Reporters get ethics and law wrong vacated murder sentence.

Ganey, Terry

When Ryan Ferguson was released from prison Nov. 12 where he had been serving time for the murder of a newspaper sports editor, television journalists from across the country swooped down on Columbia, Mo., home of the University of Missouri's School of Journalism.

The big story provided a teaching moment for one professor, concerned about accuracy, media ethics and the appearance of objectivity. A lesson was to be learned, too, about convergence, and how an event can be transformed or amplified by the various forms of media buzzing around it.

Ferguson's release prompted live television coverage that showed reporters hugging members of his family, Internet postings and blog entries containing inaccuracies, and Twitter-fed debates over whether journalists should be cheerleaders. On national television, a network legal affairs correspondent misinterpreted a Missouri court opinion.

"I was appalled really at the media circus that went on after Ryan was released," said Jim Robertson, managing editor of the Columbia Daily Tribune. "It just made me feel cynical about our profession."

Ferguson spent nearly 10 years behind bars for the murder of Kent Heitholt, a Tribune sports editor who was found strangled and beaten in the newspaper's parking lot on Nov. 1,2001. Two years after the killing, an acquaintance of Ferguson's, Charles Erickson, told police he had "dreamlike" memories of the murder and Ferguson's involvement.

Erickson, who pleaded guilty to armed criminal action and second-degree murder, received a 25-year sentence. After a trial, a jury convicted Ferguson of first-degree robbery and second-degree murder. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

The case attracted widespread media attention. NBC's "Dateline" and CBS's "48 Hours" re-examined the case. No physical evidence tied the defendants to the murder. Erickson and another witness later recanted their testimony that had helped to convict Ferguson.

On Nov. 5, in response to a habeas corpus petition, a Missouri appeals court overturned Ferguson's conviction, ruling that prosecutors had withheld evidence that could have impeached the testimony of a key trial witness.

"His verdict is not worthy of confidence," the court said.

After Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster decided not to re-file charges against Ferguson, he was released Nov. 12.

According to a transcript of ABC's "Good Morning America" program the next day, Dan Abrams, chief legal affairs anchor, said, "Last week, a Missouri appeals court overturned Ferguson's conviction, saying, quote, 'Newly discovered evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that he's actually innocent.' "

But Abrams, who according to an ABC news biography is a graduate of the Columbia University law school, apparently did not carefully read the 54-page ruling. Issued by the Missouri Court of Appeals in Kansas City and signed by Judge Cynthia Martin, the opinion contains no finding that Ferguson was innocent. His conviction was vacated because of the prosecutions non-disclosure of crucial evidence to his defense lawyers.

Abrams and other reporters seized on the opinion's language that said one way Ferguson could gain his freedom would be if "newly discovered evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that he is actually innocent, thus undermining confidence in his conviction."

But that's not the avenue the court chose. Instead, it said the prosecution had denied Ferguson a fair trial by withholding "material and favorable evidence."

"Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that Ferguson did not receive a fair trial," Martin wrote.

In the aftermath of Ferguson's release, much attention focused on how many reporters reacted so favorably to the outcome, as if they'd been on his side all along. But of greater concern to Joy Mayer, a journalism professor at the University of Missouri, were the inaccuracies explaining the court decision.

Mayer was drawn into a Twitter conversation about coverage of the Ferguson case because of a tweet posted by Scott Charton, a former Associated Press reporter. Watching the live broadcast of Ferguson's news conference on KOMU-TV,, Charton recognized a local television reporter hugging a member of the Ferguson family, and he saw a photographer with a still camera doing the same.

Charton thought the behavior was unusual. Reporters are supposed to be impartial witnesses to news events, not cheering participants.

"Too close," Charton said in a tweet recounting that he saw reporters and photographers hugging Ryan Ferguson. A few minutes later, his next tweet said, "Clarifying for record: saw a photographer and a TV reporter hug the dad (Bill Ferguson), did not see them hug Ryan."

Although Charton did not name him, the reporter was Mark Slavit of KRCG-TV;, a mid-Missouri station with a bureau in Columbia.

"I was caught up in the emotion of the moment," Slavit said later in an interview with a reporter for the Gateway Journalism Review. "There was a lot of hugging going on. I hugged Bill Ferguson. I don't consider him a friend, but he is a news source. I had been working on this story with him for nearly 10 years."

Slavit said if he had it to do over again, he'd be more careful.

"I should have done it in a private moment," he said.

The issue might have died, except that Melanie Moon, a reporter for KPLR-TV in St. Louis, later chimed into the "too close" Twitter conversation that Charton had begun. Charton had not seen Moon, and did not know her, but she said on Twitter that, in fact, she had hugged both Ferguson and his father.

She posted on her Facebook page a photo of herself standing arm-in-arm beside Ryan Ferguson, both smiling broadly. And those looking at her postings said later that she encouraged people to contribute to a fund for Ferguson.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

"In some cases media biases, based in a strong sense of right and wrong, serve the public good," Moon tweeted.

Moon's response drew more people into the debate over how much distance should exist between journalists and people who make the news. Renee Hulshof, who co-hosts a talk show on KFRU radio in Columbia, said, "So the press is now the arbiters of who is right and wrong? Oh, I missed that lesson in J-school."

Hulshof may have had more than just passing interest in the subject. Her husband, Kenny Hulshof, is a former special prosecutor who has had criminal convictions overturned on judicial review.

Mayer weighed in, too. She is the director of community outreach for the university's newspaper, the Missourian, and she had warned reporters covering the Ferguson case to report on the celebration about his release but not become part of it.

When one of Moon's tweets said the Ferguson case was about "innocence and prosecutorial misconduct," Mayer posted an essay on the Internet titled "How a St. Louis TV reporter got both ethics and facts wrong."

"Then hug wasn't the point," Mayer said in an interview. "I think the hug was inappropriate. She got the facts wrong and never admitted the facts were wrong. What bothered me the most was that she really didn't understand why he had been released from prison, and also that she was so firmly convinced of his innocence."

According to the KPLR-TV website, Moon studied telecommunications and journalism at the University of South Florida and later graduated from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. Moon did not respond to a Gateway Journalism Review reporter's request for comment. Her tweets on this subject have since been deleted.

In a Facebook thread, Moon's behavior was roundly criticized by current and former journalists, including Amanda St. Amand of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch; Jodie Jackson of the Tribune; Steve Koehler, formerly of the Springfield News Leader; and Dale Singer of the St. Louis Beacon.

"Totally inappropriate for her to cheerlead for Ferguson, then to raise money, too," said former KSD-TV newsman Mike Owens. "Not much journalism there."

If Moon had not been drawn into the Twitter conversation with Charton over the hugs, the issue would not have gotten so much exposure. But as it was, the Post-Dispatch's Joe Holleman wrote about it the following day under the headline, "KPLR's Melanie Moon defends hugging man whose murder conviction was overturned."

"It's impossible to be objective on this," Moon told Holleman." When asked if the flap caused her to rethink her journalistic methods, she said, "I'11 be more careful of what I tweet; I'll keep some of those thoughts to myself."

Jaime Mowers, a reporter for the Webster-Kirkwood Times and the programming chair for the St. Louis Chapter of SPJ, tried to arrange a panel discussion for Moon and Mayer to go over what had happened. While Mayer had agreed, Mowers said she had been unable to reach Moon, despite leaving her several messages.

"I think it could still be relevant if Melanie would be willing to participate," Mowers said. For Robertson and the other journalists at the Columbia Daily Tribune, the murder of Heitholt remains an open wound. The newspaper covered the Ferguson trial as well as all the litigation connected with his appeal--more than 250 stories in all. But it never beat the drum for his release.

Robertson is sensitive to claims that the newspaper has been biased in its coverage, and that it was against Ferguson. He said some people automatically concluded that because the newspaper was writing about a victim who was one of its own.

"We always try to be unbiased," Robertson said. "On this one particularly we played things straight down the middle."

In a recent Sunday issue of the paper, the Tribune, under the headline, "Memories of Heity," reported on the impact of Heitholt's murder on his family.

"He was really a good guy," Robertson said. "We still miss him, and he's not coming back."