On the Media; 1996-11-03; Part 1; It'll Never Be Over: Richard Jewell, Privacy & the Press; St. Petersburg, Race & the Media

From WNYC in New York, this is on the media. I hope and pray that no one else is ever subjected to the pain and the ordeal that I have gone through. I am an innocent man. That, of course, was Richard Jewell, the man who, in the months since the Atlanta bombing, went from hero to villain to victim. Try to imagine it. The FBI picking through every detail of your life right down to your mother's Tupperware. Swarms of reporters and cameras following your every move, your name in newspaper headlines all over the country and your face beaming back to you each day as you watched the television news. All this over a crime for which you were never charged. In the case of Richard Jewell, should or could the media have done anything differently? That's right after this. News to state June. From National Public Radio News in Washington, Unan bows out July 27th, nineteen ninety six, Atlanta, Georgia.

Just days after the TWA crash, Olympic Park is rocked by a pipe bomb and the nation is rocked to by the shock of yet another possible terrorist attack. The media were already in town en masse to cover the Olympic Games, and most of the initial reports heralded security guard Richard Jewell as a hero. His quick action, they said, saved lives. But then three days later, we heard this. Good evening, major news tonight. We begin with the investigation into Saturday's bombing at Centennial Park. And one of the primary suspects tonight is the man who was thought to be originally a hero, the security guard who discovered the knapsack before it blew up. His name is Richard Jewell. Tonight, high level federal law enforcement sources tell NBC News he is the focus of the investigation at this hour. A veritable media feeding frenzy followed those first reports naming Jewell. And there was constant speculation over when he would be charged until last week. That is when the FBI announced that Jewell was no longer a suspect.

You know my name, but you do not really know who I am. For 88 days, I lived a nightmare. For 88 days, my mother lived a nightmare, too. I felt like a hunted animal, followed constantly waiting to be killed and their mad rush to fulfill their own personal agendas. The FBI and the media almost destroyed me and to my mother. How did this happen? Of course, this was an extremely complicated situation with all kinds of ethical and professional questions for the reporters, editors and producers who wrestled over naming Jewell. But did the media wrestle enough? And what about the plunge into reporting every last detail of the man's life? My guest today have come to some different conclusions. After asking themselves those questions, I'm joined by Lin Wood, who's an attorney who represents Richard Jewell. He's at the law firm of Wooding Grant in Atlanta and he joins us from the studio

of WABE in Atlanta. Lin Wood, we're very glad to have you with us. Thank you for having me. Also with us, Bob Steel, director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. He joins us by phone from St. Petersburg, Florida. Bob Steel, very glad. Always glad to have you. My pleasure. Alex Lynn would start us off. It's a complicated situation. How did you become involved? I actually was contacted a day or two after the bombing by Watson Bryant, the attorney who was a long time friend of Richards, and he indicated to me that Richard Jewell was an innocent man. He expected that sooner or later there would be actions that needed to be brought to a civil actions for potentially libel and ask if I would be involved. About two weeks after the bombing, he formally retained me as one of his attorneys. Tell us exactly know how did it happen? How did his name become a part of the public record through the media? Well, from what we're able to obtain from information, we

believe that the FBI allowed his name to be leaked to a reporter for the Atlanta Journal who took that information and confirmed it with the Atlanta Police Department. It seems to us that what happened next was there was a decision made by the Atlanta Journal that it did not want to be scooped on this story. It was concerned that it would be embarrassed if another newspaper or another television station first reported the story of Richard Jewell as a suspect. And so the Atlanta paper went out in its extra Olympic edition about four thirty on the afternoon of July 30 and reported in blaring glaring headlines that Richard Jewell was suspected of having planted the bomb. That's our understanding as to how Richard's name first surfaced in the public and then what happened? And then then CNN read it. It read this article on the air. I mean, right. Well, actually, right. We have some information that would indicate that the newspaper and CNN had reached an agreement prior to the publication of the paper that CNN would be allowed to announce the leak

of his name by reading from the Atlanta Journal on the air. The broadcaster for CNN did exactly that, held up the newspaper and then read the article verbatim around the world. Why did they need to have an agreement for him to be able to do that? Interesting, interesting story. I think you'll learn more in the days to come as it might pertain to the friendship between the managing editor of the newspaper and the president of CNN. But obviously, the Atlanta Journal wanted clear recognition as being the newspaper that broke the. Or the easiest way to get that would be to have CNN announce that outcry around the world. Let me ask you, Wood, I know that you represent Richard Jewell, but I mean, you are an American citizen. You were in Atlanta. This was not something that you were you were a citizen. When you first heard this news, you were not representing Richard Jewell. Did you feel like that as a citizen, someone who was worried about a terrorist attack, that that this piece of information is something you should not have been told? I never really stopped to think about it, to tell you the truth.

I told Richard when I first met him, in all candor, that what I had read and heard initially in the first couple of days, I thought he was the man. I thought he was guilty. It was only after a few days when I began to reflect upon the evidence that seemed to be mounting against that idea that I realized that potentially a horrible wrong had been committed. I don't believe now looking at the situation that there was a need for the public to know the identity of Richard Jewell. I have questioned the leak of his name as an ethical issue and not as a legal issue. But yes, perhaps we could argue that the public needed to have their fears calmed by knowing this was not an act of international terrorism. But I think there were other ways to go about doing that that did not endanger the life of an innocent person such as Richard Jewell. Bob Steel, I know you've done a lot of thinking about this. Where do you where do you fault this initial decision to to to announce Richard Jewell as a suspect by name?

Well, one can certainly empathize with Mr. Jewelz plight without an outright condemnation of all of journalism for the way news organizations handled the case. And my sense, Alex, is that Richard Jewell becoming a target of the FBI investigation, that was an element of the unfolding case in the Atlanta bombing that had to be reported when the FBI took its investigation to the point of a search warrant for Mr. Jewelz property and its possessions. The details were so significant that it was inescapable and appropriate that that be reported. So as far as you're concerned, the Atlanta Journal Constitution did the right thing by naming him if they had a high level of confidence in the credibility of their sources and if they had a high level of confidence in the authenticity of the information their sources were telling them. And the same applies to NBC as they reported the story and other organizations that, yes, I believe it was appropriate. We were only unfortunate for Mr. Jewell, but appropriate. We wanted to have someone from the Atlanta paper here.

They declined to have a representative on the program. And CNN did not return our calls, also trying to get representation from those two news organizations. But I can say that I have read the accounts of what happened from the Atlanta Journal Constitution perspective. And they say, for instance, that they had a reporter out at Jewelz House and that reporters spotted the FBI staking out the house in a very, you know, sort of obvious and heavy handed kind of way. I mean, they use that as as partly as a basis for indicating the kind of confidence in reinforcing material that they had beyond just getting a name from the FBI. Well, that's my understanding, Alex, that while you can always keep ratcheting up the level of confidence at some point in a story of the significant magnitude of this bombing, that you have to make a decision as best you can based on the information you had. And if the Journal had that information of an eyewitness account, at least on behalf of other reporters seeing the the FBI in the vicinity of his home, and they had the confidence in the level of the sources that

that is a very important element in this case. Would I know that you have talked about you have not brought suit against anyone yet. Is that is that correct? We have not actually filed the lawsuit yet. We expect the first round of lawsuits to be filed in the next two weeks. One of the people who has been prominently named by you and Mr. Jewell as a target for a probable target anyway, for this has been has been Tom Brokaw. Is that correct? Based on that, based on what he said while he was down in Atlanta in the days after this announcement of Jewelz name in a conversation with Bob Costas? I know that that that has been something that, you know, was, you know, of of concern. And I wanted to invite our listeners to listen to a few seconds of tape from that conversation so that we can hear just exactly what was said. The speculation is that the FBI is close to making the case and their language. They probably have enough to arrest him right now, probably enough to prosecute him. But you always want to have enough to convict him as well.

There are still some holes in this case. Lin Wood, what about that is libelous? Well, let me let me give you the backdrop first. And that is to say, those comments were made during an Olympic broadcast on the night of July the 30th. At the time, those comments were made by Tom Brokaw. There had been no search warrant issued against Richard Jewell. And contrary to what Bob earlier said at the time The Atlanta Journal broke this story, there had been no search warrant obtained against Richard Jewell. In fact, the officials used the idea that the media had disclosed his name as a reason for obtaining the search warrant. Nonetheless, the point is this, not Tom Brokaw was just dead wrong. They did not have enough evidence to probably arrest this man. They searched. They did not have enough evidence to probably prosecute this man, and this wasn't just a matter of a few holes to fill before they could convict him, Tom Brokaw was apparently theorizing on why the FBI would allow his name to be leaked

and yet not arrest him. But when Tom Brokaw goes before the national listening and viewing public and begins to state that there's probably enough to arrest and probably enough to prosecute, those words are coming from a gentleman who people turn on and listen to every night and believe gives them truthful and accurate facts about news events. And that takes an insinuation to an higher level, because it's clear when you look at that entire broadcast that Bob Costas was disturbed by Tom Brokaw's comments. I've heard a lot of people say they remember it. They were disturbed by his comments because Tom Brokaw left the unmistakable impression that the FBI had its man and its man was Richard Jewell. And please remember, Richard Jewell was an innocent man in Richard Jewell was just a mere suspect of many. And the problem you have when you start going out and taking these positions, that he's probably going to be arrested and he's probably going to be prosecuted. Is your branding this man as the bomber?

And that's an unfair portrayal and I think it goes over the line. Bob's objective reporting. Bob Steele, how do you feel about what Tom Brokaw said? What we just listened to the impression I had and hearing it on that night and the end of July and hearing it again now, is that what Tom Brokaw was reporting was the information that sources, very highly placed sources in law enforcement were giving them in terms of the investigation and where they were going with the investigation? It was not an interpretation that Tom Brokaw, who was making himself, but Rather the revelation of the information, as the sources were telling NBC. And how do you feel about him sort of putting that on the air that way? I think in the best of circumstances, I would have liked NBC and The Atlanta Journal to apply an even higher level of skepticism, a higher threshold of challenge to law enforcement in terms of that information, the best of circumstances are seldom achieved, whether it's in a newsroom or an operating room or a law office. The the fields of medicine, journalism,

the legal field are ones in which individuals, professionals do the best they can using ethical standards at moments of great and complex issues. Lin Wood, would you have changed your mind if I. Well, let me put it this way. Does it make any difference to you if Tom Brokaw was talking about what he understood the FBI believed? Well, I mean, it's Tom Brokaw himself. I mean, it might make some slight difference, except that he doesn't clearly attribute it to any government source. And and the fact is, Tom Brokaw was wrong. His facts were wrong. And I question whether if he's crossed the line in terms of what I consider to be an ethical issue, not a legal issue in terms of reporting that he's a suspect and then he gives us this information that turns out to be wrong from some source. Certainly from a legal perspective, I think that may open up the door down the road to learn who his sources were. Let me let me go back. We're going to we're going to have to take a break. We'll get you. When we come back, I want to ask our listeners, what do you think of the way the media

handled the Richard Jewell case? Is it is it really unrealistic for you to think that they wouldn't cover him like the media has done in the last 88 days, as he described it? Our number is one 800 three, four, three three three four two. That's one 800 three, four, three, three, three, four, two. This is on the media from National Public Radio. I'm Alex Jones. We're back with all the media, we're talking about how the media covered, treated, I guess I should say, Richard Jewell, it's a matter of privacy in the press and where you draw those lines. My guests are Bob Steele, director of the ethics program at

the Poynter Institute Media Studies, and Lin Wood, who's an attorney for Richard Jewell, Richard Jewell. We're also joined now by Ed Temes, the national desk reporter for The Dallas Morning News, who was in Atlanta and covering the Richard Jewell story. Ed, teams are very glad to have you with us. Thank you. Let me go back before we get to you, Ed, to Lin Wood. You had a point that you wanted to make before the break. I did. Thank you. The point is, let's let's move beyond the question of whether it was ethically proper to disclose Richard Jewell's name as a suspect. Look at the Atlanta reporting. The first story that came out contained serious factual errors, made statements that were absolutely false about Richard Jewell, all of which were geared toward trying to portray him as the bomber. Now, you know, look, let's let's give let's give the media its due. Let's let's agree that it's questionable, but yet we won't call it unethical or illegal to report that Richard Jewell is a suspect. But how do you justify then going out in a series of articles and making

statements about this man that are absolutely false? Well, let me add all of which point toward him being the bomb. Let me that to me is clearly now we got Ed Temes. He was there. He was on the spot. He was doing it himself and he was watching his colleagues. Ed, what do you think about what Lin Wood has just said? Well, let me just basically go over briefly to the decision process that we went through. We had information that Mr. Jewell was being looked at as a suspect on Monday, the day before the Atlanta story. And at that time, we wanted to try to find out exactly what the information was. And after spending the whole day doing that, the only thing that we were able to determine was that he had some proximity to the bomb, obviously, and that he felt the so-called hero profile. And at that point, there was a decision made not to go with the name we did on Monday. Specifically ask one of the FBI agents about the briefing, were employees of the park being considered as suspects? And they answered affirmatively at a more private moment.

We asked specifically if Richard Jewell was a suspect, and we're told by an FBI agent that would be slanderous to say based on that information, we chose not to run his name. Well, do you think that let's go step beyond that, beyond running the name, Linwood was talking about the decision to basically start psychoanalyzing the guy in print and selectively reporting from his past in ways that tended to paint him as a, you know, a guy who was almost certain to have done it. Well, again, our comfort level was such that we really held back on some aspects of that. For example, we chose not to run a story going into detail about the hero profile. There were a number of media that chose to contact psychiatrists, psychologists, behavioral specialists, and they put together a very extensive stories on that, looking at aspects of Richard Jewell's life and how they may or may not fit into that pattern. We decided not to do that at that time.

Bob, haven't. Bob, still, based on what you've seen of the you know, the surveying, the the coverage as a whole, how do you first of all, how widespread was this kind of coverage in the press and how do you feel about it? Well, what it describes is the decision making process in the Dallas Morning News is one that that I do believe happened in dozens, if not hundreds of newsrooms around the country. The problem was, I do believe, however, as the story kept unfolding day after day, that there was an overzealous coverage of Richard Jewell. Too often the the video and the words that went with the stories painted a picture of somebody who increasingly, in the minds of many people in the public, was probably guilty. I would talk about degree and tone, the play in the paper, the play in a newscast where the story would go day after day and how often it was run, the tone in terms of the language that was used and the images that would accompany a story. For instance, slow motion showing Richard Jewell walking across the parking lot and turning his head, I believe did create a sinister image that was too often then left in the minds of

the public as somebody who probably increasingly was guilty. I want to get our listeners in on this conversation. David Alpern, hi. You're on the air. Hi. As you know, I'm a senior editor at Newsweek and one hour Newsweek on air program. I guess I was lucky that Jewel was named after we recorded our show. And but my point is, by the time it got to the next one within a week, as much a part of the story as Richard Jewell's name was this. This was a very flawed investigation. And in a way, Jewell is lucky because of this press attention absent the exploitation, because if there had not been for that, he would have suffered all of the pain and of an FBI manhunt with his employers, with his neighbors, with his family. No. One would have known, whereas the case is that within three days, he became almost a martyr to this and it served to some degree as a shield of protection, it was not an it was an uncomfortable situation. But I think in the end, he may have done better because the press was keeping an eye on the case and the problems the FBI was having with really coming up with evidence. David, I'm always glad to hear you listen to our show.

I'm delighted that that you call. Let me ask you, do you think that this is a larger point that you're making about the idea that the press simply picks people up, identifies them and then drops the story off? No, I'm saying that there's a difference between journalism and exploitation. I mean, the real point is that people who camped out on his doorstep to make for dramatic television or tabloid headlines every day, not with the journalism, which was accurate in saying that he was the prime focus of this investigation, as misguided or as incompetent as it turned out to be. And I think the journalism protected him. The exploitation was made his life miserable. Lynn, what do you say to it, to this kind of statement? Limmud, I guess we've lost Lynn speechless. Are you there? I guess, Bob Steele, what about you? What do you think? Well, I've heard this argument several times. Alex, Jane Kirtley and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press made the same argument. I think there's some nugget of truth in that, that when journalism shines a

very bright light of scrutiny on a case, there is some protection afforded to those individuals who are accused because the burden of proof then shifts to the law enforcement. In this particular case, I don't believe that was the intent of journalism and well, it's probably a byproduct of it. And I think David's second half point about the exploitation of the one that way, stronger that even though law enforcement and the judicial system was being held accountable, the tone and degree of the reporting probably exploited Mr. Jewelz situation beyond giving him great protection. David Dalbandin, Newsweek. Have somebody camped outside Richard Jewelz apartment. Certainly not to the degree that the TV, because it doesn't there's no point for us. We don't go on 24 hours a day. We don't go on with an evening news. We try to do journalism, which by the end of the week says what happened? And as I said before, by the end of a week after his name had come out, the story was that his name had come out. But this was a very flawed investigation and there were real doubts whether it was it was

true or not. And it seems to me that that became the story as well as the press hounding him became the story. And I think that was more the way we were trying to figure out what was going on. David, thank you for your call. Appreciate pleasure. Interesting. We're going to be back in just a moment with more of your calls. Our number, one 800, three, four, three, three, three, four, two. This is on the media from National Public Radio. I'm Alex Jones, we're back with all the media talking about what happened to Richard

Jewel and the issues of privacy in the press that it raises. We're talking with Bob Steele, director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. Lin Wood, who's the attorney for Richard Jewell. And Ed Temes, national desk reporter for The Dallas Morning News. Lin Wood. I know that we lost you a moment ago, but I think you did hear what David Alpern from Newsweek said when he called in making the point that he thought that Richard Jewell may have been better off by the kind of publicity because, in fact, he cleared his name. Well, I just disagree with those types of comments that he also commented the journalism here was accurate. I would like to have been able to ask him the question. Maybe Bob could answer it for me or Ed. In The Atlanta Journal on August the 1st, Dave Kindred wrote an article about this situation, and he directly compared Richard Jewell to Wayne Williams in two paragraphs. Wayne Williams, as you may know, was the individual convicted of the Atlanta missing and murdered children case back in the early 1980s. How do you journalistically justify that type of comparison?

If we're talking about images and we're talking about degree in tone, when you start comparing Richard Jewell, a man not charged with a crime directly to one of the most heinous convicted murderers in the history of Atlanta, if not the country, would you not agree that you have crossed way over the line, Bob Steele? I haven't read that article, so I don't know if they were comparing Jewell to Richard, to Wayne Williams in terms of his culpability or if they were comparing it with comparing the way in which the law enforcement operation was going in those two cases or the way in which the media was going. If it's the first comparing Mr. Jewell directly to Wayne Williams. And obviously the ice is very thin. I think that probably the the one of my recollection is that that the Williams case involved the FBI staking him out for, you know, for it seemed like an interminable period. Was that the context that it was raised in Lin Wood? The context was, in fact, the FBI come into town to search another individual. One was Wayne Williams. This one is Richard Jewell.

Richard Jewell sits in the shadows today. Wayne Williams sits in prison forever. You can't mistake that person. That that's that's I think you're right. I think that really went well over it. And let me make one other point, if I might say, and I and I really appreciate the way Tim's phrased his comments and he correctly stated that the information was that Richard Jewell fit the quote unquote, hero profile, the hero profile being obviously someone you have to look at who may have created the act of homicide, intervened to stop it to take credit as the hero. That's not what the Atlanta Journal said about Richard Jewell. The Atlanta Journal in its first page front page article stated, as a matter of fact, without any attribution, that Richard Jewell, age 33, fit the profile of the lone bomber. We don't believe there is any such legitimate investigative profile in this case. Three days after the bombing, we can see that there is a hero profile and we can see that Richard Jewell, because of that profile, should have been one of the initial individuals investigated.

But when you state that this man is a matter of fact, fits the profile of the lone bomber and there is no such profile, and then you go on to inaccurately state that as part of the profile, he sought publicity for his own actions by contacting newspapers, including The Atlanta Journal. And that proves to be absolutely false. How do you justify that kind of reporting? Well, I gather that we're going to find out if fairly soon, because you're going to be bringing him some of my lawsuits. Well, when do you expect that to happen? We do we do intend right now to file the first lawsuit against the Atlanta Journal Constitution within the next two weeks. Tom Brokaw and NBC shortly thereafter. And we've got a mass of material to review to try to determine whether any other members of the media will ultimately be sued. Obviously, we're taking a very hard look at CNN's coverage. Beyond that, we've also got to handle a lawsuit against a couple of FBI agents down here who we think went way over the line in terms of violating this man's constitutional rights. Lin Wood, we're very glad to have had you with us.

We appreciate it. I know you have to go. And I want to thank you for for joining us today on on the media. Well, thank you for letting me come here and speak on behalf of Richard. I appreciate it very much. Sure thing. I thank you all then for listening. We are now joined by Andrew Cannon. And we're going to take a slightly different turn in the in the conversation. She is the national correspondent for Knight Ridder. And she also she specializes in covering law enforcement, including the FBI. She joins us from NPR studios in Washington. Angie, very glad to have you with us. Thanks. The last thing Lin Wood said was that they're probably going to be some lawsuits against some FBI agents. One of the questions I think that really is is raised by this whole situation is how much do we really know about how the FBI operates these days? Well, I think. I think that this story what happened to Richard Jewell is is somewhat of a cautionary tale for journalists because reporters are paid skeptics. But sometimes when it comes to law enforcement, we tend to lose that skepticism at

times. And instead of, you know, what we have to always be telling ourselves is in these kinds of situations that law enforcement, police officers don't always know what's happening. But there's tremendous pressure on them to try to solve a case of this kind of magnitude, to try to find out, you know, who did it. And sometimes, especially in sort of a big park situation like this, something gets picked up, it gets turned into almost a gospel. But I think this kind of situation and also other cases that have happened to say, for example, the TWA case, there were reports right after TWA happened that the crash that there were some some some law enforcement people calling us anonymously, saying that they thought it was a deliberate incident. Well, we know now several months later that they really

don't know what happened. And I think that one of the big lessons for reporters.