Edwards 1

Gina Edwards

Dr. Debatin

Media Ethics

May 20, 2009

Richard Jewell: Betrayed by the Watchdogs?

Since its creation, the Olympics has been a worldwide spectacle, with historical events

ranging from controversial civil rights statements to highly publicized sabotage. During the 1996

Summer Olympics, security guard Richard Jewell found himself in the midst of such an

impactful event—one in which his minimal training and modest background did not prepare him.

The press frenzy that followed the bombing at the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park literally

served as a textbook example of media ethics gone awry, and the implications of such mistakes

upon a larger society. Upon applying Bok’s model and the Potter Box, it is evident that a more

deliberate course of action was necessary during this catastrophe, and the case of Richard Jewell

should be used as a precedent for evaluating future incidents.

Background

Jewell’s involvement in this case began on July 27, 1996 while he worked as a security

guard in Atlanta’s Centennial Olympic Park. He noticed a suspicious green knapsack underneath

a bench and alerted the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Federal agents reported to the location

and determined that the book bag contained a bomb, and the law enforcement officers and

security guards began evacuating the public. However, one visitor was killed from a heart attack

and 111 others were injured when the bomb exploded.

 Edwards 2

The news during the next two days portrayed Jewell as a hero who helped save many

lives, but it wasn’t long before the face of the coverage drastically changed. On July 30, the

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran a front-page headline that read “FBI suspects ‘hero’ guard may

have planted bomb” after receiving a tip from an unnamed source.

Afterwards, the media frenzy ensued, with all the major newspapers across the country

(excluding the New York Times) plastering the sensational story across the front page, above the

fold. As the FBI issued a search warrant and confiscated some of Jewell’s belongings, news

outlets began to analyze Jewell, profiling him as a stereotypical “lone bomber.” Incidents and

blunders from his past jobs began to surface while employers and colleagues gave the press juicy

blurbs about Jewell’s overzealous security methods. Many articles painted a picture of Jewell as

a sad, middle aged man, desperate for attention. Some even went as far as saying he was a

“maladjusted mama’s boy” (“Journalists, the FBI, and the Olympic bomb”, 251). Investigation

and intense media coverage continued until October 26—88 days later—when Jewell received an

official letter informing him that he was no longer a target of the investigation. In a press

conference that followed, Jewell vilified the media for intruding upon him and his mother’s

privacy, while tainting his reputation forever.

How we can ethically evaluate this case: Bok’s model

There are obviously many problems and questions to be asked of the craze that was the

Richard Jewell investigation. In hindsight, we can more thoroughly evaluate and understand the

reasoning behind the actions that were taken, and attempt to determine what the “right” choices

would be for those facing similar situations in the future.

Ethicist Sissela Bok asks those involved in a dilemma to use three steps when

determining the best choice: consult your conscience about the “rightness” of the action, seek
 Edwards 3

expert advice for alternatives, and conduct a (hypothetical) public discussion with those involved

in the dispute (Patterson and Wilkins, 5). In this manner, all involved parties have a voice,

objective counselors like philosophers can provide input, and the initial gut instinct is not

ignored, but rather is used as a building block toward a final decision.

Placing myself in the shoes of those decision makers, I realize that there would be

competing loyalties and responsibilities inhibiting my decision. The journalistic part of my

conscience would encourage the dissemination of truth, in its fullest manner, to ensure

credibility, speed, and an informed public. If my newspaper decided to hold the story and outside

sources picked it up first, our publication would look foolish since it’s the only newspaper in the

city. However, nagging guidelines would also surface, reminding me that “a suspect in a criminal

case [should] not [be] identified until after he or she has been arrested and charged in court”

(“Journalists, the FBI, and the Olympics Bomb”, 247). Additionally, because the Olympics are

essentially a worldwide stage, the pressure to be accurate is increased even further. Getting a

story right in this kind of situation is especially crucial, with readership at a higher volume than

ever before.

The next step in the Bok model encourages investigating possible alternatives by seeking

advice from colleagues, copy editors and even esteemed philosophers. By getting a range of

opinions from many influences, various options can be further considered. For example,

applying Aristotle’s golden mean may yield a decision to publish the story, but leave out the

name of the “suspect” to ensure privacy. Kant’s categorical imperative would ask “If all

potential criminal suspects’ identities were published prior to formal charges, what implications

would this have on society?” Likely, the reaction to this question would produce the same

decision—to run the story without Jewell’s name. However, the head copy editor might suggest

that running the same story without Jewell’s name would still identify him, since most people
 Edwards 4

have been exposed to the extensive “hero” coverage of the previous two days. In addition, listing

the suspect as simply a “security guard” may evoke suspicion of other personnel at the Olympic

Park. After consulting these “experts,” it becomes clear that holding the story is not a viable

option, and running a toned down or fully thorough story seem to spur the same result: Richard

Jewell is perceived as the main suspect.

Finally, Bok advises holding a public dialogue with all the parties involved, though it will

inevitably be a hypothetical one. Therefore, the opinions of the reporter, the publisher, Richard

Jewell and his mother, the FBI and the general readership are all accounted for. This part of the

process could hypothetically continue forever, and a consensus among all of the viewpoints is

unlikely. While the reporter and publisher might prefer writing a thorough story to ensure

credibility of the publication, Jewell and his mother may feel that their privacy has been

infringed upon. The FBI, which hasn’t formally charged anyone, would take a neutral stance to

avoid any negative implications, likely denying that any such name was indicated to the press.

Finally, society as a whole must be evaluated. This group is the most difficult to comprehend

because the opinions would vary greatly. While some people would want Jewell’s name to be

published just to have a person to blame, others would forego a hasty accusation for a more in-

depth investigation that didn’t target a potentially innocent man.

The most important aspect of Bok’s model is ensuring that all three steps are completed.

If a reporter pauses at step one or even two, the process does not yield its intended effect. Even

after consulting this model, the “right” answer is still not clear. Some media outlets chose

differing routes, like the New York Times which ran the story on the inside and focused more on

the media attention than Jewell itself. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution defended its headline by

stating that “while unnamed sources were used… the paper also had physical evidence that the

FBI was focusing on Jewell” (Shepard, 40). Other publications like the Washington Post
 Edwards 5

“salt[ed]… coverage with cautionary notes” (Shepard, 40). It’s possible that each of these

publications utilized the Bok model but arrived at different conclusions.

The Potter Box

Another avenue to explore this case is with the Potter Box, a step-by-step ethical

approach that advocates the same kind of thinking as the Bok model. The four steps include

understanding the facts of the case, outlining values, applying philosophical principles and

articulating loyalties (Patterson and Wilkins, 100). Although this method may appear simplistic

on its surface, it is often applied several times before a conclusion can be definitively reached.

When applying step one, we see that the facts of this case are rather murky. While an

unnamed FBI source verified that Jewell was the focus of the investigation, there was little other

tangible evidence to support this claim. Under the threat of time pressure, sources whose

information would typically undergo heavy questioning might be taken at face value. In these

kinds of crunches, “journalists are hungry for information about high-profile investigations that

only the investigators have. On a competitive mega-story like the Olympic bombing, journalists

aren't always as skeptical as they should be of information whispered by FBI agents and police

officers” (Shepard, 253). Therefore, facts that would usually be checked multiple times on a

typical story are quickly gobbled up and digested by journalists yearning for a chewy lede to feed

the readers.

Even esteemed journalists like Tom Brokaw made hasty statements like “they probably

have enough to arrest him right now” (Grossman, 16). These quickly accepted and reported facts

further exacerbated the media’s sensationalistic frenzy. The simple truth that so many people

wanted when they turned on the television or opened a newspaper was compromised as the

watchdogs happily accepted questionable evidence. Furthermore, “speculation may ultimately

 Edwards 6

prove wrong; if passed off as fact, standard obligations of accuracy and truth telling are

compromised” (Cenite, 44). Ironically, after the investigation and publication of these facts was

over, the intended goal was completely lost; instead of feeling informed and assured, the public

felt cheated by the media, and respect for the journalistic establishment was questioned.

The second step of the Potter Box advocates outlining values. While a particular

journalist may value both truth and privacy, one often usurps the other. The decision then

becomes a matter of disclosing all possible information to ensure truth, or eliminating pieces of

the story that would damage privacy. Most likely, a journalist will value both truth and privacy,

and attempt to write or produce a story that demonstrates both values. However, in this case the

option of achieving both goals was unlikely. Even if a “compromise” between the two values

was reached, Jewell was still likely to be identified. However, does this fact warrant the go-ahead

to print his name? Ultimately, a journalist must not only identify and evaluate the lofty values

that he adheres to, but also personal values like speed and accurate job performance (Patterson

and Wilkins, 101). While textbooks often promote these hefty, philosophical values, the reality

of a steady paycheck may sway the decision more than the others.

As was discussed in Bok’s model, the third step of the Potter Box includes the application

of philosophical principles. Utilitarians might see this dilemma very simply—since the entire

world is being informed at the expense of one man’s privacy, the publication of the name is

justified. However, other philosophers like Aristotle or Kant would prefer finding a solution

somewhere in the middle or holding the story until more concrete evidence can be gathered.

Clearly, this step of the process might produce varying final choices and no concrete answers,

which is why the last step is necessary.

Articulating loyalties, the tail end of the Potter Box method, allows the decision maker to

determine which loyalties garner the most weight, which conflict with each other, and so on.
 Edwards 7

Once these have been articulated, a decision that can sustain them all is the most desirable.

Often, several of the competing loyalties can be satisfied. In this case, the reporter has a loyalty

to “tell the truth in its fullest and nuanced sense,” ensure the public’s safety, protect Jewell’s

privacy and perhaps maintain the FBI as a viable source (Woodlock, 50). By choosing to print

that “the FBI is investigating a person of interest in the bombing case who is a security guard at

the Olympic Park,” the journalist maintains loyalties to three of the four. The truth has been

reported, the public is aware, and for the most part, Jewell’s privacy is protected. Although the

public may still be able to figure out that Jewell is the suspect, at least the blame of this

accusation could not be so vehemently attributed to the press. While the FBI may be perturbed

that the media didn’t publish the story the way it preferred, the press is serving a greater good by

ensuring that the FBI’s word is not taken as Gospel truth and that it is accountable for its

statements. By saving the loyalty to the FBI for the bottom of the hierarchy, the media also

ensures that it is not being used as a tool by an organization with ulterior motives.

Conclusion

In any ethical case, journalists must develop means to arrive at a desirable end. With each

passing day, newer and more complex challenges arrive at journalists’ desks, further muddling

the ethical decision-making process. The case of Richard Jewell has been criticized and

discussed by many scholars and ethicists, and it’s evident that the actions of the press were

unwarranted in many respects. By analyzing Bok’s model and the Potter Box, we find that no

perfect solutions are produced, but perhaps better, more responsible ones. And as watchdogs, it is

our goal to rigorously and responsibly seek these answers out.

 Edwards 8

Works Cited

Cenite, Mark. "The Obligation to Qualify Speculation." Journal of Mass Media Ethics 20.1 (Mar. 2005):

43-61. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Alden Library, Athens, Ohio. 19 May

2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=16236831&site=ehost-

live>.

"Geimann: We'll learn from Atlanta case." Quill 85.11 (Jan. 1997): 44. Communication & Mass Media

Complete. EBSCO. Alden Library, Athens, Ohio. 19 May 2009

 Edwards 9

<http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9702021856&site=ehost-

live>.

Grossman, Lawrence K. "To Err Is Human, to Admit It Divine." Columbia Journalism Review 35.6 (Mar.

1997): 16-16. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Alden Library, Athens, Ohio.

19 May 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9703122792&site=ehost- live>.

"Journalists, the FBI, and the Olympics bomb." Journal of Mass Media Ethics 11.4 (Dec. 1996):

246. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Alden Library, Athens, Ohio.

19 May 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9712193567&site=e host-live>.

Patterson, Philip and Lee Wilkins. Media Ethics Issues and Cases. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill,

2008.

Shepard, Alicia C. "Going to extremes." American Journalism Review 18.8 (Oct. 1996): 38.

Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Alden Library, Athens, Ohio. 19 May 2009

<http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9611012760&site=ehost-

live>.

Woodlock, Douglas P. "Richard Jewell and O.J. Simpson." Nieman Reports 50.4 (Winter 1996): 57.

Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Alden Library, Athens, Ohio. 19 May 2009

<http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9701141025&site=ehost-

live>.
Edwards 10
Edwards 11