Greyhound murder case: Is our balance still right on how much is “too much” to cover?
CBC News will not air or publish some of the more gory details emerging from the case of Vince Li, the man charged with murdering a 22-year-old man on a Greyhound bus.
A police audio recording, leaked to the Internet, is said to contain an officer describing Li beheading and “defiling” the body of Tim McLean. The officer was reporting what he saw during the six-hour standoff with Li. Police acknowledge the tape’s existence.
But while other media, mostly international, are reporting what was said on the tape, CBC News has decided it will not air or publish this level of detail.
“Any time we have a story that we’re covering in an ongoing way, we have a discussion around what to cover, what time of day it would air,” says Esther Enkin, Executive Editor of CBC News. “[But] we have to report the essence of it.”
Enkin acknowledged in an a staff memo that while “rumours and blogs” had already begun ciruculating the detail of the tape, the CBC should continue to exercise caution.
It’s not the first time CBC News has withheld certain facts from its coverage of murder cases.
During the Paul Bernardo trial, CBC News’ editors sent this internal guideline to all its journalists assigned to cover the story:
“The question for journalists covering this will be how far should they go. How graphic should the description be? We can begin to answer that by making the decision in the best interests of our audience. How much detail does anyone want or need to understand the story. And we need to bear in mind that our audiences could be watching or listening as they eat their breakfast or get ready for the day. Or while they are eating their dinner. Or gathering around the television with their families in the evening.”
Following our coverage of the Willie Pickton trial, then CBC News chief Tony Burman began an online discussion about its coverage.
What do you think?
Are we continuing to make the right call here?
|
Email This Post |
| News & Journalism |
If the information is in the public domain, publishing it online and giving the opportunity for those who want to learn more to do so is fine.
However, this story is so sad and gruesome, I felt ill the first days of the graphic reporting.
It’s a little sensational to continue with the tragic details in broadcast, but acknowledging the existence of further, more graphic information is reasonable, and giving access to that info for those who find it useful is acceptable.
Before the Internet, there was no logical way to provide different levels of information to people who wanted to be spared the gruesome stuff.
Maybe we’ll start to move to a new standard where the basic information is broadcast and and the horrifying details are available on the CBC website.
It might look something like this:
“There has been a stabbing on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba. Police say one person is dead. For more coverage of this tragedy, check out our website. A warning: Some readers may find the details disturbing.”
I’ve condensed it quite a bit, but I think you get the general idea. This would allow for full reporting and people wouldn’t be rushing to turn off their radios if the kids were nearby. Why give people yet another reason to change the channel?
Perhaps the CBC will allow this story a more gracious death than Tim McLean’s.
There’s not much to it, really. It’s not a crime story, nor a (geo-)political or a cultural one. The only relevant follow-up angle is mental health (though that’s not very popular).
Anything else now is puerile rubber-necking.
Such self-righteousness comes from the assumption that the CBC is the only place people are getting there news.
I don’t have a television and rarely listen to the radio. Everything I know about the case has come through websites. I noticed that of all the coverage, the CBC story was the most linked to, since it seemed to have the most details. I was disgusted though to see that the CBC also seemed to be the most sensationalistic, with multiple links to video and witness accounts (which I didn’t click on).
Yeah, so I saw the video with the police audio tape, and I know what ‘defiling’ the body means. You guys playing all sanctimonious by holding that back is just dishonest. It’s out there all ready, and if you’re going to be in the witnesses faces having them relive the horror in memory for the audience, that little detail isn’t going to matter much more.
I support CBC’s decision in this case for not airing or linking to the leaked police audio recording. After all, in the age of Google, for those that really want to listen to the leaked recording can find it in seconds.
Well, last night I turned on the CBC Radio news before I went to bed, which I shouldn’t have done because they had some horribly graphic details on this case.
How about not broadcasting graphic details when people are trying to get to sleep? It keeps them awake.
I think that someone at the CBC didn’t get the memo.
The cbc.ca story posted today titled “PETA ad compares Greyhound bus attack to slaughtering animals” contains details that go “beyond the essence”
From the cbc.ca article
“Designed using large, bold type, the ad compares McLean’s struggles to those endured by an animal being slaughtered for its meat. It then refers to Li’s alleged act of ___ before saying, “It’s still going on!”"
On the whole, CBC’s coverage of this tragedy has been adequately restrained, with the exception of the constant inducement of readers to provide “user-generated content” if they were witnesses. I found the related links saying things like “Were you on the bus or know someone who was? Contact us!” to be offensive and smacking of sensationalism.
I don’t know about this one: too much for me. This is one recent story I have to push out of my mind like a “bad memory” when I go to sleep/want to relax; when I first heard the story at 6 AM on the radio & it made me really queasy & the whole day it haunted me. And I can’t compare CBC coverage with any other media because I haven’t sought more info. If others want to, that’s their right. (I’m relieved I don’t have a child to explain this to.) I agree with the comment by Onimos: the story is over – let it go.
I work in media & not once since it happened has this story come up in the “did you hear about…” conversations away from the computer/studio.
Just report the news and stop trying to “protect” your audience (assuming you still have an audience). The CBC didn’t have a problem reporting beheadings in Iraq – why the double standard?
Personally, in cases such as this, I like Megan’s solution and agree with Annie’s assessment.
This is a sad and senseless story – obviously the work of a deranged individual. I feel for the family and don’t see the purpose in aggravating their suffering further. The next time I want to hear an update on this story is when the verdict is delivered by a judge, jury or psychiatrist.
I agree with Julian. Those solicitations made me uncomfortable and a little ashamed.
Just to be clear here, CBC is reporting the jist of what happened, just not the gritty details. They are reporting that Li stabbed the victim and cut off his head, and that he also engaged in canibalism.
That’s a good overview without getting into details about what body parts etc etc. If you really want that, google it.
I was sad to learn the more explicit details in a piece in the local Seattle alternative weekly, The Stranger. I could’ve done without. I thought the CBC did a good job at bringing the story to a national audience with eyewitnesses and then tasteful follow up afterward. I don’t think bringing more of the gory detail into television and radio is necessary.
The person above talking about coverage on the Web? That might be okay, especially with a disclaimer.