Final

In October of 2005, Tanh Tran and Brandi Smith worked for competing news stations in Boise, Idaho. Their two stations Channel 2 and Channel 6, respectively, were competing to be the number two stations as an NBC affiliate was dominating ratings. A viewer tip involving a sex offender working at a Boise ice rink would require Tran and Smith to make to difficult decision whether to break the controversial story in order to gain network ratings.

The viewer tip, which was given to both stations, simply mentioned a sex offender was working at a local ice rink, in an environment where there were plenty of children. Both reporters knew the consequences of running with the story, and reporting false information. However, in effort to gain the edge on their competition, channel 6 and Brandi Smith decided to report the story. In contrast, Than Tran of Channel 2, decided to delay breaking the story in order to gain more knowledge on the incident.

After looking through court records from the incident, Tran discovered information that agreed with her decision to not run the story. The sexual offender, James Kimbel, had been involved in a sexual incident with a 15-year-old girl, however the incident occurred 13 years prior and had been dismissed by a judge. Kimbel was now working as a contracted hockey referee, and was deemed safe for kids by a panel, prior to his referee employment. Brandi Smith at Channel 6, who made the decision to run live with their accusation of Kimbel as a sexual predator, was not covering this side of the story.

When Channel 6 broke the story on Kimbel, Smith was pressed on time and did not take the time to discover the information Tran did. However, After the story broke Smith realized what she had done to Kimbel. In a story done by NPR’s This is American Life several years later with the two reporters, Smith explained
" I felt the initial concern of a sex offender working with children was completely valid, but as the day progressed, we learned more about what the charge was how long it had been… By the time the live shot rolled around, I just remember voicing concern...I just kept commenting we’re ruining this guys life."
However, Smith and the rest of the Channel 6 news team would continue reporting on Kimbel, making it their stations exclusive story.
It would be pressure from their recently hired news director Scott Picken, who kept Channel 6 reporting on the Kimbel story.

Channel 6 news director Scott Picken was hired to increase competition at the news station and break such stories as Kimbel’s. Picken believed reporting controversial stories was all-apart of being a journalist saying
“In order to become a viable journalist organization in this market, we had to step up our game some. Sometimes people need to understand, just because you’re uncomfortable with something or because you’re being asked to do something that’s not in your realm, doesn't necessarily make it incorrect or wrong, it just means you have to go to the next level."
In contrast to Picken, Channel 2’s news director Mark Browning advised Than Tran to not report on the Kimbel story. Browning and Tran both recognized the stories potential to bring much needed ratings to their station, but they both understood the damages such a story would inflict on Kimbel and his family. Browning believed the circumstances involving Kimbels incident were just to complicated to be reported on. Saying, " (There is a) Big difference in my book between sexual predetor and sexual offender. Attach that word sexual in front of it and it changes the entire dynamic with people. It gives newsrooms license to hunt, when really there is no game there."


In the Associated Press Stylebook’s Briefing on Media Law Section, libel is described as an incorrectly reported statement, which damages a person’s reputation. Most cases of libel involve public officials like politicians or celebrities. The AP Stylebook also explains, in a libel suit, the plaintiff must prove the defamatory statement was false but presented as fact, and was published with “actual malice”. In Kimbel’s case, Channel 6 did not commit libel, but rather violated rules in journalism ethics.

In our textbook, Inside Reporting, The code of ethics by The Society of Professional Journalists is presented. It states journalists should: Seek truth and report it, act independently, be accountable, and minimize harm. Under minimize harm, the code of ethics explains journalists should, “recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials…only overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.”
Kimbel, who explains Channel 6 never contacted him for a comment or to inform him of their story, would most likely be able to sue Channel 6 for negligent reporting on his story.

According to the AP Stylebook, private individuals must be able to show fault by the reporting organization in a libel case. It goes on to explain California and Texas courthouses look at whether the reporter knew they were at fault, or knew about inaccuracies in their reporting. In a hypothetical case between Kimbel and Smith, Kimbel would argue Smith knew more about the incident involving his sexual predator case than she was really reporting. However, because Smith was reporting on a factual event, it is unlikely Kimbel could win a libel suit.

In this incident between Channel 6 and Channel 2, competition and pressure lead to impulsive reporting, without necessarily doing all the research required with such a sensitive subject. However, both reporters and their news director’s could justify their decision. Even though Channel 6’s reporting on Kimbel ruined his career and brought up a painful past, they did not commit any real acts of libel, because the information published was true, though damaging. In their eyes, reporting on Kimbel was not only a hard news story; it was a public service, letting parents know of the dangers at the ice rink. For Tran and Channel 2, doing the additional research prevented them from publishing damaging information and breaking journalism ethics, even though it lost them a story.