A story is published and days later a person is dead
A couple of months ago I wrote down my thoughts about stories I second-guessed when I was employed in the newspaper business.
Reporters wield a great deal of power. Their words can make or break careers and livelihoods.
Last week, the Alabama-based news site 1819 News published a story about a man named F.L. “Bubba” Copeland. At the time, Copeland was the mayor of Smiths Station in Lee County and the pastor of First Baptist Church in nearby Phenix City.
The story revealed Copeland lived a secret life. He apparently posted pictures of himself on social media in women’s attire. A followup story indicated that Copeland posted stories of “erotic fiction” in which he is believed to have used the names and likenesses of real people in his community.
In one post, Copeland wrote about murdering a business owner in the community and stealing her identity. WVTM in Columbus, Ga., interviewed two people in the community who claimed Copeland used their name and/or likeness and those images now appear on multiple porn sites.
So, the details are lurid.
The rest of the story is that Copeland committed suicide days after the initial story was published.
Of course the events have stunned the community. Further, the decision to publish the stories about Copeland’s secret life have led to numerous discussions in journalism circles.
Tom Arenberg, a longtime sports editor of the Birmingham News and a current Instructor of News Media at the University of Alabama, said in his blog that the stories were not justified. Here is an excerpt:
Public reaction around the state, including from many journalists, branded the reports as cruel and unjustified. That’s accurate. And it would be accurate even if Copeland hadn’t ended his life.
As I wrote in 2021, multiple circumstances can make the private life of a public official legitimately newsworthy. The foremost question is whether private activities affect public performance. In Copeland’s case, there’s zero evidence of impact on his performance as mayor or as pastor.
I have great respect for Arenberg and since I have already questioned my own decisions about revelatory stories, I seriously doubt I would have published these stories.
But I must question his role as a pastor.
Had these revelations been known to me as a publisher and Christian, I probably would have taken the following actions:
First, I would have contacted Copeland to make him aware that I knew these posts existed and that it was clear he was responsible for the posts.
Second, I would have asked him to make this information known to his deacon body or whatever administrative body existed at his church. Or, I would have simply asked him to address his congregation. Either way, the church could have decided if it wanted him to remain as its pastor.
If he declined, then I most likely would have contacted the deacon chairman privately and discussed what I knew.
He addressed his congregation, but only after the story was published.
This wasn’t an isolated tweet from 15 years ago. This wasn’t a part of a person’s past that is no longer who they are. And it wasn’t simply that Copeland was dressing in women’s clothing. Copeland’s writings were just plain dark. They apparently involved real people in the community. Although his writings could be termed “fiction”, they obviously expressed some suppressed desire on his part. And the writings were just incompatible with the faith group with which he chose to align himself.
As a Christian, I would have asked myself if I would want to know if my pastor was engaged in the online things Copeland was doing. My answer is yes. That’s why I would have urged Copeland to come forward to his congregation or administrative body.
It would have been best handled within the congregation rather than a viral online story. Yes, it certainly would have become widely known at that time but it still appears to be the right path.
There is a widely-held journalistic philosophy that the more you expose, the more likely it is that others will curtail their wrongdoing for fear of getting caught. This is typically tied to government or corporate malfeasance, not Copeland’s online posts.
Do I believe 1819 News is responsible for Copeland’s suicide? I don’t. Copeland made a choice.
And 1819 News is in the information business. It had no ethical obligation to get involved privately in an effort to avoid publishing the story even though that would have been my decision.
So, could 1819 News publish such a story? Yes.
But should it have published these stories?