News University | Today's most popular courses on NewsU, Poynter's e-learning site for journalists. |
| |
Webinars | Our online classroom is just a click away. Learn more. | |
|
|
 
Romenesko
Latest News
Reporting
& Writing
Ethics &
Diversity
Leadership
& Business
Visual
Journalism
Online &
Technology
TV &
Radio
Journalism
Education
|
Article Feedback
View all Romenesko feedback
Paper blasted for not naming adults linked to girl's suicide
(Read the Article)
Post Feedback |
Feedback Guidelines |
Report Feedback Abuse
Page 1 of 1
absolutely
Posted by
Lauren Lipton
11/16/2007 1:27:43 PM
@Mitch
Yes, definitely--quite the conversation. Reminds me of J-School ethics classes on the pros and cons of running the photo of the naked w...
@Mitch
Yes, definitely--quite the conversation. Reminds me of J-School ethics classes on the pros and cons of running the photo of the naked woman jumping from the burning building--difficult, thorny news issues worth pondering.
One point of clarity
Posted by
Mitch Pugh
11/16/2007 12:58:04 PM
"If a random intruder had broken into the Meiers' home and killed this poor child, the paper would no doubt have printed the name of...
"If a random intruder had broken into the Meiers' home and killed this poor child, the paper would no doubt have printed the name of the accused, even if the accused was the parent of a minor."
I don't want to beat a dead horse so I'll recognize we can respectively disagree.
But let's be clear: No one has been officially charged with anything. The accusations are coming from the parents of the deceased. The police report in question is from a report filed after the Meiers destroyed the unnamed parents' property. (We need to read the story carefully.) This is not a police report taken from an investigation into the suicide. So comparing this to a home intruder situation, where a police report would in theory be tied to the actual incident, isn't a fair comparison. It's very difficult, in fact, to draw any true parallels to this story.
It does make for a helluva conversation though doesnt' it?
clarification
Posted by
Lauren Lipton
11/16/2007 12:36:01 PM
@Mitch:
“How does the revealing the names of the parents change the 'true story?' You were able to glean all of that information and make...
@Mitch:
“How does the revealing the names of the parents change the 'true story?' You were able to glean all of that information and make your judgment on the story and the issues involved without the parents’ names. How does providing the parents’ names enhance your understanding of those issues?"
Fuzzy writing on my part. By "true story" I meant the true news value of the story, which is not the (tragic, devastating) suicide but that the suicide was brought on by the despicable actions of parents who knew the girl and her family.
If a random intruder had broken into the Meiers' home and killed this poor child, the paper would no doubt have printed the name of the accused, even if the accused was the parent of a minor.
Even assuming, which I do, that this decision was made with the best intentions and after much deliberation, the paper at best exercised poor news judgment and an uneven application of news standards. At worst it shirked its responsibility to report a story fully and accurately.
Not convinced
Posted by
Mitch Pugh
11/16/2007 10:34:52 AM
“I'm especially not persuaded because the paper, while not naming the accused — going so far as to redact the name from the police report,...
“I'm especially not persuaded because the paper, while not naming the accused — going so far as to redact the name from the police report, which would be a public document — sowed enough broad hints of their identity that bloggers found the folks in about 10 minutes. That to me is weaselly. If the paper truly felt their reporting would put the alleged perpetrators in danger — and also thought that was the most important issue at stake — then they should have scoured the story of any identifying details.”
The newspaper did no redacting. Let’s be clear with our language. The newspaper chose not to print the names of the adults, primarily out of concern for the impact that decision would have on the adults’ teenage daughter – a 14-year-old girl. The newspaper was not protecting the identity of the perpetrators. The concern was with the juvenile. If you don’t have a problem taking part in the targeting and potential harm of teenage girl, that’s your call. I think journalists have an obligation to fully consider all of the ramifications of their decisions. We can respectfully disagree on this decision without dubbing it “weaselly.”
“To not name the adults involved--after carefully and responsibly researching their involvement and allowing them chance to comment--is to ignore the true story here. That this poor child committed suicide is a senseless tragedy. That her suicide was precipitated by the reprehensible acts of parents in her community--that is news.”
I agree both of those things are news and the essence of the story. How does the revealing the names of the parents change the “true story?” You were able to glean all of that information and make your judgment on the story and the issues involved without the parents’ names. How does providing the parents’ names enhance your understanding of those issues?
Nothing new here, move along ...
Posted by
Alex Dering
11/16/2007 7:04:51 AM
Journalism has, for years, been spiraling inward.
Yesterday, the local news aired the question asked of John McCain about Hillary Clinton, wit...
Journalism has, for years, been spiraling inward.
Yesterday, the local news aired the question asked of John McCain about Hillary Clinton, with the word that is the entirety of the issue bleeped out.
I've lost count of how many times a reporter, trying to be taken seriously, will intone, "the n-word" or "the c-word" or "the b-word."
Can anyone think of anything more sixth-grade?
Print articles are just as bad.
The other day, the New York Times ran an article about a band they ran the name of as "********." Although the sacred Times wouldn't run the band's name, because part of it is a swear word, they would provide a link to where you could find the band's name.
If that isn't the coyest thing I've ever encountered, may I be crushed to death under a pile of Sunday editions of the New York Times. It's as contradictory as getting up to lecture people about the evils of marijuana and then going home to unwind with a couple martinis and a cigarette or two.
Once again, if you're going to tell the story, tell the whole story. Don't get all silly and ditzy; your readers deserve better.
The parents are the story
Posted by
Lauren Lipton
11/15/2007 8:45:07 PM
I also respectfully disagree. To not name the adults involved--after carefully and responsibly researching their involvement and allowing them ch...
I also respectfully disagree. To not name the adults involved--after carefully and responsibly researching their involvement and allowing them chance to comment--is to ignore the true story here. That this poor child committed suicide is a senseless tragedy. That her suicide was precipitated by the reprehensible acts of parents in her community--that is news.
(Full disclosure: I am the wife of journalist David Crook, whose letter to Romanesko began the discussion of this issue.)
"report fully" v. "minimize harm"
Posted by
Maryn McKenna
11/15/2007 8:03:00 PM
@ Mitch Pugh: "The public interest here was warning parents to be vigilant and aware, and identifying a potential legal loophole or problem. Reve...
@ Mitch Pugh: "The public interest here was warning parents to be vigilant and aware, and identifying a potential legal loophole or problem. Revenge and punishment aren't our business."
I respectfully disagree with your conclusions, Mitch. Fully informing the public is our business; that isn't punishment, nor is it revenge-taking.
When we withhold information, it is usually to protect someone from the after-effects of the actions of another (eg, the identity of a rape victim). In this case — which if true as reported is beyond appalling — withholding the name protects the accused from the after-effects of their own very deliberate actions. That is not our job.
What the local paper has done in this case is to make a decision, on behalf of the community, that the community will not be able to control its own rightful impulse to censure the alleged perpetrators. That's paternalistic and overreaching.
I'm especially not persuaded because the paper, while not naming the accused — going so far as to redact the name from the police report, which would be a public document — sowed enough broad hints of their identity that bloggers found the folks in about 10 minutes. That to me is weaselly. If the paper truly felt their reporting would put the alleged perpetrators in danger — and also thought that was the most important issue at stake — then they should have scoured the story of any identifying details. Instead, they removed just enough to be able to claim they did not disclose the identity, which while technically true sounds specious to me.
Tough decisions
Posted by
Mitch Pugh
11/15/2007 6:19:10 PM
Two months ago, I was Steve Pokin's editor in St. Charles. Let me preface my comments with this: Steve is a terrific, principled journalist, and...
Two months ago, I was Steve Pokin's editor in St. Charles. Let me preface my comments with this: Steve is a terrific, principled journalist, and an ethical and moral person. I can assure you he and his editors did not take this story or any decisions made about this story lightly. It's easy for some blogger in New York City (who likely doesn't have to deal with these kinds of decisions and their real-world impact) to shoot his or her mouth off. Let's avoid the character assassinations and focus on the issue.
This is a tough call. If you read the story, you'll see that the teenage daughter was involved in the incident. It's a large enough community that not everyone knows who was invovled or what happened. It's small enough that publishing the names of the parents would put a target not only on those two adults, but their teenage daughter. Since the story was published, the names of these adults have been circulated and there have been disturbing incidents of concern to local law enforcement. Beyond those immediate concerns, you risk branding a juvenile for life. Most newspapers rightfully take precautions when dealing with juveniles.
I would also urge everyone to think about Bob Steele's three key values/principles related to ethical decision making:
1. Seek truth and report it as fully as possible
2. Act independently
3. Minimize harm
Clearly, there is a conflict between principles 1 and 3 in this story. So how do you resolve them? You think carefully and consider all of the ramifications and options. Then you make the best decision you can.
In this case, they felt minimizing harm was more important than a full and complete report. I tend to agree.
What public interest or good would be served by publishing their names other than satisfying a collective blood lust? The public interest here was warning parents to be vigilant and aware, and identifying a potential legal loophole or problem.
Revenge and punishment aren't our business.
Page 1 of 1
View all Romenesko feedback
|
|
