The Truth Will Set You Free...Sometimes.

Jillian Hartmann

As journalists, our No. 1 priority is to report the truth, but sometimes, the audience can’t handle the complete truth. When you hear the phrase, “The truth will set you free,” most of the time that’s accurate but other times, it causes more harm than good.  Sometimes, leaving out a fact or two is more beneficial for the readers or viewers. 

           The article “New York Times Public Editor Questions Al Qaeda Leak Story With ‘Unacceptable’ Headline” talks about how the U.S. government had to close 19 embassies abroad because of a terrorist threat in early August. The Times of course wrote about the story but reported, “The U.S. had intercepted communications between senior al Qaeda operatives.” This gives the audience an understanding of the threat without releasing the names of the al Qaeda leaders. The U.S. government wanted The New York Times, along with CNN, to withhold the names due to national security. But a few days later, McClatchy revealed the names because they believe censoring their work is wrong. So was releasing the names wrong? In my opinion, yes! I’m a very honest person, especially when it comes to my work as a journalist, but there are times where some information needs to be left out. The purpose of a story is to report the truth without the consequence of harm.

Over the summer, my internship at WPXI taught me about withholding information, especially in rape or sexual assault cases. For a week, I had to sit in the courtroom during the Robert Lellock trial. Lellock was a police officer at Pittsburgh’s city schools 15 years ago. Instead of using his badge to protect the kids, he used it to threaten them. Lellock took kids out of class and molested them in a janitor’s closet during school. This case involved the victims to get up on the witnessed stand and tell their story, 15 years later. When it came down to reporting the story, the news anchors would identify the victims as, “Victim 1, Victim 2” and etc. The public knows the necessary facts of the trial without knowing the names of the victims. This way, the victims can stay private and no harm can come out of reporting the story.  Now this was beneficial for the victims rather than the viewers, but it shows how some things are left best being unsaid.

If you want to read more on the Lellock trial, click the WPXI link below:

http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/trial-begins-former-school-officer-accused-molesti/nYzz2

            

Yet, there are times where all the facts are crucial for a story. As a journalist, you never want to leave your audience in the dark. The best example I could think of is the Pentagon Papers. When it comes to censoring work, it’s not the same as keeping secrets. The Pentagon Papers was a secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. In 1968, as the Vietnam War continued on and the U.S. military presence in South Vietnam increased to more than 500,000 troops. A military analyst, Daniel Ellsberg, decided that the information contained in the Pentagon Papers should be more available to the public. He secretly photocopied the report and gave the copy to The New York Times, which published a series of articles based on the report's findings. The federal government tried unsuccessfully to block publication of the Pentagon Papers on grounds of national security. 

Case Dismissed.
Photo of the Headlines after The New York Times vs. U.S. Trial.
Photo Credit: journalism professor.com

            Here's a link on additional information about the Pentagon Papers on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zPdXOZ5okE&list=PL6D476F5660C6BBEA

            Between the two examples of censoring work, you can notice there’s a very thin line drawn between telling the whole truth or most of the truth. Deciding whether to censor information is one of the most difficult things to do as a journalist. It’s a responsibility that is sometimes overlooked but is very important.