The Fallen Servant
When a hero is not a hero
A firefighter is killed in the line of duty. He is given a hero’s funeral. Later an autopsy report reveals he was legally drunk. How do you handle the story?
By Harry J. Reed
It had all the elements of which heroes are made.
On a Saturday evening in August, 1982, a firefighter died in a furniture warehouse fire. Killed when a wall collapsed was Norman E. Creger, a 17-year veteran of the Jackson (MI) Fire Department.
The Sunday Citizen Patriot devoted most of page one to the fire. The mayor ordered city flags to half-staff. An honor guard of firefighters flanked the casket until the funeral. Fire officials from throughout Michigan formed a three-mile procession following a pumper truck with Creger’s bronze casket atop it.
Creger’s widow received the America flag covering his coffin. It was a hero’s departure.
And then.
Forty-five days later, the newspaper revealed that Creger was legally drunk at the time of his death.
Rumors of Creger’s drinking were heard within hours of his death. He had been off-duty at the time of the fire, in a bar. When summoned, he finished his beer and drove to the blaze.
Creger was one of four firemen playing hoses on the north side of the four-story building. Fire Capt. Leland Bowman saw the wall might fall and ordered them back.
Witnesses said the other three firefighters sprinted to safety, but Creger turned and walked into a double-headed parking meter. The impact knocked him flat.
Seconds later, the falling wall covered him. Creger died of massive chest injuries.
A month after the fire, city officials received the autopsy report on Creger. Because it was a bombshell, they kept it secret for two weeks as they discussed legal ramifications.
The report indicated Creger’s blood alcohol level was 0.16 percent. In Michigan, a motorist with 0.10 percent is considered to be under the influence.
The police report was inconclusive on whether Creger’s drinking was a factor in his death.
What made this an important news story for the Jackson community?
- The possibility that a fireman died in vain, fighting a fire he shouldn’t have been allowed to work.
- That his drinking prior to the fire made it questionable as to whether he was fit for duty.
- That violation of a new fire department check-in procedure might have cost Creger’s life.
The day the autopsy was released, the consensus at the Citizen Patriot news meeting was to play the story on page one, with a single column headline, not as the lead story. It was the most interesting story of the day, but we didn’t make it the lead story on page one because we knew it would be unpopular, and would draw criticism wherever we put it. Knowing our conservative community, we anticipated the cries of "Sensationalism!"
Numerous complaints from the public followed publication of the autopsy story which revealed Creger’s drinking.
"How can you speak ill of the dead," was the general complaint, "especially a hero who died serving the public."
"Do you really expect firemen to show up if your newspaper catches fire?"
"How crummy, anything to sell newspapers!"
"You owe the Creger family an apology."
In retrospect, I would not change our coverage of the fire. Perhaps handling the drinking/autopsy story differently might have prevented some of the criticism. We could have prepared the public for the drinking disclosure by a story saying an investigation was underway into Creger’s death, and that he came to the fire from a bar.
The number of complaints might also have been reduced if we had emphasized that it was the city’s investigation which revealed he had been drinking. This might have made it clear that the drinking was not something the newspaper came up with on its own.
No matter how we approached the autopsy story, some people would still have been angry that we had "tarnished" a hero. "What good did it do?" was often the question raised. They don’t see a newspaper’s function as journalists do.
Newspapers are not in the business of making or breaking heroes, but reporting events as they actually happen.
Harry J. Reed is the retired editor of the Citizen Patriot, Jackson, MI.
Source: FineLine: The Newsletter On Journalism Ethics, vol. 1, no. 2 (May 1989), p. 3.
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.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I liked the article. I think it was best for you to be honest because journalism is about honesty. I think people had the right to know how he died. Just because he was drunk didn’t change my mind on him being a hero. Considering he was a 17-year veteran, and has been saving peoples lives for 17 years. The family would of already known because of the autopsy so they had to be expecting it. Overall, I think it was a good article
October 9th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
The article that you wrote about the firefighter was just and neccessary. Although he was an honored hero who died on duty, he was also drunk and had disobeyed orders. Not reporting the whole story would not maintain journalistic integrity, and it is your responsibility to inform the public. The follow-up article raised awareness of drunkeness on the job and how that can affect lives.
November 4th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I agree that the article should have been published wheter people liked it or not. It stated the facts and if people don’t want to hear them then they are just in denial. I do agree there could have been a better way going about the second article that would have caused less of an uprising from people though.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I agree completly with the publishing of this story. Yes it hurt the family but, the public had to be informed of the autopsy. People need to know the real facts. Life and or death isn’t always great. This man could have been a hero in many differant ways, just not this one. I belive that the people need to get over it and live life.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:32 am
I agree with the fact that the newspaper published the story, but they should have done it differently. They should have leaded up to it by mentioning the investigation so that people wouldn’t be so upset and criticizing. But it was good that they told the public the truth, because people need to know the facts, even though it can have some emotional affect on family and friends.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:34 am
I am the only son of this fallen firefighter. While I know that it is the publics right to know all of the details surrounding his death, there were still other details that were left out of the story. Maybe the journalist didn’t have access to all of the details so published what he had, maybe he wasn’t privileged to other details other than what was already public information. I respect the right of the paper to publish the autopsy results. I just wish they had also published the other details of how he came to be fighting the fire to begin with.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:22 am
I think that this article deserved to be published because even though it shed negative light on our fire fighting heros, those heros really do affect the community and people. I think that it was good that the newspaper revealed the fact that the firefighter was intoxicated because it revealed to the public that even “heros” are not perfect. However, I can also see where this would be really hard for the family but given the fact that it was published almost a month and a half after the funeral, and the autopsy was withheld for almost two weeks, shows that the newspaper along with other officials were at least trying to have respect for the family.