Probably the hardest thing about this exercise for you was identification. We had competing interests at work here.
First, you should have been operating under the general journalistic premise that we do NOT name rape victims in almost all cases.
And
on this point, some of us DID name the victim
by name.
Earlier in this semester, we discussed when
and when not to name victims in stories. In most cases we DO name
victims, but a notable exception in American journalism regarded the
names of rape victims.
In general, the current rule of
thumb is that in weighing the benefit to society in knowing who exactly
was victimized versus the harm that would come in terms of stigma to the
victim, we do not name rape victims expect in rare circumstances, like a
victim wanting to intentionally put a name and face to a victim to
promote greater societal understanding, or a rape victim whose alleged
attacker wasn't convicted in criminal court but who is facing a lawsuit
for money in civil court.
This wasn't one of those times.
Then, there is the concern of making a virtual identification; that is, giving so much other information that it is easy for anybody to identify the victim.
Some of us named the victim's daughter. A daughter only has one mother,
right? So that would be real easy to narrow down who the victim was if
we gave the girl's name.
Also, some of us listed the
exact home address where the crime took place. Only one family lives in
a home, right? Again, we took a huge step in virtually identifying
the victim.
Even though an exact address would expose the victim, don't readers still deserve to know where a crime took place? I mean, a story is much more relevant if it happened on your street or in your neighborhood than if it didn't. Some location is necessary to establish relevance.
A
couple of us handled it in a smart way: you simply said the incident
happened on Wilson Avenue. No street address included. That gave
readers enough information to better set proximity, without giving away
the victim's home and creating a virtual identification.
Now, what about the suspect's name?
I think only under the rarest of cases would you not name the suspect.
He's central to the story. As a society we need to know who among us is
considered dangerous, and who among us is being locked up like a zoo
animal by our authorities.
The only time in my whole
journalism career when I didn't name a suspect was in a case around 1992
-- really early in my professional career -- where I was covering the
trial of a teen accused of raping his own mother.
My
editors went back-and-forth on how to handle it before deciding they
wouldn't name the victim or the suspect, because naming the latter would
identify the former. And there was a big ol' editor's note added ahead
of my lede to explain their reasoning.
So exceptions
are rare. Either the circumstances are amazingly twisted and unique or
the suspects are juveniles and a particular media organization has rules
about naming kids.
Again, this ain't one of 'em.
I also thought important to the story was noting that Caspinwall was a neighbor of the victim.
Readers need to know if this crime was totally random or if there was
some sort of link between the victim and attacker. Readers have more
reason to worry if someone is willy-nilly breaking into random homes,
as opposed to attacking a neighbor, right?
But only a few of us you noted the link.
Note I say Caspinwall was a neighbor, not her direct neighbor. A neighbor -- or even better, a nearby neighbor -- could be somebody next door or down the street, right? So using neighbor in the generic doesn't necessarily narrow the possible victim pool to a single house or two.
Next, is the suspect's home address needed?
I think some identification of where he lives is noteworthy. Wouldn't
readers really want to know if an alleged rapist and home invader lived
by them? Wouldn't you?
Also, there was something else that I think we owed the reader: an explanation of why you weren't naming the girl or listing her exact address.
Even
though you're following journalistic rules, your readers probably
don't know those rules and may simply be wondering, why the hell aren't
there any names or exact addresses in this story? It wouldn't have
hurt to have a simple background sentence somewhere in the story, like
this:
The names of
the girl and victim and the exact address where the crime occurred is
being withheld to protect the identity of the victim.
That
way, you are being transparent with readers about why they're not
getting the level of information that other non-rape stories would
include. A couple of us did do something along those lines.
Admittedly, this was a confusing exercise.
We had many different factors tugging at us. It's really a tough
situation for a young reporter to find himself or herself in. In a
real-world setting, we'd definitely want to bring an editor in the loop
to help make the best judgments that give the readers the most
information while at the same time minimizing harm to the victim.
But
here, I wanted to test your judgment and see how you responded. And I
figured you'd appreciate the lesson much more if we did it this way,
as opposed to just lecturing about it.
And in all
fairness to you, how you handled these circumstances were a
smaller-than-usual part of your assignment grade here. I gave you a
break because I didn't want you to suffer a penalty on this one, but I
did want you to have to think about it before we discussed it now.
Finally, this is how I would have handled it:
I WOULD NOT name the victim or the girl. I WOULD name the suspect and
even use HIS home address. I'd say the victim lived nearby, but I
wouldn't specifically say they were direct neighbors.
That
way, readers know who did this (and know exactly where the sicko
lived) and the general area where the crime occurred and that it
wasn't a random crime, while at the same time limiting the ability to
identify who the victim was.
This is the sort of stuff you'll have to think about all the time in deciding what is the best way to tell your story.
No comments:
Post a Comment