Why do they blur the faces of people on the news , for example a young girl was attacked by an American Pit bull at Claremont Meadows in NSW , they showed the owner just before he ran off but blurred his face
They then asked if anyone could help identify said person , pretty hard when you cannot see their face
Now I know about innocent until proven guilty but in this case and a lot of others it is painfully obvious who is guilty so show their face so they can be quickly identified
What are your thoughts ?
1 Like
Multiple reasons:
- The media should get the depicted person to sign a release form. That’s hassle if even possible. It’s often easier just to blur out.
- If the person is a minor, hence not deemed able to sign said form, it is general policy just to blur out.
- Yes, then there’s also presumption of innocence if the person is likely to be charged and tried relating to an alleged crime.
3 Likes
and two more:
- the person with the blurred face may not be the subject of the news story nor is it known they are the perpetrator. There are a number of news organisations in recent past in the haste to get the story out first, incorrectly identified a person, and thus getting themselves in hot water.
- the person is an employee of an organisation where they can’t be or don’t want to be identified (police, security services, council dog catcher etc)
3 Likes
OK , so how do we catch people who have supposedly committed a crime , in the case cited his actions clearly indicated he was the owner
In some cases the incorrect person may be shown but which is the lesser of 2 evils wrong person or catching the right person
As to incorrectly identifying someone , no , they just show all the faces let the judicial system then do its work
I guess this also means that I recommend name and shame , yes to that
1 Like
That is indeed the question. There are those who suggest that no human or legal right is too important to sacrifice in the name of catching pedorists. There are those, such as myself, who say that it has gone too far.
One important point to bear in mind is that the media still has the original video - and that is likely available to the police from the media. So if someone contacts the police (or the media) and says that he or she may have been in the vicinity at the time, either as a witness or as an innocent party needing to be eliminated from enquiries, then the video can still be used to further the investigation.
It’s just that the video isn’t splattered all over the place, poisoning the jury pool and trashing the reputation of innocent parties. (Innocent party includes a party who is actually guilty but ultimately is not convicted, for whatever reason.)
As @phb says, media organisations have had their sorry a***** sued for incorrectly trashing someone’s reputation. So a little bit of caution, particularly in a “breaking” story, is prudent. If it is said that truth is the first casualty of war then accuracy is the first casualty of haste, or something like that. 
3 Likes
More than a few people have been subjected to physical attacks, job loss, and public ostracism after being wrongly featured. No empathy or consideration for what might and sometimes does happen to them so long as the real perp is arrested?
3 Likes
