Home Invasion - Newses, Radio Live et al, 06/05/2006

I was going to post my opinion of Paul Holmes' recent winning of Best Host at the New Zealand Radio Awards today, but I'm waiting for some more information on the awards before I comment. So that will just have to wait till Wednesday. Instead, today, I want to comment on this story which has featured prominently in various media this weekend. Two victims of a home invasion in Rotorua have expressed their displeasure at what they say is a too low a sentence for a man involved in the crime. This story of course is not unique. It is common and indeed understandable that victims of crime should feel that perpetrators' sentences should be harsher. And these concerns are often reflected in news reports. Now media reporting of such outcries is often problematic in itself, but I shall leave that topic for another time. With regards to this specific case, the standard of reporting left much to be desired. Here's a brief synopsis of the story. An employee in Rotorua told his associates that his employers' (an elderly couple) house would be a good place to burgle. Subsequently the employee's associates illegally entered the employers' house and assaulted the male occupant. Media reporting of the incident however blurred the facts surrounding the incident. Whilst reading today's Herald I was quite confused. It seemed a man (the employee) who had viciously attacked an elderly couple was convicted of nothing more than a light jail sentence with possible home detention. Only after noticing a brief sentence in the middle of the article, did I realise the employee himself had not actually committed the attacks himself. Likewise Radio Live news this morning implied the same as the Herald article. The newsreader told in emotive language of a victim who was 'disgusted' that a man involved in the attack was let off with a light sentence. Exactly what kind of involvement wasn't divulged. Instead the listener was left with the impression that the employee himself had committed the assault. Now I don't want to pass any kind of judgement as to whether or not the employee deserved a harsher penalty for the part he played in the crime. But either way media have a duty to present us facts with clarity. Obscuring the facts for whatever purpose is unethical behaviour. It creates false impressions of both issues and persons and undermines the media's position in democratic society. [In reply to some of the comments on my previous post, I refer you to the first post of this blog in which I detailed the role I believe the media must play in our society. In reply to some comments on expectations of talkback, I will just say this: I criticise where I see criticism is fit. Maybe nothing can be practically done about my concerns in the short-term. Nonetheless, where criticism is due and deserved, it should be made.]