Speaking Ill

by Paul Giacobbe

The news department reported last week on the death of a man whose body was found under a bridge in Providence.  The story reported that the man was apparently homeless, and had a criminal record.  Viewer Geoffrey M. DiCenso did not believe the man’s criminal record was relevant to the story.

I just finished watching a news story about the cause of death of the man who was found under an overpass last week.  At the end of the story of the medical examiner’s report on the cause of his death, the reporter stated that the man was known at Crossroads, and “…he had a long criminal record”. I would like to know why, when reporting about the tragedy of a human being who froze to death because he had nowhere to go in this, the richest country in the world, was it necessary to report he had a criminal record?  Does that make his death less tragic?  Does that make him less important?  Less of a human being?  The poor bastard froze to death, alone under an overpass.  It’s bad enough he died in such an undignified and lonely way – you had to take away the rest of his dignity and have the last word on his life be that he had a criminal record.  Why do you have to have the last thing said about his life such a negative?  Why not end the story with “how and why can this happen in this country – why wasn’t he someplace warm and safe?
You people seem to be trying to keep up with Channels 11 and 12 and report sensationalistic news.  I think Doug White would be highly disappointed with this kind of reporting.  I know I am. Shame on you Channel 10.

The NBC10 assistant news director responded:

This was a follow-up to a story we had reported a few days earlier when the man’s body was first found and before he had been identified.  In the original story we reported that he “was a transient known to police” and made reference to that fact that it had been very cold that night.  This implied, without confirming, that he had died of exposure and homicide was not suspected.  The follow-up story confirmed that murder was not the cause, clarified the actual cause of death (heart disease) and explained further why he was known to police (criminal record);  all information we did not have in the earlier story.  It was not meant to be a condemnation of the man’s life, nor should it have been a commentary on homelessness.

Reporting on a death of this type presents an interesting dilemma: How to relate as much relevant information as possible when all information is not available (or able to be reported)?  Facts initially available, according to the assistant news director, were that a body was found and the cause of death was not known at the time of the first report.  Viewers ought to know, for example, that the deceased was not someone in a $1000 suit who had been murdered, but that the man was likely someone who had died of natural causes. 
.
The fact that the man was homeless, or had a criminal record, was not relevant to the story of his death, except that it was necessary, in this case, to explain as much about him as possible before his identity and cause of death were reportable. Were all the facts know initially, the natural causes death of a person—homeless or not— would not likely have been a story at all.
. .
NBC10 provides the spaced for this blog, but the opinions are mine alone. – Paul Giacobbe