SALZMAN: Should media ID hookers' clients?
Sometimes, but it shouldn't be high priority
By Jason Salzman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published April 12, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Back in February, CBS4 (Channel 4) interviewed a woman claiming to be one of the prostitutes who worked for "Denver Players," an escort service that allegedly catered to lawyers, judges, professional athletes and other muckety-muck men.
She described orgy-like parties that took place at the ritzy Denver Club, before Denver Players was shut down by law-enforcement officials in January.
CBS4's Brian Maass showed the alleged prostitute photos of prominent men who were possible clients of Denver Players. She identified three, he told me. But Channel 4 elected not to name these men. Instead, Maass looked into the camera and pledged:
"CBS4 is not identifying the customers without the clients confirming the information or law enforcement releasing the names."
Maybe some of the Johns breathed a sigh of relief, because this means CBS4 could have a rock-solid anonymous sources and overwhelming evidence, and it still wouldn't release the names.
"If we put names out there, clearly we'd be ruining lives, reputations, families, careers, and to what end?" Maas told me, adding, "What's the news value of that?"
But journalists aren't supposed to wait for criminals to confess or for the police to release the names of suspects before they inform the public about evidence of a criminal act. And like it or not, prostitution-unlike blowing $3,000 at a strip bar-is a crime.
If a journalist has credible evidence that links someone to a crime, they should release it. Right? Maybe Not.
Unlike CBS4, 9News News Director Patti Dennis doesn't have a consistent standard for deciding whether to report the names of Denver Players' clients, but she said the "standard will probably vary depending on the person's public profile."
"Certainly, someone who works for the people has to be held to a pretty high standard of conduct," she said.
That's why 9News reported March 7 that U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham's name and personal cell phone number were on a list of Denver Players clients. This information came from anonymous "sources" and is "indisputable," said Dennis.
Dennis refused to tell me if she has names of other men linked to Denver Players.
In deciding whether to identify the clients, without official confirmation, journalists should ask:
1. Does the petty nature of this crime matter? Yes. As Maass says, the public-interest benefits of releasing names are minimal compared to the risk, however low, that names released by a news outlet turn out to be wrong.
2. Are links to the crime, like names on a Denver Players' list, newsworthy, without further evidence? No.
3. Does the client's job matter? Yes. Journalists should hold public officials to a higher standard.
My real advice for Denver journalists is to focus their investigative powers elsewhere, and spare us interviews with prostitutes.But if reporters must swarm to the Denver Players story and they uncover major and credible evidence that a public official broke the law or is under investigation, then let us know. Otherwise, CBS4's admirable standard should carry the day.
Who's live? KOA radio promotes itself as Colorado's "only local, live 24-hour news source."
Trouble is, if you tune to KOA looking for news, you'll probably hear from a right-wing talk radio host, not a journalist. Or possibly you'll get the play-by- play of a Rockies game.
In response to my e-mail about this, Clear Channel's Kris Olinger wrote: "While our format is news/talk rather than all news, our newsroom is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We are constantly monitoring local news, weather, traffic and sports as well as national and international news. In addition to our regular newscasts (hourly), we broadcast breaking news updates and send out e-mail news alerts when merited 24 hours a day seven days a week."
I respect KOA's newsroom, and I'm glad it exists in our era of disappearing radio news departments. But it's obvious that for the most comprehensive and current local news, you should visit the Web sites of the dailies.
Both of the dailies' Web sites are updated throughout the day and into the night with more local news than you'd ever get from KOA-or its Web site-or from any other media outlet in town, like a local TV station. Most of the time, on KOA, you may have to wait an hour for a short news update.
As for the "live" part, newspaper Web sites deliver local news even faster than a radio host or TV anchor can announce it. The exception is when a broadcast journalist is standing in front of a fire, or something, and soon the dailies' Web sites will be doing more of this themselves.
So, given its talk show lineup, it's more accurate for KOA to promote itself with something like the "blow torch of the Rockies."
The dailies' Web sites are the closest thing to the "only local, live 24-hour news source."
Jason Salzman, president of Cause Communications and board chairman of Rocky Mountain Media Watch, is the author of Making the News: A Guide for Activists and Nonprofits. Reach him at salzmanj@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
A Dozen on Denver
Sandra Dallas wrote 'Lennie's tavern' for our ongoing fiction series. Check it out!
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on today's events.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's totally biased rant about the Broncos-Jaguars game.
-
Presidential Elections
See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.
-
County election profiles
A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
-
Latest from Dove Valley
Click for more broncos videos.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
No. 44 means a lot to Floyd Little
-
Rocky Preps
Now showing: ThunderRidge-Highlands Ranch football.
April 12, 2008
4:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
ahem writes:
One wonders if the names of local media executives and news editors are on the Denver Players list.
The Rocky breathlessly covered the Sheriff butt-slap story. And rang alarm bells about Kenyon Martin's traffic tickets. And shouted that there was porn PORN! on Larry Manzanares' stolen computer. They even busted a city councilman for calling his doctor on a city cell phone. These stories served the public interest, I suppose, because they dealt with public figures?
Reporters, columnists and media execs hold a position of public trust, too. They judge whether information is suitable for public disclosure and have enormous power to select what information is broadcast. It's relevant for the public to know their biases, such as whether they routinely break the law by hiring prostitutes.
Brian Maass and his editors pledged to uphold a code of silence for men who feel entitled to rent the bodies of women for masturbatory purposes. Too bad the poor shmucks on Johns TV don't have Maass watching out for them.
www.denvergov.org/johnsTV
Double standard for the rich, powerful and well-connected? Oh yeah.
April 12, 2008
6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
claudelong writes:
It's funny how people (me at least) can justify whatever supports their own beliefs and values. I am never in favor of news people digging up muck like the Spitzer story or even the Clinton mess. But I do like it when I hear that some evangelist preacher who constantly preaches against the gay lifestyle is arrested for messing around with a male prostitute.
As far as new goes, I am sick of KOA and whatever the AM 760 in in Boulder. I used to enjoy KOA when Rosen was the spokesman for the right. Now, it's just way overbalanced with the fat man and the gunny whatever in the evening. Now, I don't hear the conservative view as much as hate spewed against whoever thinks differently than them. I do like the Rockies and the Broncos though and there is a lot of dial left.
April 12, 2008
7:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
a_watcher writes:
If you changed the subject from sex to (pick something) theft (in any form) by a public official, would you make the same argument?
Would you expect a news organization to withhold reliable information it developed that a public official was involved in theft until he admitted it or the police charged him?
Certainly, to report theft ruins lives just as reporting on sex does. Why not extend your argument to every crime and protect the powerful, no matter what they do?
If you don't like politicians being embarrassed by prostitution, then work to legalize prostitution. Until that happens, please keep reporting on public figures who break the law. If they break one law, the the odds are high that they will break others.
This is the third poorly reasoned essay in recent weeks.
April 12, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Dumb question. Dumber answer from the RMN. Of course the names should be published. Either that, or quit running all the other tattletale stories your paper runs of this nature. Why should the RMN get to choose, either? You ask as though your job is something other than just reporting the facts and letting the people decide if 1)they want to read the article or 2)care about the information if they do choose to read about it. The names of clients are obviously facts associated with the case so, in essence, you're asking if you should tell only part of the story? Guess your journalistic reputation for the rest of the (partial) stories you publish comes more into focus now. Thanks for the history of telling only your favorite part of the story, RMN. Nice work.
April 12, 2008
8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
I think Salzman has a split personality. How did the column go from a Channel 4 news investigation on The Players Club prostitution ring and the not namimg of names to a rant about KOA radio?
April 12, 2008
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
May as well name them, if politicians are involved, they are just prostitutes for big business anyway, and they name the women, why not the politicians?
April 12, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sean writes:
The concept of libertarianism in this country is gone, dead and buried under a wave of nanny-state legislation from both Democrats and Republicans.
There was a time in this country if your actions did not affect the welfare of another then it was not illegal. A john who patronizes a consenting, adult prostitute is not a problem in my book. A lady who likes to smoke pot after work does not worry me. A politician who steals from the public coffers does worry me.
This country would be much more effective in policing crimes that do affect the welfares of others if it would just stop trying to push its version of morality on the rest of us through the power of the state.
April 12, 2008
1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
vudumon,
The prostitution part of the column and the KOA part of the column were two separate and distinct thought pieces. I suspect the print column had a break in the middle.
My problem with KUSA is they have no problems blasting the name of a judge they don't like all over their TV news and website, but are leaving other rich and powerful folks out of the story. C'mon, the Players Club doesn't sound like a whorehouse for men looking for cheap tricks. The Club sounds pricey. Like "ahem", you have to wonder who else among the elite in this city KUSA knows about, but they're protecting those people's dignity and privacy while singling out a judge who earned their displeasure. Maybe there's a Broncos player there, and KUSA wants to stay cozy with the team. Who knows?
Maybe Nottingham deserves KUSA's dipleasure, maybe not. but KUSA is being very selective.
April 12, 2008
5:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
No, keep the cathouse a sacred tradition, generations of humanity has forever been drawn to it's doors for respite. It's theraputic value far outweigh the need for punishment. Have we run out of miscreatins to chastise, that we now punish the pillars of our society for the moments they spend with a strumpet? I guess they should dress up the wife, and have her watch Mae West reruns for that right personal touch of naughty. America has so many closets I'm scared to open doors...
April 12, 2008
8:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Salzman writes:
Yes, the print piece did have a break in the middle, so the Denver Players and KOA were different items in the column, which is supposed to address multiple times each week.
News organizations SHOULD NOT withhold credible information linking anyone, whether an elected official or not, to a crime. But this is such a petty crime, soliciting a prostitute, with such severe social ramifications, that it's not worth publishing the names of the Johns. Even the most "indisputable" sourcing can be wrong. See the LA Times' apology this week.
There's just no public interest benefit from publishing the names, unless they are made public by law inforcement.
April 13, 2008
12:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
freethinker07 writes:
Publishing unproven allegations of illegal activity (paying for sex) by someone who is facing prosecution is dangerous for a news organ. An alleged "john" who claims he is innocent could sue. For some of us, such an allegation could be devastating financially and socially.
Public officials are targets for that sort of charge, and intelligent readers recognize that such accusations must be taken with a grain of salt. Low level ommunity leaders and private citizens are not normally a target, and much more vulnerable to attempted extortion even if they are innocent.
April 13, 2008
7:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Wow, Salzman. Guess the cities around the metro area that have a history of publishing not only the John's name, but their photograph as well have it all wrong according to you. Makes me think there is someone to hide in all of this. Think about the stupid statement you made above regarding the petty nature of the crime: lawmakers designated the petty nature of the crime but, in the end, society does hold those participating accountable by way of ramifications. Ever consider that the lawmakers have it wrong and society understands the secondary and tertiary crime backlashes associated with prostitution? Who are you hiding, Salzman? Your publication's reputation for fair and accurate reporting worth the protection you're offering? Your rationale is weak here - I hope you realize you just prostituted your newspaper for whoever the "client" is you're trying to protect.
April 13, 2008
7:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Hey, Salzman - forgot this in the previous post: your paper printed the name of the news photographer that was arrested by DPD for videotaping footage of an accident. Guess what he was charged with? A couple of PETTY OFFENSES! I mean, it's not like the guy was a moral degenerate like the good people you're trying to protect...he was just trying to do his job. Toss out the "public interest benefit" on publishing this guy's name versus the perverts you want to roll with. Nothing like starting a Sunday morning with a good cup of coffee and a big, heaping plate of hypocrisy, huh?
April 13, 2008
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
"There's just no public interest benefit from publishing the names, unless they are made public by law enforcement." - Salzman
Salzman, if you are the Salzman of the column, you as a newspaper man should be fully aware that the police are fully capable of releasing or withholding all sorts of information according to their own self-interest.
A public offical who the police see as an opponent of their ever increasing demands for money and fancy gadgets gets busted for pot? Spread the name everywhere. Make him/her do the "perp walk" very publicly. A bigtime supporter of police gets busted snorting coke? Play it down. Release the arrest at the end of the daily news cycle. Let him/her bail out privately.
Nottingham wasn't the only big and powerful person on that list. Someone's being selective in the releasing of names.
April 13, 2008
5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Salzman - no comment on using the reporter's name for a petty offense arrest?
April 13, 2008
9:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
Salzman if you wanted to blast KOA why no hit them straight on? Did you have to hide your hatred for Rosen, Caldara and Rush inside of this nonsensical ridiculous article?
Speaking of media watch, who is watching you?
April 13, 2008
10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
carlindenver writes:
Oh good grief Jason just call in on Mike Rosen's show this week and explain to his tiny mind your brilliant opinions and how KOA and Mr Rosen could AND should conduct their views and program agendas in the future. I am sure all who listen to Rosen in the AM would love to hear your comments and intellect. Please, this week for sure give "ol Rosen a call. Thanking you in advance.
April 14, 2008
7:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Zzzzzzz. So, Salzman - why bother asking the question(s) if you're not going to bother responding to anyone?
April 15, 2008
9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Salzman writes:
I don't hate Rosen or Caldara. All I said was that "blow torch of the Rockies" is a more accurate slogan for KOA than the "only live, local 24-hour news source."
I think journalists should report the names of criminals, even if the names are not released by law enforcement officials. That is, if reporters have credible evidence and there's a public-interest benefit in releasing the names. I'll discuss this more on my blog, www.bigmedia.org.
In this case, as I wrote in my column, there's so little public-interest benefit that releasing the names doesn't make sense.
The Fox reporter was charged by police. His name was released by officials. I don't think there was much benefit from releasing his name, you're right, but at least there was no danger of destroying his life with information that wasn't already in the public domain.
April 15, 2008
5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
So, that's it? You just change the metrics mid-stream and walk away? Who says - besides you - that there is little public-interest benefit in releasing the names? If you reported the story (and you did), you need to report the entire story which includes the names of the customers. People patronize prostitutes for various reasons but they all understand the inherent personal danger of engaging in activities of this nature. If the patrons of the prostitutes are willing to assume this danger, then the ramifications (whatever they may be) need to be owned by them, as well. The fact that you make a shrill assertion that someone's life will be destroyed because their name is attached to prostitution is drama in its highest form. Name one person who ceased to continue living their life because they were tied to patronizing a prostitute. Even the politicians tied to recent prostitution investigations are still living their lives - it may not be the life they had before, but they haven't been destroyed. Besides, that's part of the whole decision process that adults engage in - except for RMN columnists, apparently. So, in the end, who is it that you're protecting? Politician, athlete, your boss....?
April 15, 2008
5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Salzman - public-interest benefit: how is that defined, exactly? I can find cites about cost benefits, public-interest, interest groups, etc., but nothing about "public interest benefit." Is this a phrase you made up to rationalize your position?
April 17, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Some of you people are just flat out ill-mannered, and in a way you would never dare to be if you were actually having a discussion in person. Salzman doesn't owe any of you a response, but he does anyway, and remains courteous to boot despite the lack of reciprocity.