“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]