University of Virginia Library

Muzzling The Press, II

Once again we have before us a case of a
public official intimidating and trying to stifle
the press. In a day when this is becoming
more and more common an occurrence, this
latest attempt to keep information from the
public would almost be considered not
newsworthy in itself were it not for the fact
that it tangentially involves us and specifically
involves the only other daily newspaper in
Charlottesville.

We are referring first to the statement
which Commonwealth's Attorney John T.
Camblos personally delivered to The Daily
Progress last Friday threatening the editors
with an injunction if they did not cease
printing information concerning the Mary
Jordan murder, second to the intimidation of
a Daily Progress reporter and photographer at
a hearing last Thursday, and third to the
confiscation of our photography editor's film
on which were pictures of the suspect, Ronald
Greenfield, being taken into police
headquarters last Wednesday.

Mr. Camblos would argue that he was trying
to protect the defendant's rights, particularly
since Mr. Greenfield is only 17, and therefore
officially a "juvenile." Mr. Camblos's
argument may be valid to a point, but it fails
to take several things into consideration, not
the least of which is that it was Mr. Camblos
himself who released Mr. Greenfield's name
(when he supposedly thought the suspect was
older). Thus, the responsibility for a
possible breach of Mr. Greenfield's rights as a
juvenile lies squarely on the shoulders of John
Camblos, and not the local news media, which
rightly reported all the available information.

More importantly, Mr. Camblos seems to
be dismissing the seriousness of the crime as
an important factor in the determination of
editors to provide the public with the facts
surrounding the case, Had Mr. Greenfield
been arrested on a charge of trespassing, then
it might be easier to accept Mr. Camblos's
argument. But the press has an inescapable
duty to provide the truth in its entirety, as
best it is known, in order that fact might
prevail over rumor.

Like Mr. Camblos, we feel that Mr.
Greenfield deserves a fair and impartial trial,
but we do not feel that the news coverage
given this case by the local press will prevent
him from receiving just that; there are too
many precedents. And we cannot agree that
Mr. Greenfield's age should grant him
immunity from press coverage or
automatically earn him special treatment if he
is found guilty; in fact, we would be surprised
if Mr. Camblos does not argue that Mr.
Greenfield should be tried as an adult.

But as long as the court regards Mr.
Greenfield as a juvenile, Mr. Camblos seems
bent on strongman the press, claiming he
has been instructed by the court to curtail
coverage in the naive belief that some
journalist might take this unofficial,
unconstitutional dictum seriously. Mr.
Camblos may feel that the press has already
given Mr. Greenfield grounds for appeal
should he be convicted; if indeed the press has
complicated Mr. Camblos's job by reporting
legitimate news, then maybe it is the judicial
process itself which should come under
attack, not the press. In any event, Mr.
Camblos would be well advised to save his
arguments and histrionics for the courtroom,
instead of using them to try to prevent
journalists from carrying out their
responsibility to the public.