Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
A Times Editorial
Under pressure, the Orlando Sentinel agreed to limited access to autopsy photos of Dale Earnhardt, despite its legal right and obligation to protect the public's interest.
© St. Petersburg Times, published March 22, 2001
The Orlando Sentinel had it right the first time, and it should have held its ground.
The paper initially stood up to a lawsuit filed by Teresa Earnhardt, the widow of NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt, seeking to block the Sentinel from examining her dead husband's autopsy photos. The paper explained it had no intention of publishing or copying the pictures. Because of lingering questions about the cause of the race car legend's death during the Daytona 500, it asked only that its own biomechanical expert be allowed to examine them.
While the Sentinel's request was both reasonable and legal under Florida's public records law, it nonetheless ignited a firestorm of protest. Earnhardt fans flooded the paper with angry words and canceled subscriptions. The outcry was in response to pleas from Teresa Earnhardt, who saw the Sentinel's request as an invasion of her family's privacy. Despite the paper's assurances that the photos wouldn't be published, the widow said she feared that the pictures would find their way onto the Web. NASCAR officials also objected to the outside scrutiny.
In response to all the heat, the paper caved. Rather than assert its rights under state public records law and the First Amendment, the Sentinel agreed to sharply limited access. Under the agreement, a court-appointed mediator will select an independent expert to examine the photos under strict court supervision. The Sentinel will then be allowed to ask the expert a maximum of three questions.
In agreeing to this stingy deal, the Sentinel didn't just sign away its own rights. It made it harder for other news organizations in the future to gain access to controversial autopsy pictures. But now there's a new twist in the tale. Since cutting the deal, the Sentinel has learned that NASCAR's own medical expert was allowed to review the Earnhardt photos. Outraged, the paper went back to court and, in a much weakened position, is asking for direct access.
Why is it in the public interest to make these photos available? Because the press often is the only public check on the work of the medical examiner, making sure the government, a business or an individual isn't covering up a murder, a product defect, an epidemic or an environmental toxin.
Last year, three NASCAR drivers were killed as a result of basal skull fractures, the same injury that apparently killed Earnhardt. It is possible that a new head-and-neck restraint may have helped avoid some of these deaths. Isn't it in the public interest for the press to be given the opportunity to investigate that possibility?
When it appeared the Sentinel was dropping the fight, the Independent Florida Alligator, a student-run newspaper in Gainesville, picked it up. The editor there filed a motion to intervene in the Earnhardt lawsuit, asking to see the pictures. It appeared at the time that the Sentinel had left it to student journalists to protect the public's right to know.
In the meantime, the Legislature is racing to exempt autopsy photos from public records law. Under a bill approved by a state Senate committee and soon to be voted on by both houses, the autopsy photos would be available only with a court order.
In the heat of an emotional issue, legislators have jumped at an opportunity to put more of the government's work out of reach of the public. And Gov. Jeb Bush appears ready to sign such a bill. This law would give the Earnhardt family what it thinks it is entitled to -- special treatment. It also would give people with something to hide the cover of legal darkness. Is this really what Floridians want?