Why no follow-up on certain stories?

[librarygirlatl]

I am asking the following merely out of curiosity and I mean no disrespect. Furthermore, I know the following question could be asked on many of the available boards but I'm posing the question on this board because I live in Atlanta.
Do members of the media get directives from law enforcement and community leaders to stop covering certain news stories? Here's an example:

Yesterday morning, a woman was carjacked in Midtown by a suspect who used a compound bow & arrow to threaten her and steal her car. The suspect later crashed the stolen vehicle in Marietta and was shot by law enforcement when he aimed the bow & arrow at them. The suspect survived, is currently in the hospital, and will be taken to jail and charged when he's released from the hospital. I heard reports that the suspect also threw a fire extinguisher at another vehicle in Midtown and that he was dressed in green tights.

I say that after today we will not hear anything more about this story. We know the suspect's name but any additional information about the carjacking, the suspect's background, motive, and outcomes will not be reported. Is this a matter of the media's interest being so fleeting that they feel no one cares about follow-up, or do law enforcement and community leaders strongly encourage the media to cease reporting on certain stories? Maybe for a suspect's family's privacy, maybe mental health issues?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated. I've run out of fingers and toes for how many times there's been something really sensational and often tragic that happens one day, and then the reporting ceases. Another example is the attorney who was gunned down in broad daylight at the corner of Peachtree St. and Peachtree Walk in April 2017. Does anyone even know the outcome of the sentencing for the suspect in that case?

Please don't come at me. I pose this question out of genuine curiosity. Hoping for some thoughtful discussion.

 

[ZantennaG1]

I suspect that's just today's 24/7 news cycle. As soon as one crazy story settles down, here comes a dozen more! On top of that, even a "local" newspaper will give way to national stories, such as Covid-19, the Petco Park incident, the Taliban, etc. There was once a time when the news cycle was so slow and local that stories could be followed and covered for weeks. By the way, I found the article on the 11alive website, and it appears any new updates will be online only.

 

[Mikey Radio]

I think this topic is similar in certain ways to the discussion in another thread that asks why some missing persons stories are given widespread and ongoing coverage, while others aren't. News directors only have a certain amount of time during a given newscast to report on various stories, so they cannot report on every detail involved with every case that unfolds. They also have a limited number of resources and reporters to cover it all.

Using your example above about the carjacking and police chase: When that incident happened, lots of people probably saw it unfold or saw/heard all the police cars speeding to the scene and will watch the news to try and learn more. It's an interesting news item that would draw wide interest in that market, and if they did a teaser for that story during a quick break prior to the newscast, it may cause people to tune in and see what happened and thus, generate ratings. What happens after the chase is over, the suspect is caught, pleads, goes to court and is sentenced just isn't as interesting or as "sexy". Also, most stations have a limited number of reporters on the ground so they may not have the ability to continue following up on such cases - which could involve perusing court, police or hospital records or spending time in the courtroom during the trial or sentencing, etc. For a really big story that attracts huge interest, sure they'll do it. For an assault, stolen car and police chase, which occur multiple times daily in some cities or markets, not so much.

To answer one of your questions, I've never known a law enforcement or government agency to order a news station to not report or to stop reporting on a story. Indeed, they really couldn't enforce something like that due to a little item in the Constitution called "freedom of the press". Now, they do at times ask news agencies to leave out certain details that may be sensitive or that may blow their investigation and when that's done, in most cases the news agency will honor the request, as they want to keep a good rapport with the agency so they can continue to get future stories and details from them. I have also seen an increase in law enforcement only offering minimal details or limiting what they'll say or declassify until their investigation unfolds or is complete. In many cases its to avoid a bunch of rumor and gossip and having the whole case play out on social media and go off the rails completely before they themselves have had a chance to properly investigate and those involved have had their day in court.

 

[onenil]

Shootouts and car chases are exciting. Court cases are dull and most people don't care to follow something like that unless someone involved is already famous.

 

[gr8oldies]

As far a story like the one referenced above, few people will even remember by the time the trial or guilty plea come around. On the other hand, a murdered or missing-but-never-found child or very heinous murder can be news for months or years.

I do know a certain resort community with a huge ability to make news stories dissapear.

 

[johnnya2k6]

And around 40 years ago, Atlanta was transfixed with two major stories both at home and abroad: The child murders and the Iranian hostage crisis; both went on for months.

ABC News did nightly "America Held Hostage" reports, which gave birth to Nightline; WSB did their own Nightline-ish show called "Special Edition: Atlanta's Children" which was devoted to the murders.

444 days and a new President later, the hostages were finally freed, while Wayne Williams was believed to have been behind the child murders, which got newfound interest in the last few years.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

I am asking the following merely out of curiosity and I mean no disrespect. Furthermore, I know the following question could be asked on many of the available boards but I'm posing the question on this board because I live in Atlanta.
Do members of the media get directives from law enforcement and community leaders to stop covering certain news stories? Here's an example:

Yesterday morning, a woman was carjacked in Midtown by a suspect who used a compound bow & arrow to threaten her and steal her car. The suspect later crashed the stolen vehicle in Marietta and was shot by law enforcement when he aimed the bow & arrow at them. The suspect survived, is currently in the hospital, and will be taken to jail and charged when he's released from the hospital. I heard reports that the suspect also threw a fire extinguisher at another vehicle in Midtown and that he was dressed in green tights.

I say that after today we will not hear anything more about this story. We know the suspect's name but any additional information about the carjacking, the suspect's background, motive, and outcomes will not be reported. Is this a matter of the media's interest being so fleeting that they feel no one cares about follow-up, or do law enforcement and community leaders strongly encourage the media to cease reporting on certain stories? Maybe for a suspect's family's privacy, maybe mental health issues?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated. I've run out of fingers and toes for how many times there's been something really sensational and often tragic that happens one day, and then the reporting ceases. Another example is the attorney who was gunned down in broad daylight at the corner of Peachtree St. and Peachtree Walk in April 2017. Does anyone even know the outcome of the sentencing for the suspect in that case?

Please don't come at me. I pose this question out of genuine curiosity. Hoping for some thoughtful discussion.

MSN

Gary Poste: Who was the alleged Zodiac killer identified by ‘Case Breakers’?

Was a US Air Force veteran and house painter the Zodiac killer?

news.yahoo.com

There has been rumors for decades over who the Zodiac Killer was in California. Initially there was rumors that the Zodiac killer was a San Francisco Police officer and a Vallejo Police officer. Note some of these rumors have their origins in other cases like the Golden State Killer where that killer turned out to be a cop in the eastern suburbs of Sacramento. However that went cold for decades. In rare cases especially the Zodiac conspiracy theory and the Golden State Killer does get an update after decades of going cold.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I am asking the following merely out of curiosity and I mean no disrespect. Furthermore, I know the following question could be asked on many of the available boards but I'm posing the question on this board because I live in Atlanta.
Do members of the media get directives from law enforcement and community leaders to stop covering certain news stories?

Almost all the time, the media are a mouthpiece for the police and government leaders. So while there's not something so explicit as "a directive", if the police were to stop giving updates on a certain crime, they can effectively smother the coverage, because there's nothing new to say. How many times can you report "X days since Victoria Smith was last seen at a QuikTrip in Alpharetta"?

One thing the police have done near me is employ a small set of "public information officers", who are the only ones authorized to speak to the media. This provides an amount of cover for the involved law enforcement members, should there be a police-action that results in injury to a suspect or a member of the public.

There are rare occasions when the media may do original reporting on an unsolved crime. One TV station in my market did some reports on a string of heavy equipment thefts, tracked down a likely culprit, but before any legal action could occur, that person died. However, that wasn't random - it was enabled by a tipster who sent a pile of documents to the reporter.

 

[davideduardo]

One thing the police have done near me is employ a small set of "public information officers", who are the only ones authorized to speak to the media. This provides an amount of cover for the involved law enforcement members, should there be a police-action that results in injury to a suspect or a member of the public.

The main purpose of the Public Information Officers is to make sure that confidential information is not released or that improper statements that could result in legal action are not make by the rank and file. Companies do the same thing to protect trade secrets and internal strategies.

There is nothing nefarious in making sure that the official and correct data is given out.

Police generally don't hold post-event press conferences as nobody attends. But the media can always contact the police or government office involved for an update if they think it is newsworthy. The only responsibility the police have is not to cover up public information, and it is the media's job to cover stories if they think they are newsworthy after-the-fact.

Watergate became newsworthy because two journalists found worthiness in what seemed to be a little burglary. The police thought it was a break and enter... only when the journalists started digging did it reveal itself as a larger event.

 

[Mikey Radio]

Watergate became newsworthy because two journalists found worthiness in what seemed to be a little burglary. The police thought it was a break and enter... only when the journalists started digging did it reveal itself as a larger event.

^^^ and this illustrates exactly why news organizations and reporters who are doing their level best to honestly and truthfully report factual details about news stories and happenings must be permitted to do so. Instead they got pushback from a former president and his minions who labeled them "fake news", and they tried to sew seeds of distrust in media and news organizations at every turn. Former press secretaries fought tooth and nail against honest reporters at times and called out news organizations who in actuality were the ones giving factual details and information.

Likewise, "news" organizations and networks who are anything but, and that actually act as mouthpieces and propaganda machines for one political party or the other, need to have a huge asterisk next to the word "news" in their title. They should also be forced to air a disclaimer before and after airing any "opinion" or "commentary" or "meant for entertainment only and not to be taken seriously" programs or shows, rather than confusing many viewers when those types of programs currently fall under the guise of a "news network". Again, this occurs on both ends of the political spectrum.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

The main purpose of the Public Information Officers is to make sure that confidential information is not released or that improper statements that could result in legal action are not make by the rank and file. Companies do the same thing to protect trade secrets and internal strategies.

There is nothing nefarious in making sure that the official and correct data is given out.

The PIO's role is to promulgate the department leadership's talking points. Prohibiting rank-and-file from speaking with the media helps keep those talking points intact and reduces the chances of police union talking points from dominating the narrative.

"Official and correct" is practically an oxymoron for media relations types, in all industries, not just policing. They want to be just correct enough that they don't commit a crime themselves.

Look, I know I sound cynical. But if a reporter is not cynical after dealing with media relations professionals, I can only assume the reporter had a nap while all the talking points were repeated for the thousandth time.

Watergate became newsworthy because two journalists found worthiness in what seemed to be a little burglary. The police thought it was a break and enter... only when the journalists started digging did it reveal itself as a larger event.

Watergate is of course an example of what I'm talking about, but that's proving my point that such follow-ups on crime by the media are rare: the Watergate burglary was 49 years ago.

 

[Mitch Brewer]

From personal experience. You get breaking news. Next you get a few updates trickling in. Then you get victim ID's and if a suspect is caught, an ID and maybe some background. That takes about 3-4 days. After that it goes into the court system. Unless it is a high profile crime or involves a child, it just goes pretty much forgotten in the court system. The court system is a very long series of hearings and motions and things that would be very boring to the general public. @librarygirlatl if you would like a little more insight into how the case I'm involved with has evolved, feel free to message me. I won't discuss it in the public section but I don't mind telling the story.