Last Thursdays edition included a story with the headline, Press not allowed in hearing on fatal fire.
The story was about Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge William Johnstons decision to not allow the press in the courtroom during the hearing for a juvenile charged with arson and murder in connection to a fatal March house fire in Monroe. Our courts reporter, Brian Gray, was the only member of the media in attendance and was asked to leave the courtroom.
There have been a few reader comments submitted online that Id like to address.
There is a misconception that juvenile hearings are not open to the press, period. They can be open, as long as the judge gives permission to a specific media member and organization. Media allowed into juvenile proceedings are not allowed to reveal the identity of the defendant.
In this case, Brian had received permission from Green County Circuit Court Judge James Beer to attend the hearings. But at the defendants attorneys request, the case was switched to Judge Johnston, who occasionally sits in Monroe to assist with Green Countys courts overload. Beers written approval to allow the Times in the courtroom was included in the case file, but Johnston has the latitude to deny media access, and in this case he did.
A reader comment was critical of the Times for wanting to cover the hearings at all. This is the problem with people who think their so-called journalism careers are more important than the humans ... they are covering. Nothing good is served by the press being there, other than being able to say you were there.
I would argue there is a public interest served in covering the court system, particularly higher-profile cases. Doing so provides accountability to the court system and its judges and attorneys, and also to the work of law enforcement personnel.
One reader made the case that coverage lets the public know what is going on with our court systems and special little deals they make. Thats a byproduct, I suppose.
There has been an implication made as there often is in cases like this that the newspaper only wants to cover court proceedings to sell more copies. I think people often forget that were a business, too, and our widget is newspapers. The more newspapers we sell, the better off the business is. So inherently, yes, we are always trying to sell more newspapers.
That being said, it is obvious from the reaction that for every reader who is satisfied by court coverage, there is someone who is upset. A person whose name appears in the police blotter might decide to take it out on the newspaper by canceling their subscription, as an example. Covering trials is far from the business scheme some would believe it to be.
Finally, there was a question asked regarding what the Times would do if it was one of our employees children on trial. We have a policy about employees and legal news. If one of our employees or immediate family members is arrested or in an accident, for example, we make sure the news moves to the top of the police blotter or accident report to avoid any appearance of trying to hide, or bury, the information.
Editors and reporters have countless conversations during their careers with people who wish we wouldnt print legal news for one reason or another. We are sensitive to the concerns of family and friends and the impact news reports have on their lives.
But to be blunt: Serving the public interest and being the newspaper of record in our communities must be, and are, our first priorities. Its our job, as difficult or uncomfortable as it sometimes is.
I'm sure I haven't addressed anywhere near every question you might have about this topic. So feel free to ask, and I'll try to answer.
The story was about Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge William Johnstons decision to not allow the press in the courtroom during the hearing for a juvenile charged with arson and murder in connection to a fatal March house fire in Monroe. Our courts reporter, Brian Gray, was the only member of the media in attendance and was asked to leave the courtroom.
There have been a few reader comments submitted online that Id like to address.
There is a misconception that juvenile hearings are not open to the press, period. They can be open, as long as the judge gives permission to a specific media member and organization. Media allowed into juvenile proceedings are not allowed to reveal the identity of the defendant.
In this case, Brian had received permission from Green County Circuit Court Judge James Beer to attend the hearings. But at the defendants attorneys request, the case was switched to Judge Johnston, who occasionally sits in Monroe to assist with Green Countys courts overload. Beers written approval to allow the Times in the courtroom was included in the case file, but Johnston has the latitude to deny media access, and in this case he did.
A reader comment was critical of the Times for wanting to cover the hearings at all. This is the problem with people who think their so-called journalism careers are more important than the humans ... they are covering. Nothing good is served by the press being there, other than being able to say you were there.
I would argue there is a public interest served in covering the court system, particularly higher-profile cases. Doing so provides accountability to the court system and its judges and attorneys, and also to the work of law enforcement personnel.
One reader made the case that coverage lets the public know what is going on with our court systems and special little deals they make. Thats a byproduct, I suppose.
There has been an implication made as there often is in cases like this that the newspaper only wants to cover court proceedings to sell more copies. I think people often forget that were a business, too, and our widget is newspapers. The more newspapers we sell, the better off the business is. So inherently, yes, we are always trying to sell more newspapers.
That being said, it is obvious from the reaction that for every reader who is satisfied by court coverage, there is someone who is upset. A person whose name appears in the police blotter might decide to take it out on the newspaper by canceling their subscription, as an example. Covering trials is far from the business scheme some would believe it to be.
Finally, there was a question asked regarding what the Times would do if it was one of our employees children on trial. We have a policy about employees and legal news. If one of our employees or immediate family members is arrested or in an accident, for example, we make sure the news moves to the top of the police blotter or accident report to avoid any appearance of trying to hide, or bury, the information.
Editors and reporters have countless conversations during their careers with people who wish we wouldnt print legal news for one reason or another. We are sensitive to the concerns of family and friends and the impact news reports have on their lives.
But to be blunt: Serving the public interest and being the newspaper of record in our communities must be, and are, our first priorities. Its our job, as difficult or uncomfortable as it sometimes is.
I'm sure I haven't addressed anywhere near every question you might have about this topic. So feel free to ask, and I'll try to answer.
