Naming victims

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Latest newsroom discussion. We've long had a policy of not naming victims of sexual assaults, for reasons that are somewhat apparent. But we have, from time to time, named victims who have been assaulted, beat up, knifed etc. Is this a double standard? Our reasoning for naming "typical" assault victims is because they are accusing, usually, someone of a crime, and readers have a right to know who's doing the accusing. Thoughts?

[Bob Jentges]

Latest newsroom discussion. We've long had a policy of not naming victims of sexual assaults, for reasons that are somewhat apparent. But we have, from time to time, named victims who have been assaulted, beat up, knifed etc. Is this a double standard? Our reasoning for naming "typical" assault victims is because they are accusing, usually, someone of a crime, and readers have a right to know who's doing the accusing. Thoughts?

I think the difference in the effect naming the two different kinds of victims might have on the victims needs to be carefully considered before trying to decide the "double standard" question.

No doubt it's embarrasing to have been the victum of a "typical" assualt i.e. beat-up, etc. But other people in the victims circle of friends probably know about that whether the victim was named in the media or not. Furthermore, such a victim probably forgets about that type assault after a reasonably short period of time passes. In sexual assault cases I would think only the perpetrator and the victim know about the assault, in most cases. Also, probably unfairly, there seems to be more of a long lasting stigma to being the victim of a sexual assault, and that might only be exaserbated if the victim's name were released. All considered, I would not favor ever naming victims of sexual assaults.

Additionally, in civil suits the plaintiff/victim is usually identified by initials only. One reason might be to protect the victim's privacy.

[Dan Conner]

Latest newsroom discussion. We've long had a policy of not naming victims of sexual assaults, for reasons that are somewhat apparent. But we have, from time to time, named victims who have been assaulted, beat up, knifed etc. Is this a double standard? Our reasoning for naming "typical" assault victims is because they are accusing, usually, someone of a crime, and readers have a right to know who's doing the accusing. Thoughts?

I think the paper should default to revealing a crime and the facts, but that doesn't have to mean names. If revelaing names adds significant need-to-know information, then fine, add names. Otherwise, naming names is generally sensational and voyeuristic.

[Reporter Dan Linehan]

I think the paper should default to revealing a crime and the facts, but that doesn't have to mean names. If revelaing names adds significant need-to-know information, then fine, add names. Otherwise, naming names is generally sensational and voyeuristic.

When we were talking about this in the newsroom, I came down on the side of naming victims.

The consequences of secrecy and censorship are difficult to predict.

In an assault where victim and perpetrator didn't know each other, it's more difficult to make the case that the victim's name should be public. But it seems like in much (most?) crime there's a relationship that's relevant to the story.

I guess the bottom line for me is that when someone is making claims of wrongdoing and asking the justice system to adjudicate them, I think we should default to using their name. Like any decision, case-by-case judgment is warranted, of course.

And I tend to think "double standard" claims are silly. As if we should have one standard and be inflexible when circumstances change.

[Bob Jentges]

When we were talking about this in the newsroom, I came down on the side of naming victims.

The consequences of secrecy and censorship are difficult to predict.

In an assault where victim and perpetrator didn't know each other, it's more difficult to make the case that the victim's name should be public. But it seems like in much (most?) crime there's a relationship that's relevant to the story.

I guess the bottom line for me is that when someone is making claims of wrongdoing and asking the justice system to adjudicate them, I think we should default to using their name. Like any decision, case-by-case judgment is warranted, of course.

And I tend to think "double standard" claims are silly. As if we should have one standard and be inflexible when circumstances change.

We are probably not too far apart on this one. In the final sentance of my initial post in this thread I mentioned civil sexual assault cases where the plaintiff/victim is usually identified by initials only. Although the media usually learns of the criminal case quite some time before the civil case is filed, maybe that (victims initials only) would be a legitimate general rule option in media reports of criminal sexual assault cases as well.

[Dan Conner]

When we were talking about this in the newsroom, I came down on the side of naming victims.

The consequences of secrecy and censorship are difficult to predict.

In an assault where victim and perpetrator didn't know each other, it's more difficult to make the case that the victim's name should be public. But it seems like in much (most?) crime there's a relationship that's relevant to the story.

I guess the bottom line for me is that when someone is making claims of wrongdoing and asking the justice system to adjudicate them, I think we should default to using their name. Like any decision, case-by-case judgment is warranted, of course.

And I tend to think "double standard" claims are silly. As if we should have one standard and be inflexible when circumstances change.

You are correct. Consequences for secrecy and censorship are difficult to predict, just like the consequences of arbitrary name disclosure. The newspaper reporter and editor must use good judgement about how much inclusion of the name adds to the story or subtracts from a person's reputation in the community. I believe it is important to remember that the media source in the community is a for profit enterprise. Ruining someone for the sake of profit would be a terrible thing to do. However, I do understand a need to release names, in some cases. That's what requires the use of good judgement. I agree with much of what Bob says here.

If papers (media) persist with irresponsible releases of alleged offenders in names where considerable damage is done to character, I would not find it objectionable to loosen civil legal laws to make it easier to prevail in slander/defamation suits. That might serve as a countervailing force for irresponsible reporting and be a deterrent. I think papers would give pause to reporting names, if there is a consequence, just as there is a consequence for the subject of the report.