I was listening to WFMU on Thursday and DJ Trouble played (listen here) an interview with Xander Marro discussing her fascinating tale about trying to find the identity of the popular and anonymous news site, What’s Going on in Rhode Island.
The two discussed how Xander wrote about this on her Substack. I wanted to read it to find out more and was curious about her disapproval of police blotter journalism.
Zachary Baiel
Thanks, Xander. I was just listening to your interview with DJ Trouble on WFMU this morning. Fascinating. I had no idea about this account and now I am curious to know more about the story.
I am reading through this post and saw you mentioned disapproving of “police blotter journalism” since it is harmful to the community.
Can you explain more of what you mean here?
Hi Zachary – thanks for reading! Sure – when I use the term police blotter journalism – I’m talking about a way of covering crime that involves basically taking the police department supplied mug shot and police report verbatim and posting it. Here’s a link to a short article about the shift away from the practice – https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2021/its-time-for-journalism-to-break-the-cycle-of-crime-reporting/ – This is not to say that news outlets can’t or shouldn’t cover crime. The difference could be that a more thoughtful outlet might post a shot of the place where the incident happened rather than plastering the face of a suspect up all over the internet.
Zachary Baiel
Thanks, Xander. I appreciate the follow up and additional details. Your disapproval is with “unthoughtful” news organizations merely posting the public records.
I am familiar with the practice, but didn’t know about the Poynter Institute’s article or the AP’s change to their policies. Thank you. It comes down to a philosophical question about when should information should be shared.
As an open government advocate, avid listener of the radio traffic our local community (police, fire, EMS, air traffic control, schools, sanitation, construction, businesses, etc), and reader of local police daily logs, I find this information to be invaluable to learning about what is going on in one’s community.
It’s been critical, at least here, since local news outlets don’t often cover general criminal offenses unless extreme violence is involved.
Granted, as the Poynter article discusses, sometimes the cases are not pursued for a variety of reasons or the accused are found to be not guilty. And with other news to focus on, even thoughtful news organizations do not follow up, leaving only the first impression with the readers.
This is why one must not be lazy and to remain critically vigilant with the news they read, regardless of the source.
Would you prefer if news organizations followed the courts, reporting on trials and their results, instead of the initial accusations from police? There’s a lot going on in the courts, too.
Thankfully in Indiana, where I live, courts now have the option to stream their court rooms online. Our family will turn these on from time to time and listen to throughout the day. It’s very elucidating to hear the different cases and individual situations before the judges. Evictions, drug offenses, divorces, violence of all stripes, DUIs, etc.
Curious to hear your thoughts on this as well. Thank you again for sharing.
And thank you for reading your post. I always enjoy listening to people reading their work.
xander marro
These are great questions Zach – I’m all for primary source documents and it’s great that access to police records, logs etc are more accessible now on the internet. “News” outlets taking directly from these without doing any additional research and then using photos/identity and stereotypes etc to bait readers into comment battles that drive engagement that they profit off of, is really the part that I think is super sus. And even that I wouldn’t take as much issue with IF there was some level of accountability and/or ability to know who was picking and choosing which crimes to broadcast to hundreds of thousands of readers. Decisions about what information is not just public, but widely amplified using the tools of media will always have various biases. In most cases readers can make decisions about which voices distributing news they trust because information about who is gathering information, writing stories and funding the news is fairly public. Particularly when paid promotions and news stories get blurred and there is no one specific to demand answers from about which articles are actually advertisements, I think this has dangerous ramifications for democracy.
Zachary Baiel
Thanks, Xander. I appreciate the reply.
Agreed about the click bait / flame wars / incitement for profit. It taps into a part of the human mind that is easy to agitate, giving people an itch they need to scratch until it bleeds.
I wasn’t able to catch the start of your interview and will loop back when I go archive diving later this weekend. I did hear you say that you were also concerned about the reach of, in your case, What’s Going on In Rhode Island. And it sounds like your position here is the same.
Are there times that it would be appropriate to use a pseudonym / pen name / or remain anonymous?
And what would be materially different if you knew the identity of the author? If a truth is amplified, it’s still the truth. Are there next steps you would take if you knew who they were? Boycotts? Relational pressure campaigns? “Cancelling” (for lacking a better term) of some nature?
I agree that knowing when a particular piece is bought and paid for is critical. I think similar disclosures should be made when a reporter simply uses a press release as their story or only dresses it up with a paragraph or two around it, parroting whatever was handed to them by the organization they are amplifying. No money exchanges hands, but criticality isn’t offered either.
Which, if I am understanding you correctly, is part of your disgust towards reporters who don’t dive deeper into the police blotter to find out what happened next, following a story to its conclusion. Which is something Poynter Institute’s piece mentioned.
I think we both agree that media, by its very nature, is biased. No one can cover every perspective of an issue, nor is there an obligation to give oxygen to each opinion.
I am amazed, however, as someone who is active in my community, on how much is unsaid about the public meetings I attend. Who the reporters choose to amplify, leave out, or showcase with a weak quote. Or when they apologize or show sympathy for a particular narrative, while never questioning it.
Sadly, locally at least, everyone has removed their comment sections and barely has any Letter to the Editor presence left. I am grateful for mediums like Substack which try and save this vital avenue for discourse.
And I appreciate you for engaging in a discussion. Thank you again, Xander.
