I do not want my outrage tempered by knowing the facts

By Jeremy

One of my particular hates is newspaper columnists (and other “journalists”) misrepresenting the punishments actually doled out by courts, thereby undermining (a) the general deterrence of the actual sentences and (b) efforts by judges to actually rehabilitate offenders so they’re less likely to offend when they’re eventually released – purely so said writers can indulge their readers’ carefully-nurtured (but ignorant) view that courts are “soft”. (As studies have shown, when actually given the facts the general public tends to be no more severe than sentencing judges (usually less severe).

One of the techniques shameless journos use to spread misconceptions about sentencing is only reporting the non-parole period of a jail sentence. For example, the Northern Territory News reported the sentence of a man convicted today of manslaughter as being “at least four years and six months in jail”, only at the very end conceding that the actual sentence was nine years. In the NTN’s favour, they did use the words “at least” and they did, eventually, list the actual sentence. Many news outlets – particularly News Ltd – regularly decline to do either of those things.

Which brings me to how the NTN story has been used by Andrew Bolt in his post today. He introduces the story with the (clearly sarcastic) “A law-abiding man gets the mercy you’d expect, given certain other factors as well”, before quoting parts of the story, emphasising the judge’s finding that the guilty man “did not have an extensive history of violence, and had generally been a law-abiding citizen” and then asking “Er, yes. But explain that word “generally””.

Bizarrely, Andy edits out all reference to the jail sentence the man received, leaving lazy readers who don’t click on the link – and read to the end of it – with the impression that the above mitigating factors resulted in some light sentence. (We already know that his readers are unable to distinguish between a defence and a mitigating factor put in a guilty plea.) And, since what was meant by “generally” – as in “other than on this occasion” – is pretty bloody obvious, we are only left to guess what dog-whistle he’s trying to blow for his readers.

The aboriginal-hating ones have clearly got the message, though, because they’re off and running in the comments… if they are not mistaken, it appears to have been a suggestion that courts are excessively forgiving of aboriginal people being violent. I hope that’s not what Andy was saying, but he hasn’t appeared and corrected his readers, either.

The misleading court reporting is the bit that annoyed me most, though. Imagine what a warped view of the world you’d have if you relied on Andrew Bolt as a source of information!

14 Comments

Filed under Andrew Bolt

Tags: crime and punishment, indigenous people, sentencing