Unless you read our letters to the editor, you will not have seen in the Star-Telegram the name of the horribly abused 8-year-old Hutchins girl who has been the focus of media attention after she was discovered locked in a filthy closet in her home.
There is no good, ethical, compelling reason to identify the child by name, even though Child Protective Services officials disclosed her first name.
The child’s full name already was a matter of public record, and reporters knew it, said CPS spokeswoman Stacy Ladd. Beyond that, the agency felt that there was a need to personalize the case to help people relate to the child and made a tough decision to partially name the little girl. Once the allegations of sexual abuse surfaced, CPS ceased using the child’s name to protect her privacy.
As it was, when the story first broke, Dallas Bureau Chief Lance Murray and his supervisor, Arlington Star-Telegram Editor Larry Lutz, agreed that this newspaper’s coverage would avoid using even the child’s first name.
They made that decision, Murray said, “because she was the victim of such severe abuse and was so young. We also thought it was likely that sexual abuse allegations would eventually arise, because they often do in cases like this, and that further reinforced our reasoning not to name her. We decided to stand on what we thought was an ethical obligation to the girl.”
He and Lutz passed along the decision to other editors, all of whom agreed with the policy. Except for one slip in a letter to the editor last week about the matter, the child had not been named in the Star-Telegram during its daily coverage of related developments.
However, other news organizations in the Metroplex, yielding to competitive pressures among other things, had been identifying the child in print and on the air until physicians who examined the child found that she had been sexually abused.
“Well,” one of the many rationalizations could argue, “such-and-such news agency had her name and said it. We know who the little girl is. We couldn’t let anyone think that we didn’t have her name, too. We can’t be looking like we’re not just as informed or just as first with the news as they are.”
Or they could argue that CPS blew the situation when the agency partially identified the child, sending a signal to the media to do likewise. So it was “out of our hands. The information’s loose. Everyone knows it now. We can’t ignore it.”
Readers and viewers were not privy to newsroom debates for and against use of the child’s name. I hear that there were staffers in other news organizations who felt that the child’s identity should not be disclosed. After all, it wasn’t as though she was involved in a high-profile, public event such as a school shooting or was the known child of a public figure.
Journalists are cautioned in the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics to use “special sensitivity when dealing with children.”
The code advises: “Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.”
Did people need to know the name of the 26-pound 8-year-old, whose growth was so stunted by abuse that she barely stood 3 feet tall and who’d been forced to exist in human filth and darkness? We don’t think so.
Out of concern for the little girl’s present and future well-being, her identity could have and should have been respected, so she can heal in as much peace as possible – if peace will ever be possible for her.
