Taking Out the Trash: Questions of Responsible Journalism

On Thursday, 25th of May, local Kent radio read out news that the Canterbury City Council has investments in arms research for weapons used in places like Iraq. That is, despite one’s personal beliefs over the on going Iraq conflict, even war in general, a part of Canterbury resident’s council tax goes on funding weapons and war. Surely this type of a discovery, that involves everyone within the local community, should be reported, and pursued by the public.

On that very same day, the local newspaper, Kentish Gazette, also felt like it had big news. Instead of talking about social issues that involve Canterbury citizens directly, the local press reported: “Charity Shop Hires Killer”. Opening the paper, a reader would encounter a horrific tale of how a woman confronted the killer of her former friend, out of prison and working in a charity shop. The article, seemingly desperate for sensationalism, formed this incident to be yet another example of the age-old debate: Should life mean life?

Although I will eventually have to address my own thoughts on that debate, there is more that is to be said about the article itself. Regardless of ones own views in the justice system, Alex Claridge’s article reeks of appallingly bad journalism.

To begin with, references in the article demonstrate a lack of checking background and evidence. In one of the quotes from Michelle Locke, the witness who apparently reported the incident to the Gazette, the article mentions the “manageress” of the shop. However, actually it seems like the witness addressed her public disapproval to an innocent and confused volunteer. Both managers of the charity shop in question happen to be male.

In other prints addressing the issue, the diction of the paper is seemingly based on rumours. In recounting the event of the killing, the article mentions that it “was reported” that Anderson told his ex-wife in 1993 that he expected to be released in ten years. Later on in the Gazette’s issue, a comment on the news, mentions this again. Except, at this time around, it is written that “Anderson is said to have boasted” of his speculated release. In just turning of a few pages, Kentish Gazette has gone from reporting possible rumours to using them for inflammatory purposes, as the use of the word ‘boasted’ implies a high moral disapproval. Yet, seeing as how little of the article seems to be researched in depth, this ‘reporting’ seems inadequate. To make such an accusation, the Gazette should secure a firmer basis for their evidence than, ‘it is said’ or ‘it has been reported’.

The follow up to the story, appearing on page three of the paper dated Thursday, June 1st, presents even more inaccuracies. The pictures used for the article suggest that Ms. Thorpe, Anderson victim was heavily pregnant during the crime. However, research to the case shows that her pregnancy was only at its first 3 weeks when the incident happened, and the pictures used for the article must date back to a previous pregnancy. There is indeed horror in an act of taking a life. However it still must be stated that such choice of pictures by the Gazette is guilty of misleading the public. Reporting inaccuracies and shrouding the truth of the story with sensationalism remains an immoral, unjust act.

The factual inaccuracies and inflammatory reporting begs a question to the intention behind the news. The article begins by calling the encounter of the former convict working at the shop shocking for the reported witness. The article seems to be interested in formulating a tale of a person’s day of shopping disturbed by a shocking encounter. Yet, paradoxically, the article clearly states: “Ms. Locke had gone into the shop with her 20-year old daughter Rachel having heard that” the former killer might be working there. So, if this indeed is the case, Ms Locke went to the store with the sole purpose of a verbal attack against Mr. Anderson. It is unlikely that the event where she shouted accusations at Mr. Anderson was an actual “shock encounter”, if it was indeed this premeditated.

The quality of the reporting presents little more than a burning desire for sensationalism. It seems as if the facts have remained largely unconsidered, rumours without a clear source have been harnessed for purposes of fierce accusations, and the apparent course of events has been twisted for dramatic purposes.

As a curiously ill-composed menagerie of fragmented reports, one almost thinks Claridge’s article simultaneously questions its own worth as news. The only presence of any appropriate authority, a spokesperson for the Kent Probations office, is reported expressing that the former convict is “not in breach of any of his licence conditions. Conditions can include undertaking work”. Thus, legally speaking, Mr. Anderson, although he was once convicted over a decade ago, is currently not breaking any laws. In the eyes of the authorities, there is nothing wrong with his employment. It seems the headlines for the Gazette could just as easily have been; “Former Convict moves on with Life”.

This calls to question the whole worth of the news in general. It concerns the life of Canterbury citizens as a whole very little. Canterbury is situated near a prison, and there are certainly more former convicts that walk on the High Street. Charity shops, by definition of their tasks, offer jobs to former convicts who are trying to start a new life. It is a part of operating as a charity; to give people another chance. Why then the news?

The following week’s edition of the Kentish Gazette provides a possible answer. In rehashing the events of the former week’s paper, the June 1st edition mentions: “a murder is continuing work at a Canterbury charity shop- despite our revelations that he was confronted there by the friends of his victim”. Claridge, writing again, wishes to make his journalistic crusade to resemble a for the community. Or is he sensationalising an event of little news-value to sell more papers? Is Ms. Locke, who posed pictured with an old news paper dealing with Anderson in the 90’s, seeking justice, or airing out her feelings for publicity? More specifically, is anyone involved with reporting the case actually responsible enough to write without an obvious air of inconsiderate vigilantism?

In the opinions section of the paper printed June 1st, Clive Wilkins- Oppler quite aptly writes that despite his crimes “Mr. Anderson should have been allowed to maintain his anonymity and keep a low profile”. As Wilkins-Oppler notes, now he “could possibly have to confront the wrath of vigilantes”. Such comments alone elucidate the level of tact and care shown in the reporting of these news. In seeking out sensationalism, the actual humanistic concerns the Gazette is claiming to report for are forgotten.

Alex Claridge’s reporting is a journalistic equivalent of taking out the trash. His articles lack investigation reported in depth, and irresponsibly damages the lives of not only Mr Anderson, but also any of his colleagues, friends and family. All committed under a shroud of speaking for justice and questioning the legal structure of life sentence.

At this point, it seems necessary to address the debate Claridge wished to provoke. Is prison viewed as an inhuman bastion for punishment, or a facility for rehabilitation? If it is savage revenge the society is after, then the reports of Claridge and opinions expressed be Ms Locke might have some value, despite how poorly they were reported. However, if it is justice we are after, then the case of Mr. Anderson should present a story of hardship, yes, but leading to triumph of the legal system, not a failure. The authorities have deemed that he spent enough of his sentence. He has entered society and works for an organization seeking to aid others. Surely such a daily life is a sign of rehabilitation. It is a shame to notice that despite the light that the beautiful Canterbury Cathedral radiates above the city, it fails to transmit a trace of the Christian values of forgiveness and hope for redemption.

What was the actual significance and motive of such news, when reports such as the Council’s involvement in arms research were announced on the same day? In the words of Kahlil Gibran: “He who wears his morality as a robe is better off naked”.

By Tomas Crowe

Copyright June 2006