Ailing Coverage of Bailing
by Al Diamon
Getting out of jail not free: One thing that’s clear from the coverage of the David Labonte story is that the news media doesn’t understand Maine’s bail system very well. The other thing that’s obvious is that the public doesn’t understand it at all.
That first item probably has something to do with the second.
Labonte is the Biddeford man charged with driving drunk, resulting in the death of a bicycle rider and injuries to his wife and child. At the time he ran into them in his pickup, he was legally inebriated, even though he was under court order to have no alcohol in his blood. He had four previous convictions for operating under the influence.
On August 26, Labonte was released from York County Jail after posting bail of $100,000. The news that he was once again free prompted predictable public outrage. “This man is a very serious public safety threat,” said one commenter on the Portland Press Herald website. “With his history, he should have been held without bail. Period.” Another capitalized his concern: “WHY DO REPEAT OFFENDERS GET BAIL OF ANY KIND?”
These are reasonable concerns, and the Press Herald’s story, by staff writer David Hench, should have addressed them. But it didn’t. Coverage was even more superficial on WCSH-TV, failing to touch on the reasons bail was granted at all. WGME-TV echoed the Press Herald’s information, then went for public reaction, which was predictably uninformative.
Nobody bothered to talk to a legal scholar or a defense lawyer to explain why bail was granted. And nobody explained the nuances of first-party bail (money put up by the defendant, which is what Labonte was required to use) and third-party bail (money posted by friends or relatives). If anybody had explored this aspect of the story, that reporter might have found what one legal expert told me in an e-mail: “The difference between first party and third party bail also goes beyond where the money comes from. If the money is first party bail, it is easier for the money to be forfeited for a violation than it is when the money is third party.”
Instead of exploring that angle – and perhaps providing some context – the media was content to play to the public’s anger. Dealing with complexity doesn’t increase page views or ratings.
WTF?: The August 15 print edition of the Wiscasset Newspaper carried an intriguing – some might say shocking – front page headline. It read, “Wiscasset mentions the C-word.”
As the online version makes clear, the “C-word” in question is “consolidation.”
I’m betting not a single reader had that as a first guess.
In addition to serving as The Bollard’s media critic, Al Diamon writes a weekly political column that runs in the Portland Phoenix, the Downeast Coastal Press, the Daily Bulldog, some Mainely Media weeklies and some Current Publishing papers. He also writes columns for a couple of Current’s magazines. He can be emailed at aldiamon@herniahill.net.
