lives! As long as you have a lead story for the 11!Riiiight, because we all know that the national media never, ever sensationalizes anything. How many more episodes of "To Catch A Predator" must we endure?

[rootboyslim]

Originally posted by Big City:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
Oh wait, that's right ... sensationalize, sensationalize, sensationalize. That's the mantra of local news. To hell with people's lives! As long as you have a lead story for the 11!Riiiight, because we all know that the national media never, ever sensationalizes anything. How many more episodes of "To Catch A Predator" must we endure?</font>[/QUOTE]Until Big City is apprrehended!!!

Dude, going to the Outer Banks for golf Thursday. Woo Hoo!

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Big City:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
Oh wait, that's right ... sensationalize, sensationalize, sensationalize. That's the mantra of local news. To hell with people's lives! As long as you have a lead story for the 11!Riiiight, because we all know that the national media never, ever sensationalizes anything. How many more episodes of "To Catch A Predator" must we endure?</font>[/QUOTE]You got me there.

One thing I hate more than local news is "To Catch a Predator".

[Pennywise]

Originally posted by hardened & jaded:
There was something about seeing 22,000 pounds of milk swirling around in the big bulk tank at the end of the day that gave me infinitely more satisfaction than any of the newscasts I've anchored in 23 years.I wouldn't know. I'm lactose intolerant.

[Big City]

Originally posted by Terps: Got Jobbed by Refs in NCAA:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Big City:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
Oh wait, that's right ... sensationalize, sensationalize, sensationalize. That's the mantra of local news. To hell with people's lives! As long as you have a lead story for the 11!Riiiight, because we all know that the national media never, ever sensationalizes anything. How many more episodes of "To Catch A Predator" must we endure?</font>[/QUOTE]Until Big City is apprrehended!!!

Dude, going to the Outer Banks for golf Thursday. Woo Hoo!</font>[/QUOTE]Duuuuuuude! Larson will never catch me! MUWAHAHAAAHAHAHAHA!

[ewink]

Originally posted by Another side:
So ... you don't want to know whether a suspected child-rapist -- or worse, an incurable pedophile -- is living in your neighborhood, maybe even next door?As someone else said, they shouldn't be out on bond if they are dangerous.

Originally posted by Another side:
I'm not in favor of rape-shield laws. I think most news managers would withhold the purported victim's name, anyway.AS, do you really, honestly and truely believe that?

Originally posted by Another side:
If you're entitled to report the name of the suspect, you should be entitled to report the name of the person accusing the suspect of the crime.I agree. But we do have rape shield laws. And since just being accused of rape (Duke Lacross team) can totally fubar your life, if we're going to (as a society) protect the victims identity, we should also protect the accused.

Once he/she is convicted, throw them to the wolves.

Back in my first city, we had a teacher who was accused of improper sexual activity with some of his high school students. He was accosted and tormented by the media. Reporters ambushed him after his prelim demanding to know 'did you rape those children?' and 'What do you have to say for yourself?'

I think it was three days later they found him hanging from a tree in his backyard.

Now the question is, and always will be, did he kill himself out of guilt of what he did, or did he kill himself because he just couldn't take the accusations and the people all 'knowing' that he was raping high school girls.

Aquitted or not, being charged with child molestation is not something you can just brush off.

[Another side]

Ewink: First of all, criminal suspects are entitled to a reasonable bond in most cases. The Constitution says so. Beyond, that, you can't have it both ways -- you can't argue on one hand that they're presumed innocent so you shouldn't use their name, and on the other argue if the police say they're dangerous, then it must be so, so they shouldn't have a bond set.

Yes, I honestly believe most news managers, print and broadcast, would choose to withhold the name of a rape victim if left to their own devices.

As to the rest of your argument ... I understand your logic,and the fact is naming both the suspect and victim is preferable to present laws.

But as a newsman, I prefer fewer -- not more -- restrictions that stop me from doing my job ... which is to provide information, including who police arrested for what ... who the government threw in its jails, and for what.

As to the man who hung himself ... I have no problem admitting the press probably played a role in it. I wish there was a way around that, but there isn't -- short of denial, which seems to be the most prevalent defense by young reporters.

And I don't mean to be cavalierish about it; it's happened to me a couple of times and it absolutely ruined my day.

But journalism, done right, can be hard, and unpopular and, in my own case, sometimes regrettable.

We should not allow the government to arrest and detain people without announcing who, for what, and the amount of their bail. The British tried it, and we went to war with them over it.

And just for the record, there's a variation of it still going on today -- the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. When BOP becomes unhappy with an inmate, or when it determines inmates need to be moved ... they'll go from one prison to another, to another ... on a "tour" that sometimes takes months ... and the family of the inmate doesn't know where he/she is, how to contact him/her, how they're doing ... nothing. BOP won't tell them for "security reasons."

I don't pretend to know the answer -- I don't like announing to the world someone has been accused of rape, when, in fact, he may not have raped anyone. And I don't particularly want to name the victim, because she MAY have been raped and I don;t want to add to her troubles (though I'm not convinced in today's society, I'd really bed doing that.)

But I'm an idealist, and I believe it's our job to watch government work. And when the government locks up a citizen, it's imperative, in my view, that we say who, for what and for how long.

We can't do them all,of course,so we have to pick and choose ... and audience interests comes into play. I have no problem with that, either -- that's news.

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Another side:

Yes, I honestly believe most news managers, print and broadcast, would choose to withhold the name of a rape victim if left to their own devices.
*ALLEGED* rape victim.

That's the whole point.

[Another side]

No. I have no problem broadcasting the name of a woman who claims she was raped but wasn't.

If she was raped ... I don't like it so much.

I agree we don't know until well after the alleged fact ... and up until that time, it's "alleged," ... always "alleged."

[TVMattNYC]

Originally posted by Another side:
No. I have no problem broadcasting the name of a woman who claims she was raped but wasn't.

If she was raped ... I don't like it so much.

I agree we don't know until well after the alleged fact ... and up until that time, it's "alleged," ... always "alleged."Exactly. And all the more reason not to broadcast the name of her ALLEGED rapist until we know for sure she's telling the truth.

[Another side]

That's certainly a valid viewpoint ... I just disagree with it, for the reasons I stated.