I admit it. The “He said-She said” reporting style drives me nuts.
So I’m bouncing off the walls this morning reading the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin follow-up stories about an alleged sexual assault involving students on the school campus.
I saw the Advertiser first, where reporter David Waite has a Honolulu attorney sparring with Kamehameha Schools’ representative over whether the school was required to report the alleged assault to police. It quickly woke me up and got my blood pressure rising.
Why? Because it take takes on an important community issue and reduces it to a “he said-she said” debate, as if state law is contained only in an oral tradition that relies on such second-hand interpretations.
David Waite is a very good reporter. His story hits on an important question. He gets good sources on the record. And he has written what is almost an excellent story. Almost.
Waite ultimately fails because the “he said-she said” format takes a straightforward factual question (“is there a law requiring this type of incident to be reported to police?”) and turns it into a matter of subjective opinion (“who should we believe, attorney Frank O’Brien or Kamehameha Schools vp Ann Botticelli?”).
Throughout the story, Waite attributes all characterizations of existing law to his source, Honolulu Attorney Frank O’Brien.
Francis “Frank” O’Brien, who specializes in child protection matters before the court, said Hawai’i law clearly states that employees or officers of a school must notify the state Department of Human Services or the police department immediately when a student reports being sexually assaulted.
The reporting requirement applies to both public and private schools, O’Brien said.
O’Brien is a smart attorney and there’s nothing wrong with those quotes, as far as they go. But why in the world didn’t the story cite the law directly? Couldn’t Waite have asked O’Brien for the proper citation and looked it up? It’s not like state law is contained in secret or obscure texts.
Instead of checking whether or not the legal requirement is in the law, Waite turns to Kamehameha’s representative, former Advertiser reporter Ann Botticelli, to get Kamehameha’s side of the story.
Again, it’s all reduced to “he said-she said”, his opinion against hers.
The reader is left with this exchange:
“If there were a mandatory reporting requirement for this situation, we would have followed it,” Botticelli said in an e-mail response to questions from The Advertiser.
O’Brien said the reporting requirement has been on state law books for more than 25 years.
Note that today’s story by Star-Bulletin’s reporter Leila Fujimori tackled the issue in similar fashion, using slightly different sources.
Again, he said, she said.
I’m afraid this is the rather absurd end to the editorial style that’s been in vogue for years which calls for omitting technical details of public policy stories. Reporters are all too familiar with being told that readers don’t want “inside baseball” technicalities,they just want to cut to the “meaning” and the impacts of policies on “real people”.
In this case, readers are unnecessarily left without a clear answer about the legal requirement. The situation could have been clarified with a very simple reference to the actual statute. Then the stories could have gone on to let each side discuss the implications of the statute.
A small difference but a very crucial one.
Finding the statute didn’t require a run to the law library.
I did a simple Google search, using these terms: “hawaii mandatory reporting sexual assault school”.
Among the top search results was a reference to the National Association to Prevent Sexual Abuse of Children, with a state by state list of legal references. A click on “Hawaii” went right to the relevant statute: Chapter 350 Hawaii Revised Statutes.
§350-1.1 Reports. (a) Notwithstanding any other state law concerning confidentiality to the contrary, the following persons who, in their professional or official capacity, have reason to believe that child abuse or neglect has occurred or that there exists a substantial risk that child abuse or neglect may occur in the reasonably foreseeable future, shall immediately report the matter orally to the department or to the police department:
…
(2) Employees or officers of any public or private school;
Further reporting requirements are then spelled out in statute.
The law also provides a penalty.
§350-1.2 Nonreporting; penalty. Any person subject to section 350-1.1(a) who knowingly prevents another person from reporting, or who knowingly fails to provide information as required by section 350-1.1(c) or (d), shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
A simple sidebar quoting the statute could easily have been included. Or a quote such as the one I used here. Or even just a citation to the chapter so that readers could look it up.
So it goes in journalism land.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is also an article in the SB about arbitration in which the arbitrator explains that he is kicking out the press and the public on the grounds that the media is not capable of dissecting and explaining the issues in a meaningful way. On the one hand, I’m offended that we are being denied access to these meetings, but on the other hand, I believe that the arbitrator is probably correct. The media might only succeed in aggravating the existing acrimony and failing to convey anything to the public beyond competing opinions.
My husband has been a teacher for many years, and in every state he has taught–except Hawaii–he was required to sign a statement acknowledging understanding of the requirement to report suspected abuse or neglect of his students. It was shocking at the time to discover that he was not only not required to sign a statement here but also was not even informed that there is a law on the books requiring such proper notification. I can’t imagine the reasoning behind this lack.
Excellent entry, Ian. As you noted, if the reporter had had the statute before him, he could have asked Botticelli to justify Kamehameha School’s interpretation of it.
Michael
it’s not reporting,it’s stenography
Spot on Ian. Not only stenography, stenography with kid gloves on. I can’t believe the reporter consumed the KSBE “spin” without critical follow up questions on the statute itself.
Anonymous, question: Do you know if the other states mandate the signing of such a form or was this just a practice adopted administratively by schools?
If they mandate the signing of a form, we can too!
Its just a little more complex than that. The citation in 350-1.1 mandates reporting “child abuse or neglect.” Then look at the definition of abuse and neglect in 350.1. The definition is dependent on who is doing the acts, not just the abusive acts themselves. Then contrast the definition elsewhere (different HRS) of sexual assault. The abuse definition makes some opportunity for the confusion in this case, and in various schools’ responses to similar situations, in my experience.
350-1.1 does not require the reporter to become a detective. For example, if a child shows up at school badly bruised, or reports being abused, there is no requirement that the school first figure out who did it. The obligation is to report. Nor can the school accurately determine the perpetrator anyway, even if the child identifies him/her. That job usually falls to CPS possibly with the help of psychologists or other professionals.
Let me add that when someone in the school is the perpetrator, then DOE at least has a history of protecting that person rather than reporting. One part of mandatory reporting is that the organization itself is not to conduct the investigation.
Ian, are you sure that the accusation of sexual assault involves sexual abuse? I’m not an expert, but I am a teacher, and it seems to me that assault can involve an unwelcome kiss or indecent exposure. Are these considered sexual abuse? Without knowing the specifics of the accusation, which of course must be kept confidential by the school, how are we sure that KS is breaking the law?
Whether Anonymous’s husband (above) was asked to sign an acknowledgment of the law or not, it is made clear to teachers statewide that there is a legal obligation to report any suspected cases of abuse or neglect. We are not idiots.
I’m with anotherquarter who (above) says that it’s not as clear-cut an issue as you seem to be implying. Remember that until they are found guilty, the accused boys are KS students and there are all kinds of confidentialities schools have to walk gingerly around. Again, not knowing the details, how can you be sure the school didn’t do the right thing in consulting first with parents about who should report this to police?
Good points.
The statute defines the kind of things that trigger the disclosure requirements. These include:
” (2) When the child has been the victim of sexual contact or conduct, including, but not limited to, sexual assault as defined in the Penal Code, molestation, sexual fondling, incest, or prostitution; obscene or pornographic photographing, filming, or depiction; or other similar forms of sexual exploitation; ”
But my point was that failing to cite the law prevented this kind of focused discussion. There can be disagreement over interpreting the law, but at least the reader should have the benefit of seeing the law so that comments can be evaluated.
To Larry, yes, it was mandated by the state, not the school, in each case.
To Scrivener, no, it was not made clear in any way shape or form at my husband’s school. And this is not about “idiots” (are teachers idiots for being required to sign acknowledgements of the law?)–this is about a legal document that can be enforced if a teacher fails to uphold the law which requires reporting any and all suspected (not proven btw) abuse or neglect to proper authorities.
Back in the stone age when I went to J-school before the term “he said, she said reporting” was invented it was called just plain lazy reporting. And funny someone should mention the arbitrator’s edict on closing the meeting- what astonishes me most there is that no reporter- no print, no TV- bothered to pick up a phone and call OIP and talk to the “attorney on duty”. They most likely would have given a quick answer. They’re very good about that these days.
The answer by the way is apparently “open” since there is no exemption covered specifically in HRS 92-5(a) 1 through 8 (the sunshine law exemptions to open meetings rule). Nor did reporters bother to look at 92 at all because it they did they could have at least reported that all meetings are open unless they are specifically exempted by meeting one of the eight exemptions. And if they didn’t have an answer that would be a story in and of itself….
That’s why reporters carry cell phones. And if there are reporters who cover government who aren’t familiar with all of HRS 92 Section 1 they either need to find another beat or crack a book now and then.
Except that I don’t think an arbitration hearing is a meeting of a “board” under the Sunshine Law.
Definition:
Anyone who would like to see a new law such as Anonymous has described, so that teachers have to acknowledge receiving and understanding the mandatory reporting law, please drop a short, friendly request to Sen. Chun Oakland (senchunoakland@capitol.hawaii.gov). She would be a possible legislator to introduce a bill on the subject as part of the Keiki Caucus package. The email doesn’t have to be fancy. Now is the time new bills are being contemplated and written. I’ve already sent my email to her.
Hmmm.. My previous comment (before the one above) never made it, it seems.
I am sad but not surprised that the Advertiser story failed to relate a fairly straightforward interpretation of applicable statutory law. Having been where news has been made on occasion over the years and then seeing how it’s reported makes one realize viscerally that what mostly passes for journalism is all about the “compelling narrative” — and little else. In light of the seminal role that the media have in helping assure the individual rights we enjoy as Americans, this reality is more than sad.
Ian,
I think everyone failed to look at what constitutes child abuse in the preceding section in the statute, Section 350-1 defines child abuse as “acts or omissions of any person who, or legal entity which, is in any manner or degree related to the child, is residing with the child, or is otherwise responsible for the child’s care.”
This is patterned closely from the federal Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 which defines it as “Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker that results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation.”
I think the problem with both the stories especially the extended coverage of O’Brien who claims to be an expert on this law and somehow missed the definition of it is that while there should be a discussion of why a school is not required to report a crime or serious juvenile misconduct to the police, it seems like this ends up being another one of those stories that doesn’t want to talk directly about rape and how society ought to deal with its persistence and instead forces on the criminal component of an irrelevant statute.