When a story source threatens suicide
"I'm going to kill myself!"
The story was wrapped up and ready for broadcasting. But the story could prompt the story’s subject to take his life.
By Mike Jacobs
One story, two ethical decisions and a threat of suicide: a combination that would create a lively discussion in any newsroom.
It started as an intriguing tip: Two years ago, a suburban cop was fired because he was stopping teenage boys, threatening to give them speeding tickets, and then letting them go in exchange for sex. But the police chief did not refer the case to the district attorney for possible charges, avoiding embarrassing publicity for the department. Now, two years later, and in the wake of other allegations about a troubled police department, our sources wanted us to know about this episode.
We located two of the victims, and they confirmed what had happened. One victim, now 24 years old, even agreed to talk about it on camera, without having his identity concealed. He described, in detail, the sexual contact in the officer’s apartment when he was 19 years old.
But a few days later, the young man called us back. He’d changed his mind. He did not want to be on TV.
Ethical decision #1: Should we air the interview? He did the interview voluntarily. We had it "in the can." He was not retracting his statement, simply asking that we not use his name or picture. We decided to use the interview, masking the man’s identity electronically. We did so because he was, essentially, a sexual assault victim, and we routinely withhold the names of such victims. Furthermore, it was his information that was important, not his identity.
Ethical decision #2 proved to be a lot more difficult. A week later, we tracked down the former officer, living in a small town 150 miles away. We surreptitiously took pictures of him working in his yard and then approached him for an interview.
When we told him why we were there, he immediately broke down. He asked to speak to me alone. He tearfully confessed to what he’d done, told me he’d tried to put that ugly period in his life behind him, and assured me he’d had no contact with teenagers since then. He said he’d been receiving counseling from a minister. And then he asked if we were going to put his story on TV.
When I told him why we were there, he said, and I’ll never forget his words: "Well, you’ve just made up my mind. I’m going to get my shotgun and go out into a farm field and kill myself. I hate myself for what I’ve done. My parents don’t know why I left town. And I can’t stand the thought of them finding out."
I spent the next hour trying to talk the man out of committing suicide. I told him he shouldn’t do anything foolish since there was a chance the story might not air, that nothing he’d done was worth dying for. I coaxed. I cajoled. I pleaded. It was, perhaps the most difficult hour of my life.
He finally assured me he wouldn’t do anything until he’d heard from me. We left and went straight to his church. We told his minister about the suicide threat. The minister agreed to visit the man immediately.
We drove back to the newsroom for discussions with news management and the station attorney. Legally, the story was clean. We had all the facts nailed down, including a confession.
Journalistically, we had a good story. But ethically, we had a problem. Could we tell this story, knowing it might cause a man to take his life?
We wrestled with other questions as well: Was it still a story, since the incidents had happened a few years ago? If so, what was the most important part of the story? And was this man still using his authority to take advantage of teenagers?
We came up with these answers:
Because the officer had resigned, he was no longer in a position to use his badge to take advantage of teenagers. He had assured me he was not involved in activities that put him in contact with young people. And we knew, if we did a story, the D.A. would investigate to find out if he was telling the truth and letting him know he was being watched.
We decided it was still a story. But we believed an equally important part of the story was the fact that the police chief had allowed the officer to resign, without referring the case to the D.A.
Yet, we did not want to do a story, that might result in a man’s suicide.
We decided to air the story, withholding the former officer’s identity. We electronically altered our videotape of the man working in his yard so he could not be recognized. We notified him in advance, through his minister. In our story, we told the viewers about the sexual incidents. And we explained how the police chief had handled the case.
The D.A. immediately launched an investigation. Months later, after interviewing everyone involved, the D.A. decided he was not going to prosecute the former officer, so long as he had no further contact with teenagers. The D.A. criticized the police chief for the way he had handled the case. But the D.A. ruled the chief had not acted criminally.
The police chief, declaring himself cleared of criminal wrongdoing and citing his age, 55, immediately resigned.
The former officer did not kill himself.
We believe we handled this case responsibly. But there is a larger issue: Can the threat of suicide be enough to kill a story? If so, some important stories probably would go unreported. Each case, we decided, must be based on its own set of facts.
For further analysis of this issue, see "How to handle suicide threats".
Mike Jacobs anchors the 10p.m. news and heads the investigative unit at WTMJ-TV in Milwaukee
Source: FineLine: The Newsletter On Journalism Ethics, vol. 1, no. 7 (October 1989), p. 1,8.
This case was produced for FineLine, a publication of Billy Goat Strut Publishing, 600 East Main Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. Reprinted with the permission of Billy Goat Strut Publishing. This case may be reproduced for classroom and research purposes. Publication of this case in electronic or printed form requires written permission from the publisher and Indiana University. An exception is granted for use in readers designed for specific academic courses.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I am doing this ethics case for a project in my Mass Comm class. I was wondering if anyone knows where I can get a copy of this broadcast or where I can find it online?
Thanks!!
June 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I think that it was good they did not air the guys idenity. Getting fame is not a fair price for driving sombody to kill themselves. I think the journalisms hadled it ethically. I think that the man should have gone to jail, he hurt those kids. I also liked how they hid the kids identity, he probaby does not want everyone to know about what happened to him. The journalist got their story and still protected the victims.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I think that this case was handled appropriately. I think that since he man’s life was in danger, it was necessary to protect him. The story still should be used, but protecting his identiy when he did not want it known was important to the case. Also, since the previous teenager did not want a video of himself aired even after they had the footage, electronically masking his voice was the right thing to do.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
i thought it was nice that the guys identity was kept hidden. I thought this case was handled appropriately. Keeping the person’s identity private was extremely important.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
i think this case was handled very appropriatly. I think they made the right decesion in keeping both of the men hidden and making their apperences computer generated. Keeping the police officers identity private was very crucial to this package because personally i think no story is worth a man killing himself.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I personally think this case was handled very maturely and apporiately.I think they handled the situation well by masking the identity of the victim and by witholding the victim’s name. I think that by altering the former police’s identity and by notifying him in advance that they were going to air the story was the right thing to do too. I think that by airing the story but at the same time keeping it as private as posible was very imoportant and was the right decesion for them to do.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
i think this was a good story. they handled it appropriately wg=hen they didn’t give the identity of the men
March 24th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
i think this was a good story. they handled it appropriately when they didn’t give the identity of the men
March 24th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I think this case was handled correctly. I think not giving the man’s identity was good, and letting him know ahead of time that they were going to post the story.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I think that this case was handled in a responsible manner so that the former officer didn’t commit suicide.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
This story was handled in responsibly and it was a very good idea to call the minister first.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:36 am
I think the case was handled correctly, by not using the identities of the two people involved.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I think that this story was handled very well. If a source threatens suicide, then i think that you should do what you can to conceal their identity but still run the story. The name of the person isn’t as important as the fact that it happened. The public doesn’t need to know the name if it will cause the source to take his own life.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:39 am
i think that some stories should make people feel guilty and they brought that on themselves, but in most stiuations the source/witness/victims health should always be considered. if there is a victim and they decide that running the story leaves them no choice but to kill themselves then that story should not be run, or should be run with anonymity.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:39 am
i think they handled this very responsibly and correctly. it helps when you don’t use identities and altering the pictures.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:40 am
They should still do the story if they altered everything. No one would know it was him, and they wouldn’t be able to recognize that it was him. It was handled properly. They paid attention to him when he says “I’m going to kill myself…” they went to the right person to help him out.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:40 am
I feel that the situation was handled responsibly and respectfully. As a journalist, it is a necessity to have the trust and respect of the public.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:41 am
The way the journalists approached this story was very professional. Instead of getting the story out without the consent of the victim or perpetrator, they made sure they were aware of the story being made public, and that their identity would remain safe.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Obviously since the guy didn’t kill himself and they still aired their story they did the right thing. They didn’t have to ruin his life or go against any legal or ethical boundaries so they did a good job. You can’t just not air a story because a man who did something bad says, “Oh, well now I’ll kill myself.”. But, you also cannot be the possible reason why someone committed suicide. There’s a fine line between what you as a journalist should do and what you as a human being should do. If possible you have to try and integrate both sides into your story; be a journalist but still have ethics that allow you to get the story across without completely destroying someone’s life.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I believe that taking someone seriously about suicide is very important. Taking a chance like this is irresponsible and shouldn’t even have been considered. I realize you need your story but morally, the writer shouldn’t have published the story even though the identity was concealed. Concealing the identity of a person is only effective to a certain extent, people can still know who it is and the person being concealed will know it is them and psychologically feel uneasy, possibly resulting in their suicide anyway. Life is more important than a story and you can always find a different point of human interest in the world or community.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:43 am
I think it is ridiculous that an athority figure in society acted in such a terrible crime. His job was supposed to be to protect and serve. Not violate and destroy!
April 7th, 2009 at 9:43 am
I think it was okay to use the story since they protected his privacy and they did not let his identity to be revealed. There is no way anyone would know it was him but you should be careful if he threatens to commit suicide. His life means more than the story.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I believe that this story was handled well. However, I do not know what I would do in this situation. When you’re told that someone is going to kill themselves, you do not know how serious the statement is. It is hard to decide.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I believe the case was handled the right way. A story should not be held above a man’s life, but then again informing the public of such acts is a very important duty. If some want to speak of the acts without their face being shown that should be done. A story can be reported with regards of others privacy as well.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:44 am
i think as long as you handle the case well like they did it will work its self out and you will not have to kill the story but if it is really going to happen i dont think you should show the story. thats jsut to much of a risk for a story to go on. i mean if its a few years old and it was going to happen that story isnt worth going with.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I think this situation was handled responsibly. They were able to air the story while still hiding the identities of those involved. The threat of a suicide shouldn’t be able to kill a story. If the story really is important, then the reporter would/should try to compromise with the one threatening to commit suicide and figure out a way to tell the story while preventing the suicide.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:45 am
if they handle it the right way like they did in this case i think it will be okay. but if its not handled right then its not worth it to take someones life for a story to go through
April 7th, 2009 at 9:46 am
This case was handled responseily. I think if cases are handled like this one then the story can still be aired.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:46 am
i believe that the outcome goes both ways i think that it was good to not air it so that the guy didnt kill himself… but i believe that people would need to know about this … in case more kids were raped and their parents didnt know… they should know
April 7th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I’m very glad that everyone in this thought it through. One mistake and the former officer could have taken his life. My thoughts, however, if they were still considering the story after the man made the threat, is different. This man had obviously realized he did something wrong and had remorse for his actions. Why did they have to dig up the story, again? There are many other stories out there to report on.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:51 am
I think that they made the right decision by not revealing the guys identity. I like that they still showed what had happened because it was a very serious crime. An enforcer of the law, who takes advantage of his authority to molest teens, definitely needs to be punished and people need to know about what is happening. They handled it very correctly because a story is not worth somebody commiting suicide.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:51 am
The story was well handled. However, a person’s life should never be endangered because of a news aritcle. If a person makes another aware of the fact that they are planning suicide, then preventive measures need to be taken; if that means not printing the story, then so be it. I’m glad that in this instance the man did not kill himself, but the story was still covered.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:52 am
This was handled almost as perfect as possible I believe. When it becomes that personally serious you have to be sure not to do something wrong. When the ex-teenager changed his mind it was right to use his interview but change the name. With the officer you have to put his life first. It is a big and important story, but he could live with his photos and name being hidden and the story continued, that was correct way to deal with things.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I think the problem was handled very professionally for how big the story could have been. The journalist got the trust of the cop and the two teenagers.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:53 am
I think the story was handled in a very responsible manner, by not using names or any other information that was not neccesary. The police officers job was to protect people but instead he commited a crime.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:59 am
i think that if the publisher feels that the person will actually kill themselves that the story should not be published but on the other hand if the publisher takes every precaution to hide the persons identity i think it should be fine
April 8th, 2009 at 10:05 am
I believe the situation was handled well. Even though the former teen, whom this story was about, changed his mind about letting them air the interview on tv he had already agreed to it. They got both sides of this story and it was not made out to be a biased story. Once the guy threatened suicide i do believe the choice they made to help him was right. The company agreed to in a way hide his actual identity, and the guy agreed to everything. So if he wanted anything else done to hide his identity so that people couldn’t say things then he should have came to an agreement with them.