Suffer the children
Was story on molestation worth the human cost?
This newspaper had to decide whether a story involving sex crimes was worth the possible result of revictimizing the victim.
By Stewart Lee Allen
If it had been Janet Tremain, the director of San Benito County’s Child Protection Services, who had failed to register as a child molester, there would have been no question about the situation’s newsworthiness.
But it was her husband, Gerald Tremain. Convicted in Oregon in 1984, he had not registered as a sex offender as is required by law when he moved with his family to California.
Was the crime which had taken place years earlier relevant? He had gone through probation and was supposedly rehabilitated. Was a news story worth the likely devastating effect on the family, especially the molested girl, Janet’s 14-year-old daughter?
Our newsroom at the Hollister Free Lance was split on the issue.
"This is the woman who is supposed to be protecting our county’s children," was managing editor Wayne Norton’s argument. "The fact that she had a molestation going on in her own home makes it newsworthy just on the face of it."
Executive editor Mark Paxton, however, felt the relevancy might lie more in Janet’s attitude toward the molestation. Did she attempt to cover it up? Did she report it? Did her relationship to Gerald affect her job performance?
I tended to agree with Paxton that if Gerald’s crime had no impact on Janet’s job it was not worth an article. We all agreed, of course, that it was worth investigating.
Unfortunately, under Oregon’s expungement laws, all records of Gerald’s conviction had been closed. Off the record, I was told it had been unusually serious abuse. My source said Tremain had raped his daughter, then 7 years old, every Friday for about six months. Janet said she had no idea it was going on until an officer came to their door to tell her that Gerald had been arrested. The abuse had been reported by the girl’s teacher.
Janet had cooperated with the investigation, but she had also used her position in the Oregon Human Services Department to get lenient treatment for Gerald. I also learned that she had reunited the family as soon as possible. Some counselors told me this indicated an ongoing unhealthy relationship between the three; others disagreed. This sort of professional disagreement over Janet’s fitness for her job made it even harder for us to decide if a story was warranted.
About this time, I found out that the local grand jury was investigating Janet and CPS counselors for alleged unprofessional conduct which put abused children at risk. We decided the story was important and we ran it after interviewing people who said they could verify the incidents being investigated.
I also learned there had been two recent investigations of reports that Gerald once again was molesting his daughter, but our story about the grand jury investigation made no mention of this or Gerald’s prior conviction.
The day our story ran about the grand jury, Janet resigned. When I called, she said she had resigned because she thought we were about to do a story on her husband’s past. Her resignation, she believed, made it a non-story. Janet told me that her relationship to Gerald had not had a negative effect on her job performance; in fact, it had been the opposite.
Her daughter then got on the phone and demanded to know why what had happened seven years ago would matter now?
I explained that there were some people who believed that her mother’s marriage to Gerald was affecting her work. I also told her we had heard that the things that had happened in Oregon were still happening.
She was crying at this point which was difficult for me. I should point out that two days earlier a county official had warned me that the daughter was a potential suicide. However, others familiar with the situation had dismissed the description.
Janet’s last words to me were, "I hope you freeze in Hell."
Our story the next day quoted Janet as saying she had resigned "for the good of the department." In the third paragraph, we mentioned her fear of "publicity" about her husband’s conviction. We did not mention her fear of a newspaper article and her hope that the resignation would kill any story about Gerald.
In an attempt to protect the daughter, we identified Gerald’s victim only as a "relative."
After the story was published, Paxton, our executive editor, regretted the use of "relative." I had more qualms. Janet and the daughter both begged me not to write the story and I was unsure if it was really worth the havoc it must be causing them.
While it may sound horrible, there was a certain feeling of relief when Gerald was arrested a week later for molesting his daughter. The girl brought the initial accusations. Janet admitted to knowing about the situation but failed to report it, a crime for someone in her position.
In the arrest story we included information indicating Janet’s superior had allegedly failed to pass on reports of the recent molestation to other law agencies.
In the end, everyone was glad the newspaper printed what it knew. It had led to official action, resulting in Gerald’s arrest and an investigation into the alleged cover-up. That’s how the system is supposed to work.
Stewart Lee Allen was a reporter for the Hollister (CA) Free Lance.
Source: FineLine: The Newsletter On Journalism Ethics, vol. 3, no. 2 (February 1991), p. 2.
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.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:31 am
There is alot of emotions running through my mind after reading this article. To start, my heart goes out to the poor girl who unfortunately had to face that abuse. I may be wrong, but I feel that Janet is wrong as a person and mother of this child. As for Janet the director of San Benito County’s Child Protection Services, if you work with children every day and for their protection how can you be aware what is happening to your own child and your own flesh and blood and not report it. What kind of mother despite her career,can know that their child is being abused in such a way and no do anything about it. The law has been broken in this situation on many different degrees both factual and moral. I think that not only should Gerald face time, but so should Janet for not helping her poor child.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
i feel that the effect on the little girl who suffered abuse from her father is the only unfortunate outcome in running the article. Janet obviously has issues regarding both common sense and loyalty to her daughter. How can she justify letting her own husband assault her child and neglecting to say or do anything about it. In the end, the newspaper was right in publishing what they knew because the outcome was positive. Furthermore, I hope the little girl will receive help for this tramatic event as she is suspected to be suicide and this event will likely add to her anguish.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I agree with publishing this story. In the code of ethics, it says to seek truth and report it. I’m sure this embarassed and hurt the family immensley, but it’s good what the outcome was. For Janet to be in a position with child molesters and have one in her own home was absurd. I know that calling Gerad just a “relative” was lying to the readers, but I also agree with not mentioning his name to save the daughter from being even more embarassed. I can’t imagine what she went through during all of this.
November 5th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
This story is very sad and distrubing. As a person I can see how this would affect the family and how they would be embarresed and ashamned. As a news reporter though, you ahev to present the truth. In the code of eithics it staes show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subject. Since this stroy dealt with a child i feel it was okay that the reporter referred to the victim as a “realitive” instead of a daighter.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I agree with the publishing this story. I feel that the community had a right to know about Gerald and his wife. I would not want to put the lives of children in her hands. I feel that it was a good idea not to mintion the daughters name because she was highly suicidal and she was most likely ashamed of what happend.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I dont think that they should have published the story. They were told that the girl was a potential suicide and they knew that this story wasnt something that she would want people to know about. Though some good did come of this I still believe that they should not have published this story becasue no story is worth risking someone’s life.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I dont agree with publishing this story. I honestly don’t think they needed to air this when they found out the daughter was suicidal. The daughter did’t want to re live what happens. It is disgusting horrible and heart breaking to hear this story. It makes me sick to my stomach. If I put myself in the girls position I would hate if this story was published becasue it is very embarrassing. The only part I agree on is that they put a “relative” instead of the daughters name. It states in the code of ethics that the journalist shoud show compassion for those affected by the news coverage. The journalist this by not mentioning her name. This was very respectful but I still disagree they should not have published this.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
I was originally a little conflicted on the topic as well. However, as I read on I became certain that this article should be published. The part that really changed my mind was, “…But she had also used her position in the Oregon Human Services Department to get lenient treatment for Gerald.” Her whole job surrounds helping children in need. How is letting a child molester off with “lenient treatment” helping anyone? It sounds to me like Janet just wanted to brush things under the rug and forget about it. However, if that is how she wants to handle the issue, then I would not trust my child with her. If that is how she handles this situation when it comes to her own family and her own child, I can only imagine how much she would care if it happened to the child of a complete stranger. I do not agree with abuse in any shape or form, especially with children. If I found out that my husband was sexually abusing my child, I would not be able to look at them the same way again, let alone stay married to them, or let my child continue to face that. I think that identifying the daughter as a relative was the right thing to do. At the end of the day I think the newspaper made the right decision in airing the story and handled the situation in a fairly considerate way.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I am feeling alot of emotions about this arctical right now. If i actually stated those feelings this comment probly wouldn’t be posted. How could you not know that your own daughter was getting molested if your job is to deal with protecting children who have been or are being molested. At first i thought it was kinda wrong to air such an improper artical because i thought that it was puting the girl and family through the hard time over again, but as i read on i agreed that it was right for it to be aired. I still have mixed feelings though because if my husband raped my child i would never be able to face him again let alone allow myself to still be married to him.