Last week the Kentucky Association of School Administrators released a statement noting that they are “taking a clear and unequivocal stand: grooming and sexual abuse of students will not be tolerated in Kentucky’s public schools.”
Despite bold statements like this, however, as we look around at both local and national news it’s obvious that our society is not doing enough to protect this most vulnerable segment of our population. Or to hold those who take advantage of that vulnerability accountable for their actions.
It’s there in the Epstein Files.
It’s there in the coverage of the Greenup County special education aide who was released on bond only to victimize another minor in Carter County.
And though some of those folks eventually go to jail – at least for a while – and have their day in court, too many more slip through the cracks with nothing more than a lost job and a gap in their resume. They’re quietly let go and allowed to go about their lives. No accountability. No therapy or intervention. No justice.
And the media is often complicit.
We live in a litigious society. One where you can be sued for anything – even if you did nothing wrong. Even if you have the documentation to back up and verify the claims you make. It happened to the Carter County Times last year, when we were alerted that a plaintiff was attempting to serve us for coverage of allegations of sexual impropriety involving patients at a regional hospital. Everything we reported was backed up by documentation from the hospital and the medical board and, ultimately, our attorneys were able to get them to drop the suit against us because our coverage was accurate, and protected by state law.
But even the potential of such lawsuits can make editors and publishers, especially those at corporate owned papers, nervous. As an example, several years ago, when covering one of the most egregious and, frankly, insane cases of sexual grooming and assault I’ve ever read about, I received a quote from the Commonwealth’s attorney who agreed to accept an Alford plea from the defendant in the case. (An Alford plea allows a defendant to plead guilty while maintaining their innocence, but acknowledging that the preponderance of evidence would likely lead to a conviction in a jury trial.) The quote from the attorney – which to this day I contend should have been the front page pull quote – was, “There are some things that are evil, and immoral, but aren’t technically illegal.” But instead of being placed in a box on the front page to tease the story, the quote was cut entirely by my editor, who was worried about any potential litigation.
It didn’t change the objective facts in the story. But it sure changed the tone. And though that story was released, because there was a court case and a verdict, there are other stories we hear about as news media that never see publication. Usually because of built in bureaucracy that – like the policies my editor was following – are designed to protect the institutions involved from a lawsuit. Policies that keep us from accessing documentation that would verify the stories we’ve heard.
As a hypothetical, imagine that someone who works with children in Carter County had an inappropriate relationship with a student. In this hypothetical situation the student in question is 18. Because of their age, no criminal charges are filed against the perpetrator. But because they have engaged in a serious breach of professional ethics they are let go by their employer. The newspaper hears about this story from a concerned parent, who wishes to remain anonymous, and we follow up. A contact within the school district confirms the story, also under anonymity, but is unable to verify the name of the individuals involved. The newspaper, though, now has the name of the alleged perpetrator, and confirmation that they were let go for the reasons indicated. We now go to the employer with the name, and questions about their dismissal. But, because dismissals are a personnel issue, the employer isn’t legally allowed to discuss them. The employee records are considered privileged information, and thus are protected from public scrutiny.
In this situation, the story dies. We can’t run a story based on nothing but rumor and hearsay. Even if we believe it, even if we’ve had it confirmed “off record” and anonymously, we need documentation to verify. That’s part of our ethical duty as responsible journalists. If we can’t back it up with documentation, we aren’t a news source, we’re a gossip rag.
But we’re also complicit. The newspaper. The employer. The society that allows these forms of legal obfuscation. Whenever we don’t allow coverage of a story, or leave out pertinent information, out of fear of litigation, we’re complicit.
And we all need to do better.
