Responsible Journalism?

Posted on | August 25, 2009 | No Comments

Earlier today, I read an article on Time Magazine’s website and, after I was finished, glanced at their “Most Popular” box to see if any others appealed to me. One article did catch my eye, so I clicked the link and began to read.

I read about John and Cynthia Burke, a couple originally from New Jersey who didn’t believe in God (or a Supreme Being) and didn’t belong to any religious organization. They were in the process of adopting a child and New Jersey courts tried to block the adoption based on their religious beliefs – or lack thereof.

The article made me angry and sad – that a happy family should be torn apart because of prejudice or ignorance. Of course atheists can be good parents – just like Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or Catholic parents can be bad parents. Then I happened to notice the date of the article: December, 1970.

Well. This is a different story all together.

Based on a quick Google search, I was able to determine that the Burkes appealed the court’s decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which ultimately reversed the original court’s ruling and allowed the Burkes to take their child home, where they lived – I assume – in relative and happy obscurity.

Still, despite this all occurring decades later, the blogosphere is all a-twitter over this story. More troubling is the fact that a number of these bloggers have missed the date on the article and assume the events are occurring in the present-day.

I don’t know why Time magazine chose to make this particular archived article available online now. I don’t know why it showed up in their “Most Popular” box today. I do know that, as I view it in my web browser, the date is several font sizes smaller than the headline and appears in a gray-ish font color, against a white background, making it difficult to see.

Where is the responsible journalism in all of this? Nothing on the web page (as of 3pm EST today) indicates that this is a reprint of an older article. Aside from the date, which is hard to notice, Time didn’t list any notation or preface alerting readers to the fact that they were reading a story that was 30+ years old. The article itself uses present-tense verbs and gives an uninformed reader the sense that it is a currently unfolding story. Despite having the issue resolved, there is no comment explaining the outcome (i.e, the NJ Supreme Court’s reversal and the Burkes being able to adopt their child), leaving readers with the idea that this family is indeed being torn apart.

I think it’s irresponsible of Time to assume readers will see the not-so-obvious date and realize the story does have an ending. A simple Google search of the article lists pages of blogs reporting on this story as if it happened yesterday or last year (some of the blogs I read referenced the Time article back in January 2008). Time owes its readers more than that. A preface paragraph or epilogue would have cleared things up easily.

The larger issues the article raises are just as important today, but it does everyone involved a disservice to confuse the conversation over a lack of clarity. The date is a simple thing to fix, so why not do it?

Bad move, Time.

Comments