Many questions are reportedly arising about how law enforcement handled last week’s Southwest Texas elementary school massacre, enough to the extent that the US Department of Justice announced it has launched an investigation into police ‘actions and responses’, a Sunday DOJ press release states.
Witness accounts of the Uvalde outrage via published reports are trickling out about police action or inaction, their arrival time, when they engaged the gunman and additional pressing matters regarding procedure and policy. As a formally trained journalist and an experienced newspaper reporter, I find the dynamics reminiscent of my experience with higher-profile news coverage and law enforcement’s reaction to it.
Three memorable incidents from my newswriting and reporting days come to mind: a school shooting; and how law enforcement handled my reportage of investigations into a successful band of bankrobbers and the discovery of a dead body. All illustrate the balance between public information for members of the community, officials’ release of it, and the importance of responsible journalism when reporting crime.
Not so quiet on the farm
A meter reader doing his job one day in 1999 at an Eastern Indiana barn called 911 when he stumbled upon a lifeless body. The call was routed to Indiana State Police, whose spokesman contacted me with this heads up within days after we first met. The victim was a local man so this story became my responsibility. The spokesman fed me lines about the whodunit, stating rhetorical words like ‘pure speculation’ and ‘ongoing investigation’, both of which have very little if any meaning for, significance to and support for the story. By contrast, the spokesman did not answer questions about the cause of death, what shape the body was in and whether foul play was a factor.
But two key incidents amid the early stages of this investigation proved to be revelatory, pivotal and memorable.
While the state police spokesman was evasive and disclosed little information, I explored other sources to fill in the many blanks. Knowing that the county prosecutor was represented at the barn, I reached out to and received a return call from the prosecutor’s investigator, whom I still can hear confidently telling me: ‘John Rowles had been severely beaten about the face and head’.
Publication of this quote and other information the investigator provided upset the apple cart among the law enforcement community, with the state police spokesman memorably calling me to complain: ‘I am the source for this story’ though he did not purposely offer much help for my purposes. The investigator later sent me a very memorable fax that accused me of misquoting him, backtracking by stating no one is jumping to conclusions about the cause of death and noting the county prosecutor approved this fax’ message to me.
An off-record conversation with an uninvolved investigator informed me that once investigators have a suspect or a person of interest, they want to be able to confront that suspect with information only police and the suspect know. But readers of the news story all knew privy information thanks to the sheriff’s investigator.
Within days, the spokesman and I were speaking about what was officially termed as the ‘death investigation’ when the spokesman digresses then asks me: ‘Is this your first murder?’, realizing before me that he slipped by terming the subject we all were covering a ‘murder’. The spokesman suddenly begins laughing like a hyena.
Days later my newspaper’s top editor wrote in a column that the prosecutor’s investigator probably said too much and I was reminded of this column advocating for my reportage’s integrity weeks ago when one of my spies informed me the editor died late last month of liver cancer.
The case ultimately went cold even after news following the autopsy revealed the cause of death was hypothermia. One memorable check-in with the state police spokesman prompted an immediate response ’no’ because I asked him if this case has investigators ‘baffled’.
Last I checked, the case remains unsolved. The spokesman admitted the victim had been in some sort of altercation though that was not the cause of death.
Commander commands minimal understanding
Multiple Eastern Shore of Maryland banks were knocked off in 2000 by a crew of men whose operation was efficient enough that law enforcement was far behind the elusive criminals. A task force involving investigators from state police, the county sheriff and additional agencies convened and among the topics was handling media inquiries. The newly installed state police barrack commander insisted that he and only he deal with questions, which a sheriff’s lieutenant challenged. Later, the sheriff took the initiative to call me and state almost immediately: ‘Henry: no one speaks for me in this county’.
And, my next effort to speak with lower-level troopers at the barrack proved to be enlightening.
My call instead was routed to the barrack commander who very early during the conversation states: ‘Henry: I’m really disappointed in the work you’ve been doing lately’, which surprised me on many levels, initially because I thought he recognized an error that others, myself included, did not. So I asked him what he takes exception to and he replies not being fond of the headlines. I then delved into what’s best described as a Newsroom 101 crash course, explaining internal procedures about the levels of editors who edit, paginate and title my writing, prompting him then to tell me he knew none of that procedure. Upon hearing that admission, I then realized the initial questions I wanted to ask about his disappointment with me were appropriate: how many journalism courses he’d taken and whether he believed he is one of my editors.
But, rather, I answered differently, telling him that it’s early in my journalism pursuits and I realize I have more to learn about law enforcement. Whether the inside-outed message that he’d long been in law enforcement and knew very little about journalism got through was unclear.
The band of robbers was apprehended but by this time, I had advanced to a larger newspaper.
Top officials respond
Word reached me in the newsroom early evening one day in March 2001 about a shooting at a Maryland high school, just east of DC. My editors sent me to Largo and among those who addressed the crush of DC-area reporters were the school principal and the county police chief. This was a big enough event that the school and police department’s top officials addressed reporters within hours after its occurrence.
A fight between two teens had begun in the cafeteria then spilled outside, still on school premises, where the shooter produced then used a gun. The victim, who was expected to recover from the gunshot wound, formerly was a student at the school and the police chief said he anticipated apprehension of the shooter within hours.
Whether the shooter was apprehended I do not recall. I believe the story was assigned to another reporter.
One important lesson coming out of this story was the importance of the news to the community as indicated by the principal and chief attending the news conference and addressing the public through reporters.
Both sides’ responsibilities
Many valuable lessons came out of my cops and crime reportage that to the day inform my perspective and assessment of high-profile news.
Observations that typically ensue are who did the reporter speak to? what kinds of questions did the reporter ask the source? did the source answer or bounce the questions? are public interests served? among many others.
The main responsibility of the reporter when searching for the truth is to print accurate information. The responsibility of spokespeople is to present accurate information to be gleaned, but they often do so with the motives of making themselves look good, steering the reporter toward their angle and releasing information that prompts credible tips from the community to help solve the crime.
For that reason, public affairs and relations are commonly known by reporters as The Dark Side.
The hard balance between police and reporters is often challenging to navigate but geared toward serving the public interest.