Editorial comment
In the United States, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” remains a cornerstone of the justice system. Whether a person receives a court summons or is placed in handcuffs, the legal process follows the same fundamental requirement — evidence must be presented before any conviction can occur.
No one can be indicted based on hearsay alone. The law demands verifiable proof before formal charges can be filed. Testimony, documentation, or tangible evidence must substantiate any claims before they hold weight in a court of law. Without such proof, allegations remain unproven assertions.
There is no such burden of proof in social media. Anyone can make any claim or provide their own personal interpretation of an event, and it is the consumer’s responsibility to digest it, consider the perspective and motivation of the messenger, and determine how credible it may be.
When assessing any statement, on social media or elsewhere including interpersonal or third-party access to conversations, it is essential to consider context. For anyone not directly involved in a conversation, many variables can tend to result in misunderstanding the intended message.
A valuable reference point is made by Clare Hocking of startlocalthinkglobal.com:
“Truth, in its purest sense, is often seen as objective—independent of individual opinion or bias. However, perspective can influence the way truth is understood or communicated. A courtroom is a prime example of this dynamic. Witnesses may describe the same event differently because their perspectives—shaped by where they stood, what they value, or their emotional state—affect their understanding of the truth.”
The Natchitoches Parish Journal was among news outlets that last week received an assertion from a third party regarding what was described as a brief conversation between NSU President Jimmy Genovese and Natchitoches Mayor Ronnie Williams Jr. at the Feb. 17 swearing-in ceremony in Baton Rouge for new 6th District Congressman Cleo Fields. The assertion of the third party, stated in her social media post, was that Genovese made a comment to Mayor Williams at the event that was unsettling to the poster. Neither the president or mayor, those directly involved in this conversation, had any apparent unpleasant reaction noted by the third party. Neither of them subsequently responded last week to media inquiries for comment, which eroded the credibility of the allegation. The lack of on-the-record statements reinforced the principle that due process requires more than speculation – a concept that certainly applies to social media posts and this particular more broad situation.
Evidence still matters in the American justice system, and the same philosophy should apply to our daily lives. Unless the person directly involved in an alleged exchange publicly confirms the details, the accusation remains unverifiable. The burden of proof lies not with the accused, but with the party making the claim.
The NSU president finally addressed the exchange in question in a student media interview published Thursday evening, describing the context and the innocuous nature of what he said to the mayor in Baton Rouge, and affirming their collaborative young friendship benefitting the community and university. He also offered an apology to the third party for any offense she felt from her takeaway of the brief conversation.
At a time when public opinion more than ever is influenced by unverified reports, this situation serves as a reminder that due process is not just a legal technicality—it is a fundamental right. It reinforces the need for all of us to consider many factors when assessing situations that did not directly involve us, especially those events and opinions expressed in the far-reaching social media landscape.
When the Natchitoches Parish Journal was asked to report on this situation as a news story, we reached the same conclusion that other news outlets did. There was nothing to confirm the third party’s social media account. Accuracy and integrity in journalism still requires verifiable sources and concrete evidence before reporting any news, and especially unsupported claims that could impact reputations and community trust.
It is truly unfortunate that the NSU Faculty Senate leadership did not apply the same ethical standards to its decision Tuesday to deliver a critical letter to President Genovese and make a state media outlet aware of that dubious document as if it were a statement of fact, or an indictment. By acting in such a manner, the Faculty Senate leaders have intentionally attracted much greater attention and discredit to our university than any social media post could. Their own agenda is sadly apparent and damaging to the university and our community.