Responsible reporting includes respect for the right to privacy

We don’t usually report on personal disputes or private matters.

Whether it’s a parent asking for help in locating a teenage runaway — who may or may not have a good reason for running away — or if it’s a customer unhappy with service at a for-profit business — who may or may not have a legitimate beef — experience tells us it’s a bad idea for the newspaper to get involved.

Those who contact us on these matters seldom want us to tell the whole story, just the part they want known. Getting to the truth can be difficult. And when parties involved are not recognized as public figures, we have invasion-of-privacy issues to think about as we pursue information.

That’s why it took our newspaper so long to report on this fast-food pig story.

It’s still not a comfortable situation, but Fox, CNN, and hundreds of other media outlets — even Newsweek — declared it news and many of our readers demanded to know why we were trying to keep it a secret.

And so ...

If somehow you’ve not heard, a Clovis police officer — Timo Rosenthal — wrote on his Facebook page Aug. 8 that he’d gone through a Clovis Burger King drive-through and ordered a bacon burger. The sandwich wrapper was decorated with a hand-drawn pig.

At first, Rosenthal said he saw humor in it — a bacon burger with a picture of a pig. But when he tasted the food, and found the meat was burnt, he decided someone working at Burger King didn’t like cops.

Burger King officials haven’t said much about the incident. As a private business, Burger King has no obligation to explain anything to anybody. It’s risky to leave customers in the dark over something like this, but it’s also risky to discuss personnel matters in public. Lawsuits from employees could cost the company more money than customers who boycott its products.

And now we’re to the part that concerns us about getting involved in private disputes. And yes, this is a private dispute — no taxpayer dollars involved, no criminal allegations, no public safety concerns, no public right to know that’s evident.

We know Officer Rosenthal’s version of what happened because he went public; we don’t know what the Burger King employees have to say about it all. And we’re reluctant to push too hard on a bunch of private citizens who maybe don’t want to be news.

Invasion of privacy is usually addressed the same time as libel when our lawyers — and our readers — lecture us about responsible journalism.

Rosenthal said he doesn’t care about the hundreds of sick, frightening comments the national media attention has brought to his Facebook page. His intent in going public was to show people the hate he encounters far too often as a law officer. Touchdown. Five minutes reading those comments will bring that point home.

But what about those involved in this dispute who don’t want to be news? The officer with Rosenthal who has not sought publicity? And the employees with Burger King?

Despite what some may think they know, we don’t really know if this was a bunch of cop-hating punks who got together to send a message by ruining a man’s lunch.

Are we sure it wasn’t some teenager whose friends double-dog dared him into a prank, each oblivious to the possible repercussions? Are we sure the bad-tasting burger wasn’t just what happens when mass production meets unskilled labor at the mad rush of lunchtime?

We don’t know.

So there.

The secret’s out.

— David Stevens

Publisher