Last Updated: October 23, 2010 12:00am'
Yes, absolutely.
That's the short answer to the question so many Canadians asked this past week, as the trial of Russell Williams moved from sordid exhibit to horrifying detail: Did the media really have to expend so much ink, so many electrons and so much airtime on the man Justice Robert Scott dubbed 'a sado-sexual serial killer'?
Yes, we did.
The long answer requires a bit more space. So, with apologies to those who are already suffering from Williams fatigue, here goes.
Certainly, the fate of the former commander would have been the same, regardless of whether the media had given his trial minute-by-minute coverage or ignored it completely. He had already given notice he would plead guilty to two premeditated murders, two sexual assaults and 82 burglaries. The Crown's case was clear, the evidence was overwhelming and the sentence was foreordained in law.
So why, then, the saturation treatment?
As a former newspaper manager, I am accustomed to the reflexive accusations from readers, listeners or viewers that sensationalism is the blunt instrument designed to boost readership or ratings. It's absolutely true newspaper and online editors, as well as radio and producers, design their information packages to command as much attention as possible without distorting the facts or their underlying truth.
Not as well understood is that news media have far more to lose in the long run by betraying audience sensibilities, toying with facts and undermining reader confidence than they will ever gain through a few additional sales or a temporary bump in ratings or hits. It's akin to fudging the numbers on this quarter's financials - over the long term it only hurts.
Those who direct and shape coverage at the country's major news outlets are also under no illusions about the power of consumers to turn the page, flip the channel or click the mouse. This became apparent during the trials of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka; it was a lesson re-learned during the trial of Robert Pickton.
During the latter, news outlets - including the national newspaper at which I was then employed - prepared for saturation coverage of the long, complicated trial of an accused mass murderer. It took about two weeks, however, for audiences to send back the sobering message that there were limits to what they wanted to know, day to day. News media adjusted, even as they kept up their vigil for unexpected developments.
As a journalist, I am of the persuasion that more information is nearly always better than less; that context, detail and background, put on the public record, aid our collective understanding, both now and in the future. To give historians and social scientists their best shot at interpreting today's events tomorrow, it's important that the 'first rough draft of history' be as detailed and comprehensive as we can make it.
Reporters in Belleville this week were exposed to grisly details that never got close to air, screens or newsprint. Ethical considerations, newsroom conventions and audience tastes intervened. And the result was reporting that was, on the whole, appropriately sensitive.
Among the very best was that of CBC Radio reporter Dave Seglins, who voiced reports laced with factual data and interpretive commentary that respected the victims and their families, and that could frequently be described as poetic understatement.
As an educator, I was grateful for the in-depth coverage of the Williams trial on two other levels. First, it provided the kind of teachable moment on the workings of our court system that appears only occasionally. And second, it offered my foreign students an object lesson in Canadian law.
For one Chinese student, for example, the spectacle of a high-ranking military officer being held accountable for his crimes by a civilian court was revelatory.
The depth with which news media covered the Williams trial - and the degree to which they were able to use new-media tools - will serve the cause of justice well.
It will be of benefit to a future parole board, certainly. It will help bring closure to the survivors of Williams' terrors. It will add to our understanding of killers who manage to live dual lives.
It acknowledges those among us who are survivors of sex attacks but have never found the courage or opportunity to tell their stories.
And it is one way to pay our final respects to those women who, because of one man, can no longer speak for themselves.
E-mail cornies@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment