Newsroom debate: Should Schwarzenegger stories name household staffer?

Romenesko Letters
“Though she’s a private citizen, by her own actions she has become public and part of a big news story,” writes Southtown Star assistant city editor Amy Lee. “So, why the need to hide her identity?” || Her letter is after the jump.

From AMY LEE, assistant city editor, Southtown Star, Tinley Park, Ill.: We’ve got a debate going on in our newsroom, in light of the fact that the LA Times did not name the woman Arnold Schwarzenegger had an affair with nor the name of their kid, citing privacy reasons.

Some say since she’s a private citizen and paid privately (i.e. without tax dollars), she’s entitled to this shield. Also, naming her could lead to the IDing of the kid, whom everyone agrees should not be named.

Others are questioning why she is entitled to this shielding of her identity. I.e. Though she’s a private citizen, by her own actions she has become public and part of a big news story. So, why the need to hide her identity?

We hoped this would be discussed on your website. Is anyone pondering this choice by the LA Times? || [VOTE NOW]

> Is this Schwarzenegger’s “love child”? (“im not his son…. don’t waist your time.”)
> Schwarzenegger scoop brings truth to questions about Shriver, political wives

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • http://rtberner.blogspot.com/ R Thomas Berner

    If she asked that Arnold make the story public, she should be named. But if she didn’t ask, she shouldn’t be named. 

  • Anonymous

    No. She is in some sense a victim here, even though she could legally consent to this affair. She was a domestic employee of Schwarzenegger’s, making this even more unseemly. This has class overtones all over it like an English tale of the manor and the lord schtupping the chambermaid. Quel cochon,

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NX5TFOEDL5LVDYXO5SXRVTBCFQ Amy

     Let’s try to stay on topic. 

  • http://twitter.com/mediainvestors Ted Carroll

    Was there “choice” involved? We had a hotel maid 4 buildings away from my office here who apparently had little or no “choice” in a now public incident a few days ago. She was a private person before and after that incident.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NX5TFOEDL5LVDYXO5SXRVTBCFQ Amy

     The choice was having an affair with a public figure…doesn’t that make for a transfer from private to public?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NX5TFOEDL5LVDYXO5SXRVTBCFQ Amy

     The choice was to having an affair with a public figure…doesn’t that make for the transfer from private to public? 

  • http://twitter.com/mediainvestors Ted Carroll

    “by her own actions she has become public”

    What are her “actions” that caused this event to be publically known? As far as I can tell, her employer and his wife’s notariety as a public figures doen’t transfer this status automatically to a private individual they “inteact” with.