As journalists, it is our job to provide as much information to the public as we can when reporting the news.
We also have a responsibility, though, to consider whether all the information available to us should be reported.
Every day, we try our best to balance those two things — do our jobs while making good decisions about how to do them.
In an article published in The Greeneville Sun earlier this week, we failed in the second part of that process.
As editor of the newspaper, I am ultimately responsible.
When the Greeneville Police Department asked the public for information regarding the death of Cedric Barner, we published that request and the details provided by police, first on our website then in print. This is what we always do when we receive such a request, and what we should do.
However, we also added information from our own archives that was not included in the police department news release. That information regarded Mr. Barner’s criminal record.
Reaction to the inclusion of that information from Mr. Barner’s family and friends, and other members of the community, was swift and negative.
And, frankly, it was deserved.
Unfortunately, part of our job is publishing news articles about people who meet untimely deaths. In some of those articles, information about their pasts — at times including unflattering details or even criminal histories — might be relevant to telling the whole story. It depends on the circumstances.
In this situation, the information about Mr. Barner’s past was not relevant. It was not necessary, and it did not help investigators who were gathering information about the hours preceding his death.
It is never our intention to add to the burden of those already grieving the loss of a loved one. And while it is inevitable that when reporting news, some of the information we publish will be difficult for certain people to read, we have to keep trying to make the best decisions possible every day about what to share and how.
As editor, I have to try to make the best decisions possible.