Editorial Opinions Essay, Research Paper

On April 19, 1995 the deadliest act of terrorism took place on U.S. soil when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed, killing 168 people. Timothy McVeigh, a Gulf War veteran, was convicted of the bombing under the Anti-Terrorism Law in 1997 and sentenced to death by lethal injection. This will be the first Federal execution since 1963.

Recently, the FBI released new documents as evidence in the 1997 trial of the Oklahoma bombing. More than 4,000 documents were withheld until days before the day of execution. One of McVeigh’s attorneys, Robert Nigh, claims the Federal Government committed fraud by not turning over the documents until now and believes more documents exist which the Government has not released.

However the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, stated that the newly released documents would do nothing but support the guilty verdict. Since the execution was only a few days away, Ashcroft permitted McVeigh’s attorneys until June 11 to examine the new documents. The defense team asked District Court Judge Richard Matsch for more time in order to explore grounds for a new trial and asked for an explanation from the government. McVeigh surprised many by allowing his defense team to pursue a stay. Previously, he told reporters that he had accepted the judgment against him and would not pursue appeals to delay his death.

The law states that both the defense and the prosecution must share all evidence discovered. Although during the hearing, Judge Matsch expressed his disappointment when he first learned of the FBI’s mishandling of evidence, he denied the request for a stay stating the new evidence did not change McVeigh’s guilt. Under the Anti-Terrorism Law McVeigh cannot receive a new trial unless the evidence is strong enough to prove his innocence. Attorney General Ashcroft expressed content with the Judge’s decision.

ABCNEWS.com uses the headline “Federal Judge Denies McVeigh Stay”. CBC News uses “No delay of execution for McVeigh”. What makes these articles stand apart are the words chosen by the writers. ABCNEWS.com’s use of “Federal Judge” gives the article more authority. By capitalizing the word “Denies”, the action becomes certainly irrevocable, in conjunction with the use of Federal Judge.

CBC puts the word “execution” in its headline to emphasize the seriousness of the situation. The word “execution” alone may seem insensitive but the entirety of the headline gives more of a sympathetic view of McVeigh’s position. It does not bolster the Judge’s decision to continue on with the execution.

Of the two articles, ABC’s is the longest story. The headline refers to the hearing to request the stay of McVeigh’s execution but a good portion of the article itself is of the original trial. ABC’s article not only reports the verdict handed down by Judge Matsch but also goes further into the original case of the bombing incident. This seems to be a way for the writer to remind people of the bombing. This reminds the reader that McVeigh is guilty of a horrendous crime, taking away any sympathy the reader might have about the death penalty. Because the topic is execution, ABC has a social responsibility to report news in a context that takes the death penalty more seriously and should use words that convey a more neutral stance.

The writer also included accounts of the FBI’s blunder of not submitting all pertinent documents, not the 1997 trial. The trial is over, McVeigh was found guilty and convicted. If the prosecutors would have lost the original case and the defense team mistakenly withheld 4,000 pages of documents, surely a new trial would be in. Generally this type of mistake would lead to a mistrial, but this time it didn’t.

When reporting the news, writers should report the facts and stick with the issue at hand. This hearing was about the FBI and their mistakes, yet the article’s main focus was on the bombing. The writer should not use the 1997 trial to influence the readers perspective of this hearing.