Abstract:
This case describes the press coverage of Oliver Sipple, the man who stopped Sara Jane Moore from shooting President Ford in San Francisco in September, 1975. Sipple was aggressively pursued by the press after the incident, especially on the issue of his sexual preference. Shortly after, a wire service story was published suggesting Ford had not thanked Sipple due to his sexual orientation. In Detroit, Sipple's hometown, the two daily newspapers responded in different ways, particularly when approaching Sipple's mother for a comment. Part A recounts the press coverage in some detail. Part B includes excerpts from the various reporters and editors involved, focusing on how and why they made their journalistic judgments. For journalists, it raises several issues: the aggressive pursuit of an unwilling subject; the role of competition; and the different standards for news stories, gossip columns, and already published information. For people who must deal with the press, the case raises questions of good practice: How can you stop reporters from covering you? What is the best way to handle a brewing controversy which you would prefer to see forgotten? How can you prepare yourself for unexpected reporters? Finally, the case provides an opportunity to discuss how the press really functions: how reporters get the story, how reporters and editors interact, and how editing and publishing decisions are made. It presents a wide range of press practices for perusal, such as the use of wire copy, headline-writing, and the independence of columnists from the editing process.
Learning Objective:
This case highlights the complicated role of ethics and press practice in reporting on the private lives of public persons.
