TV Interview With 8-Year-Old Sparks Lawsuit

On the morning of Sept. 6, 1989, 8-year-old Alison Schwartz, her sister and two of their friends were walking to school along a canyon trail in Scripps Ranch when a knife-wielding man jumped out of the shrubbery. He threatened to kill them unless they followed him into the bushes.

When the attacker was distracted by a sudden noise, Alison and her friends escaped, running the rest of the way to school. Later that morning, the man molested an 11-year-old girl.

The next day, Alison, standing on the school playground surrounded by her excited friends, told a reporter from KFMB-TV Channel 8) about the incident, setting in motion a string of events that has landed the television station in court and raised serious issues about the media’s handling of minors.

Alison’s parents sued the station, News Director Jim Holtzman and reporter John Culea for airing the interview, charging them with negligence, infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.

The suit alleges that Channel 8, which has vigorously denied any wrongdoing, endangered Alison and the family by putting the girl on television. At the time the interview aired, the molester was still at large. (In November, 1989, Rudy Isaguirre, a 24-year-old Navy man, was convicted of an array of sex crimes.)

Channel 8 representatives didn’t want to comment on the case, but in court documents, KFMB attorneys argue that the First Amendment protects the station’s actions.

“The information provided in the news story was a matter of legitimate public concern, was newsworthy, was a fair and true report of information of legitimate public concern and access,” the attorneys wrote in response to the complaint.

Legally, there was nothing preventing the station from using the interview with Alison. However, the suit, which seeks $1 million in general damages, alleges that Channel 8 acted unethically by not considering the danger to Alison.

“Have you ever felt pure fear?” Steven Schwartz, Alison’s father, asked in a recent interview. “When I saw my kid’s picture on TV, it was pure fear.”

In what should be the key argument of the case, the Schwartz family contends that an 8-year-old does not have the maturity to decide whether or not to be interviewed by a television reporter. The station, the suit argues, should have used the same discretion it uses when a juvenile is accused of a crime.

“A juvenile accused of a crime is protected, but a juvenile victim is not,” Schwartz said, referring to the common practice of the media of not using the names of juveniles involved in anything but the most serious criminal cases.

Charles Pederson, the attorney representing the Schwartz family, says the case, which has been assigned an April trial date, boils down to “constitutional freedom of the person versus the rights of minors to be protected from intrusions that may be harmful.”

Pederson acknowledged that it will be “difficult to overcome the constitutional aspects” of the case. The courts are often reluctant to make any decision that may be perceived as limiting the freedom of the press in any way.

“I am not aware of anything in the Constitution that says you can’t do it (air such an interview) or any statute in California,” Pederson said. “But there is always the doctrine that says you have to be reasonable and prudent in dealing with other people.”

Because Alison was at school, it will be difficult for Pederson to prove there was an invasion of privacy, according to San Diego attorney Greg Roper, who specializes in First Amendment issues.

“There was no secret information being revealed,” Roper said. “Usually what has happened in the past is that a case is dismissed unless there is wrongful publication, based on invasion of privacy or defamation.”

However, the involvement of a minor may throw a twist into the case.

“It may well be an issue,” said Tracy Westen, an assistant professor at USC’s Annenberg School of Communication, who has a degree in law. “Children can’t marry, they can’t drive, they certainly can’t enter into a contract. It’s hard to argue that they can understand the privacy issues of consenting to an interview.”

Pederson agrees with Channel 8 that Alison’s story had legitimate news value. Her description of a suspected child molester was worth putting on the news. But he argues that the station could have used the salient facts without exposing Alison to danger.

“Channel 8 and John Culea did not have the right, even under the Constitution, without prior approval from an adult, to interview that child and put her likeness on television, when they knew, or should have known, that that broadcast could conceivably endanger that child,” Pederson said.

In his pretrial deposition, Culea was asked point-blank if it occurred to him that the broadcast could jeopardize the children. “No, it didn’t,” he replied.

“Somebody down there should have given it some thought,” Pederson said.

Lois Kosch, an attorney for Channel 8, didn’t want to comment on specifics of the case, but she did acknowledge that Channel 8’s decision to use Alison’s name would certainly be an issue.

“Her name was a matter of public record,” Kosch said.

Because Alison was not a victim of molestation or a direct witness to an incident, the report of the threat against her and her friends was handled by the police as a record open to the public, Kosch said.

However, Schwartz and Pederson contend that the news report, broadcast to thousands of San Diegans, put Alison in far more danger than her name on a police report.

In general, news organizations establish their own guidelines for using names and photos. For example, in the cases of rape victims, it is generally accepted that the name of the victim will not be used, and television stations usually don’t use the victim’s photo. Identifying witnesses is a far more gray area, but generally in sensitive cases the witnesses’ names are not used.

The courts rarely impose any restrictions on the media, except in certain cases where the judge makes a specific request for names not to be used. Even in those cases, it is not unusual for the media to challenge the order.

Within the TV news industry, the use of names and photos of victims and witnesses is a common topic of discussion. Like Channel 8, the other three TV news operations in San Diego don’t have set policies concerning these types of situations. Representatives of each station said the issues are handled on a case-by-case basis.

“It depends on what kind of light you’re showing the juvenile in,” said KNSD-TV (Channel 39) News Director Don Shafer. “We try not to use them (juveniles) at all.”

In general, the case of a child witness would “fall into the same general category of us not identifying rape victims,” said Warren Cereghino, news director of KTLA (Channel 5) in Los Angeles. “If you’re going to put somebody at risk, you have to think about it.”

In many cases, the subjects are photographed from the rear or their faces are electronically obscured to hide their identity.

“A child is so vulnerable to abuse by adults,” Cereghino said. “In general terms, I think there has to be some sensitivity and awareness of the possibility that a child is so close to this type of danger.”

If Pederson and the Schwartz family can prove their case, it could affect the way television news handles minors. Any interview with someone under the age of 18 might have to be examined with new wariness, said Cathy Clark, assistant news director of KUSI-TV (Channel 51).

“It’s the whole issue of what is invasion of privacy and at what point does a person have the smarts to be interviewed,” she said.

Should the Schwartz case make it to trial--out-of-court settlements or outright dismissals on technical grounds are not unusual in such cases--legal issues far more mundane than the freedom of the press versus the rights of minors probably will be the focus of much of the debate.

For example, it is clear from court records that the sides will argue vehemently over whether Culea had permission from an adult, implied or otherwise, to interview the children on school grounds.

In court documents, Channel 8’s attorneys argue that when the principal of Jerabek Elementary School gave Culea permission to enter school grounds, it implied permission to interview students, even though Culea acknowledges that he never specifically asked for permission to do interviews.

There also is the question of whether the family was actually damaged by the report. Because the plaintiffs are asking for damages based on emotional distress, Channel 8 attorneys in pretrial depositions have focused on the psychological makeup of the Schwartz family to determine if there actually was any “emotional distress.”

Steven Schwartz thinks Channel 8 is simply trying to muddle the main issues. A year after the broadcast, he is still angry.

“I definitely think they violated my daughter’s civil rights,” he said.