A pledge to respect victim privacy
When we began our careers as journalists, we were taught the golden rule was this: Do no harm. We’ve attempted to conduct ourselves accordingly, not only by abiding by that rule and the ethics put forward by the Society of Professional Journalists, but also by having robust and ongoing conversations in our newsroom whenever a particularly important and complex story comes to the fore.
Such is the situation with James Parks, who is alleged to have abused a minor, and his wife, Amanda Parks, who is alleged to have destroyed evidence relating to her husband’s case. While navigating this sensitive story, we’ve encountered issues after first submitting a records request to the District Court for Mr. Parks’ case on November 10.
Our publisher had to personally call the court to see that our request was put in front of Judge Bill Simpson after three weeks of limbo. Ultimately, our publisher came to understand the court – following the publication by other media of graphic details about what allegedly happened to the minor – wanted the victim’s privacy to be respected.
We understand Simpson’s perspective and do not take issue with his sealing of these documents to protect the child. However, we do take issue with the length of time during which we waited for his determination.
We do not believe a three-week turnaround to be acceptable. We submitted this request in early November and continued communicating with court staff to stress the import of this request being reviewed by Judge Simpson. We do not make records requests or report information for our own self-interest, but for that of the public and their right to know. We call on our court staff to work with us more openly and to show greater transparency in the process.
We also take issue with sharing graphic details about a criminal assault and would like to expand upon the editorial note that ran alongside the Parks story on Dec. 4.
The Society of Professional Journalists, in its code of ethics, calls upon us to consider the damage and hurt that might be caused by our reporting of information, and also to show good taste and avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. As previously stated, we will not provide graphic detail relating to this story.
We do this not to protect the alleged assailant, but to afford dignity to the victim – in this case, a child. To the victim, we owe a duty to avoid harm and it is our belief that publishing the graphic nature of an alleged sexual assault may retraumatize the victim.
Our legal system does not give victims much, if any, say in what happens after a report is made. In this case, because the victim of the alleged crime is a minor, they have even less control over what is happening right now in their life. We believe our decision to choose our words with greater care affords the victim of this alleged crime a modicum dignity.
The story of what allegedly happened to the child belongs to the child. If, someday, they decide to publicly share the more graphic details of what happened to them, it should be on their terms – not ours or any other journalist’s.
Nevertheless, we will continue reporting on the court cases involving James Parks and Amanda Parks. It is our duty to the public and we will meet it. However, we will do so with accuracy and strong editorial control, and with respect for the victim in mind.