« Wildcard | Main | Fairy-Tale Crime »
October 24, 2005
Criminal Jargon and Reporting Purpose
Since beginning our unit on crime reporting, I've had several complications deciphering between the various criminal terminologies. In particular the legalities, those wonderful words we use to define whether a suspect "allegedly" committed a crime or police arrested "so-and-so" for committing "Crime A."
I suppose I've been leery about the entire process because, although we mean to carefully cover the crime beat, it's often seen as a narrative. As the Dave Krajicek stated in "Covering Crime and Justice: The Crime Beat"...
The dramatis personae for even routine crime tales likely will include a protagonist and antagonist, if not outright heroes and scoundrels.
Granted, I understand that (for the use of a looser term) "bad guys" and "good guys" exist; yet, I question if this notion contradicts coverage of a particular crime. If journalists are held under such scrutiny for news events, wouldn't writing in narrative style put them under further scrutiny?
Although Edna Buchanan, a Miami Herald crime reporter, noted that...
the crime beat "has it all: greed, sex, violence, comedy and tragedy."Isn't it placing a biases against the victims and (potential)criminals within the story? I feel that in a way it does. If we're going to focus primarily on the sensationalism of the story, or the dirt, it only unjustifies the people in the story.
Then again, I suppose that's way editors use crime reporting as a "sink or swim" test. It immediately clues them in on the ethics and standards of future employees.
Posted by BethanyHutira at October 24, 2005 10:37 PM