Presuming guilt

lostexpectation

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/crime-reporter-sues-garda-magazine-over-alleged-libel-1217751.html

paul 'last minute replacement for when tarantino doesn't show up' reynolds vs pj 'the gards never do anything wrong even when they do do something wrong' stone. *ding ding*

paul reynolds is taking pj stone/garda review to court for libel because they had an editorial where they said he was a irresponsible reporter out to get the gardai.

so reynolds reports that someone is raped and beaten in tenerife and he also reports an irish policeman is arrested (for it).

I presumingly he played it straight, but as soon as you say 'rape' and 'person arrested', alot of readers/viewers will presume that he is guilty, (this guy was innocent).

how can reporters avoid this?


I dont know how it was originally reported, whether paul reynolds said 'irishman arrested in connection with rape', or 'irish gardai arrested in connection with rape', but newspapers always add in things like profession and nationality.

mike65

PR did state it was a garda who was arrested. Garda HQ issued a statement. I presume they did this after the story was broken on RTE.

I'm wondering why Reynolds took 6 years to pursue this, the Garda Review editorial was in 2001 (I checked online and archives go back only 4 years)

Mike.

flogen

I don't see how saying a Garda was arrested in connection with a case is a presumption of guilt - maybe he went further.

Reporters are supposed to be limited in the way they report about arrests etc. and aren't supposed to name the person until they're charged. As a result they tend to add information to narrow the field down as much as possible - gender, age, nationality, occupation, area of residence etc.

Some times they go all the way with this and give so many details that there's no doubt as to who it is - if he just said he was a Garda I don't see any problem with it.

I didn't realise it was written in 2001, however. Interesting, because many in the media want a tight limitation put on the time which people have to take a defemation case to court (something like a year or two max) and I think the Defamation Bill has something along those lines in it.

Beano

flogen wrote: »

...

Reporters are supposed to be limited in the way they report about arrests etc. and aren't supposed to name the person until they're charged. As a result they tend to add information to narrow the field down as much as possible - gender, age, nationality, occupation, area of residence etc.

Some times they go all the way with this and give so many details that there's no doubt as to who it is - if he just said he was a Garda I don't see any problem with it.

...

from what i have read the information given by paul reynolds in the original ariticle was sufficient to identify the garda within a small margin of error. After all there could only be so many gardai on holiday in that particular resort that week. Anybody that worked with him would know it was him.

Irrespective of this i think journalists should have as much respect for the anonymity of somebody accused of rape as they have for the victim as to be even named as the accused is enough to ruin somebodies character.
If they're found guilty then they're fair game and should be named.

lostexpectation

reynolds reported that, said person had alot of drink on him and had been ejected from the pub twice.... although I don't think this turned out to be true... one could see this as inferring guilt.

pjstone also complained the reynolds did his piece outside garda hq, really making a story about those fecking gardai again...

i doubt reynolds was having a go at the garda as he says himself he has keep in good relations with them as a crime reporter....

jdivision

Except for guards Reynolds wouldn't have on any stories (and in fairness he never really does). They're his only sources. He never gets stories from crims.

santosubito

jdivision wrote: »

Except for guards Reynolds wouldn't have on any stories (and in fairness he never really does). They're his only sources. He never gets stories from crims.

If you were a reporter (perhaps you are) would you trust what a criminal tells you: they're criminals after all:D

mike65

So then a 60 grand victory for Master Reynolds.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1120/reynoldsp.html

Mike.

lostexpectation

pj stone another cop bull in china shop

lennox1

Now that Mr Reynolds has won against the Gardai,can we now expect more pieces to camera about,tut..tut..tut...Gardai getting a little tipsy while on holiday and maybe having a verbal disagreement with their wife or girlfriend or even,heaven forbid,a Garda saying ''Sh......t'' if he hits his finger with a hammer while doing some d.i.y .Such unparliamentary language!!!After all,these are offences that the Garda Ombudsman can investigate as they constitute bringing the force into disrepute and are disciplinary offences!!!!!!even if they occur when the Garda is off duty and in their own front garden. In the Public interest,of course.!!!!!!I'm sure Mr Reynolds,as a journalist of the highest integrity,feels he would be failing in his duty to the public,if he doesn't report on these,.....in the public interest of course.!!!!!!!
After all,we need a Garda force who are absolutely without human failing,perfect gentlemen/women who never make mistakes and are always perfect both on and off duty as Mr McDowell wanted when he introduced The Garda Siochana Act 2005,in the public interest of course!!!!!!!!!!!.