Atlanta massage parlor shootings: Our process gathering facts to report to you — Media column
When reporting news, especially breaking news, we often get readers questioning our reporting process. “Why don’t you call him a terrorist”, “why won’t you say it’s a hate crime”, “why are you spending so much time talking about the (alleged) shooter”, “why aren’t you writing more about the victims?”. This list of questions is often long. I want to offer some clarity into the process journalist follow as they report.
Who, what, when, where, how, and why? Those are the basic reporting building blocks that almost every reporter sets out to answer when covering a story. The process is rarely ever that simple or straightforward. And rarely can there be any guarantee that as we report, we get the answers to these questions in any particular order, or that we will have all of the answers quickly.
What, when, where, and how: In this breaking news scenario, these facts were readily available. On Tuesday evening, someone shot and wounded several people at different massage parlors in the greater Atlanta area. We could accurately report this because they were facts that were verifiable. Still, in our initial reporting, we did not have an accurate accounting of how many individuals had been killed. In fast moving breaking news situations, some media outlets may report numbers before any official source (police, DA, coroner, etc.) confirms and verifies them. We choose to report verifiable data and not report on speculation.
Who and why: In reporting, we are simultaneously attempting to identify who the suspected assailant is, who the victims are, and why this happened. This part of reporting can become the most difficult to do quickly and accurately. Often, we get information about the suspect directly from the police based on their investigation. This generally includes their name, demographic information, employment information, prior criminal history, etc. Our journalists call officials, friends, family, witnesses, knock on doors, scour records, and look through social media to learn more about the suspect and their possible motivations. Again, we report verifiable facts. Reporting on the victims can be the most difficult aspect of all. In general, we don’t know the victims’ names. Those are released by the police or coroner only after their families have been notified. Even then, there is no specific timeline during which authorities are required to provide the names of victims. Sometimes, family or friends provide us names before authorities do. Once we do have names, the process of reporting about a victim’s life takes time. As you can imagine, many families are grieving. They are not interested in talking to the media, providing images of their loved ones, or giving any background on them. While it may appear that we report more on the assailant, it is primarily because we have much more information about them and can provide a fuller picture of that individual.
Name-Calling & Labels: “Why aren’t you calling this a hate crime?” “Why aren’t you calling this shooter a terrorist?” “You should call him a white supremacist.” The reason you don’t see these label in our initial reports is simple and complicated. Our job is to report what we know based on facts. We generally do not assign these labels to individuals ourselves. In almost all cases, we wait for the agency leading the investigation to apply these labels based on their investigations. During the investigative process, law enforcement makes a determination on motive. It can be a slow process. It can take weeks, months and in some cases, years for authorities to determine the motivations of an individual or group of individuals. Our job is to provide you, the reader, with the most accurate and detailed reporting we can. We base our reports on things we know and can verify. Anything else would be irresponsible.
Michael McCarter is Paste BN's managing editor for standards, ethics and inclusion. Follow him on Twitter: @therealmccarter