A tragic death and the life of a child

By Molly Ivins

What a mess. Famous people, divorce, suicide, scandalous allegations of sexual misconduct.

Got your attention, didn't I? And it gets better. After we get through wallowing in the gory details, then we get to self-righteously, and righteously, blame the media for bringing all this to our attention.

Here's the deal. The first thing I need to do is disclose my own bias, since I have one. The late Michael Dorris - a fine and sensitive writer who most recently distinguished himself by tying a plastic bag over his head and snuffing out his life while registered under a false name at a New Hampshire motel - was a semi-friend of mine.

The proximate cause of his suicide is that he was in the midst of a horribly painful divorce from his wife, Louise Erdrich, also a well-known writer.

Dorris' friends were fully aware of the danger, calling across the country to warn one another: "He's gonna kill himself, he's gonna kill himself - what can we do?"

After his first attempt, Dorris wound up briefly at a shrink farm. Let us say only that there are varying opinions as to whether that experience was beneficial. They gave him a pass; he killed himself.

OK, so now he's dead - what else is there to say? Nil nisi bonum and all that, right? Nah. You underestimate your friendly media.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune needed to report that Dorris had been under investigation by local authorities concerning "allegations of criminal sexual misconduct involving children."

"Possible criminal charges," "potential criminal charges." Pretty sensational story, huh?

Take a step back. Take two steps back. Let's stipulate, as the lawyers say, that the Star Tribune did a flawless job of reporting. Now two questions: (A) Is there any good reason to print this story? (B) Is there any good reason not to print this story?

(A) is easy: It's an incredible story.

(B)? You think we never ask that question? The classic answer to (B) is "troop movements in time of war."

Was there a good reason not to print allegations of sexual misconduct made against Michael Dorris - especially since he's safely dead? Some nit-pickers might say it's unfair to print such allegations since there is no way to know whether they are true and no forum in which the truth can ever be established. Carpers.

We in the media don't have to prove that such charges are true before we print them; we only have to know that such charges are being made by duly constituted authorities - or at least that they would have been made, that they might have been made or that they were possible or potential charges. So our standard of proof for smearing a dead man on Page One is not real high. We've got the First Amendment, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh.

Dorris' lawyer, Doug Kelly of Minneapolis, used some legal terminology: "Decedents have rights, too." You couldn't prove that by the media.

But even by our own rather less-than-elevated standards, there's another consideration here. One of our odd reticences is that we do not, or at least we try not to, endanger the life of a child. This usually means we shouldn't show up with our cameras at a designated drop-off for ransom or pull some other life-imperiling, deal-messing-up stunt.

In the case of Michael Dorris, now so publicly smeared as an alleged child molester, the problem is the child who made the allegation. Who thought about the kid? So far, the only person I've seen is Dorris' 85-year-old mother, Mary. Her husband is long dead, now her only child is a suicide, and the first break in her composure came when the Minneapolis paper printed the allegation of child abuse.

"Don't they understand that Michael killed himself to prevent this from becomin' public?" she said. "Don't they understand that he did what he did so his family wouldn't be hurt? He thought if he did it, there wouldn't be nothin' in the papers, but now they've put it in anyway."

Now here's an odd note about media in our time: After the story about "possible criminal charges" against the defunct Dorris appeared, rumors began spreading via computer suggesting or even asserting all kinds of wild theories. Based on these reliable sources, reporters from bona fide, certified, legitimate news media began to call friends of Dorris, asking questions.

I don't know absolutely for sure that the allegations that have been made against Michael Dorris are untrue. But neither does anyone else know that they are true. I suppose it is possible that Dorris, who adored his own children and who fought so hard to help and protect and save other children, might have had some weird sexual kink of which his friends never got an inkling. Almost anything's possible. Sen. Phil Gramm once invested in a porno movie.

All I am saying is that I think we should have thought far more carefully about the consequences of printing these allegations - far more carefully. Even beyond the privacy issue, the life of a child is at stake.

Creators Syndicate Inc.