Jackson doctor 'to be charged', media didn't ask official sources
Legal scuttlebutt in LA went around the world instantly about possible charges against Michael Jackson’s doctor, Conrad Murray. Less impressive is the fact that 927 news articles were produced before someone checked facts about any actual prosecution.
The theory, and at this stage it's just a theory, is that the possible charges are based on supposed breaches of standards of medical practice. Google News listed practically anything with two tin cans and a piece of string as covering the issue.
Murray denies all charges, and isn’t commenting on the rumors. The legal position is nebulous, at best, because of the medical practice issues, which require a qualified assessment before any action can take place.
The LA District Attorney’s office was said to be waiting for police to hand over the case, although this has been the case for a while now, and confirmation from official sources was lacking. The “anonymous sources” element also helped making facts hard to pin down. Nobody but Murray’s lawyer is being quoted. The only factual information from the official level about progress of this matter is that the investigation has now been completed.
Coverage has been mixed, to put it mildly.
Radar reports that the Head Deputy DA, Patrick Dixon, who worked on the Spector case, has been assigned to conduct the prosecution, interesting news in view of the fact no official prosecution has been ordered.
The difference between rumor and fact in this instance is that there is no case, and no basis for the massive gossip, until a prosecution is formally in process. The information so far is meaningless, until that happens. AP and Fox have taken a more balanced approach, stating only that the prosecution is under consideration, not that there’s been a decision.
TMZ, a blog, has meanwhile reported that Murray has a connection with Britney Spears. His lawyer is the one who got charges dropped against Spears in the hit and run case a few years ago.
The information and news quality at this stage was highly debatable. Not one of these pieces had a word about any official statements.
Actual information finally occurred when somebody got off their major anatomical assets and rang LA DA and asked what was happening.
ABC News, after running an earlier piece in the same vein, later reported that the LA DA hasn’t decided to lay charges.
Some sources are still publishing the rumor, hours after ABC's statement of the situation.
Journalism? When did that get a mention?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/285321
