Piss-poor content
The Reporter in Fond du Lac, Wis., helped carry out a local judge's mandate that three men convicted of urinating in public publish apologies in that paper. Why didn't the paper fight this? There are several good reasons to, journalistically and legally.
First, this judge is effectively forcing the paper to print content that he commissioned—a batshit insane violation of First Amendment rights. The government clearly has no compelling legal or social interest in carrying out the sentence this specific way. It doesn't serve national security or protect anyone's immediate safety.
Second, the whole point of this sentence is to publicly condemn and humiliate people for a stupid but pretty minor crime. While there's nothing wrong with running a small crime item about it, or with printing the men's names, the apology letters are not worth the space they take up—and they make the paper a willing accompice in a moronic and mobbish campaign. This is basically like allowing the courts to print a free advertisement telling people to come throw eggs at the town drunk, who will be locked up in the stocks all afternoon in the town square. The point is that people apparently have a visceral tendency to enjoy condemning and embarassing other people with impunity, which also explains the Spanish Inquisition, lynchings, Nazism, and McCarthyism.
Third, these people can't fucking write. Their letters are repetitive and you can tell that they are written under duress, that these guys are just writing what they think the judge wants them to write. Even if you think such a puishment is deserved, or that judges should be allowed to impose sentences like this (both of which would make you a moron), you'd have to admit that it doesn't really help these people understand why what they did is a crime. It just humiliates them. Pure humiliation is not nnecessarily a deterrent. If anything, it makes people more irrational and more scared. It also contradicts our legal tradition, which, if you look at the Constitution, is grounded more in property rights than in moral feeling.
Fourth, this is bad content judgment. Even in little, unregarded Fond du Lac, there is more newsworthy crime than this, and probably more interesting opinions. And unlike a good news story or opinion piece, these letters don't get to the facts or tell you why you should care (well, you shouldn't).
My guess would be that "community"-mindedness kept the paper's editors from thinking twice. While this is just a small local paper, it's also owned by Gannett Company, which owns USA Today, and according to its Web site, a total of 99 daily newspapers and 21 TV stations. Is there or will there be a company-wide policy on things like this?
At least one of the men had the decency to acknowledge the idiocy of all this:
I'm really sorry for having to waste space in The Reporter so you can read this. Once again I am very sorry for my conduct.
First, this judge is effectively forcing the paper to print content that he commissioned—a batshit insane violation of First Amendment rights. The government clearly has no compelling legal or social interest in carrying out the sentence this specific way. It doesn't serve national security or protect anyone's immediate safety.
Second, the whole point of this sentence is to publicly condemn and humiliate people for a stupid but pretty minor crime. While there's nothing wrong with running a small crime item about it, or with printing the men's names, the apology letters are not worth the space they take up—and they make the paper a willing accompice in a moronic and mobbish campaign. This is basically like allowing the courts to print a free advertisement telling people to come throw eggs at the town drunk, who will be locked up in the stocks all afternoon in the town square. The point is that people apparently have a visceral tendency to enjoy condemning and embarassing other people with impunity, which also explains the Spanish Inquisition, lynchings, Nazism, and McCarthyism.
Third, these people can't fucking write. Their letters are repetitive and you can tell that they are written under duress, that these guys are just writing what they think the judge wants them to write. Even if you think such a puishment is deserved, or that judges should be allowed to impose sentences like this (both of which would make you a moron), you'd have to admit that it doesn't really help these people understand why what they did is a crime. It just humiliates them. Pure humiliation is not nnecessarily a deterrent. If anything, it makes people more irrational and more scared. It also contradicts our legal tradition, which, if you look at the Constitution, is grounded more in property rights than in moral feeling.
Fourth, this is bad content judgment. Even in little, unregarded Fond du Lac, there is more newsworthy crime than this, and probably more interesting opinions. And unlike a good news story or opinion piece, these letters don't get to the facts or tell you why you should care (well, you shouldn't).
My guess would be that "community"-mindedness kept the paper's editors from thinking twice. While this is just a small local paper, it's also owned by Gannett Company, which owns USA Today, and according to its Web site, a total of 99 daily newspapers and 21 TV stations. Is there or will there be a company-wide policy on things like this?
At least one of the men had the decency to acknowledge the idiocy of all this:
I'm really sorry for having to waste space in The Reporter so you can read this. Once again I am very sorry for my conduct.
posted by Scott at 7:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home