Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

Legal News

: Lawbeat

Ambition and glitches in project on DNA and parole

By Mark Obbie

It's a good thing for journalists that USA Today doesn't pay by the word. There's a double byline on this story. But assisting Kevin Johnson and Richard Willing were 27 contributors, 23 of them at other Gannett papers. And the word count? A brisk 428. So that's barely 14 words per contributor. To be fair, the story is based on a survey that USA Today conducted of the 50 states, so that in-house research required many hands. The end product, albeit overly brief, was worth it and USA Today deserves praise for tackling the project. The survey asked states whether they delay parole based on DNA evidence linking inmates to crimes for which they were never prosecuted. Twelve states said that they do (six others didn't respond). Johnson and Willing explain (very briefly!) what various experts think of the policy. There were many ways to expand the story -- chiefly, how does other evidence of bad behavior factor into a parole decision? -- but my main gripe concerns the way the writers (or editors) hyped the news value. The lede tells us that the use of DNA evidence untested by a trial is an "emerging" trend in parole cases. Then, somewhat contradicting that claim to news, comes this sentence: "The little-known strategy has been in use for several years but appears to be spreading as DNA databases improve." Is it emerging, or longstanding, or expanding? I can't tell, and the story makes no attempt to prove the various claims of newsiness. (Via Criminal Justice Journalists)

Full post as published by Lawbeat on February 09, 2008 (boomark / email).