Newspaper editors get stories ready for Web sites with a virtual non-stop deadline, and for a newspaper with press runs every 24 hours. But they live by one rule in both worlds: Do the best with the facts you have at the time.
Sounds simple enough, but a news story last week shows it can get complicated quickly. A story twist created a dilemma, and got some strong reaction from readers in online chats, e-mails, phone calls and letters to the editor.
The story was about two Amenia girls, ages 11 and 12, who were reported missing Sunday.
They turned up on Monday and a suspect was arrested the same day. The next day, a sexual assault charge was filed against him.
In the meantime, editors dealt with online updates throughout, and several stories were in the printed edition of the Journal.
At first, the search and ordeal of the parents was reported on the Journal Web site Monday. At this stage in what was essentially a missing persons case, police rely on the news media to get as much detail out as possible in hopes of safely finding those missing.
Later in the day, when the Tuesday newspaper was being planned, the girls had turned up, and there was a suspect. However, there was no indication sexual assault charges would become part of the scenario.
The Web site was updated again, and the Tuesday newspaper reported all these developments, including names, photos and comments by family members, who were also identified.
After the Tuesday print edition had been published, it was reported that the suspect, Kevin Millsaps of Staatsburg, was charged with first-degree rape and first-degree criminal act in the case.
Editors again updated the story online, but another newsroom rule-of-thumb came into play. Traditionally, newspapers do not publish names or photos of sexual assault victims. It has been a longstanding custom to protect their privacy.
It is even more pertinent in cases involving minors.
Editors immediately removed names and photos from the Web site, and followed the same guidelines in the Wednesday newspaper and subsequent stories, citing the privacy policy.
Some readers were upset the names and photos were out there to begin with. The photos especially touched a nerve, and some wondered why we had to run them prominently on the front page after the girls had been found.
Some questioned the point of taking a step backward and removing information that’s already out there. As one reader commented, it seemed absurd that the newspaper printed a story Tuesday with names and photos, then on Wednesday took out this information and cited privacy as the reason.
The bottom line is this: A story that called for publicizing as much information as possible about two missing girls eventually developed into a story that usually calls for protecting the same exact information.
Cast aside presumptions
One reader e-mailed that editors late Monday might have presumed the police investigation could progress to a sexual assault case and that they could have eliminated the names or photos from news stories a day earlier than they did.
Journal editors won’t act based on presumptions, only on fact. What they might have done was explain their decisions at the time. It should be noted the girls’ families were kept informed along the way and were grateful the names and photos were publicized early on when they were missing, and they also were appreciative that the information was withdrawn late.
People in the town where they live aren’t going to forget the story or the names. By not repeating them as the case progresses, it at least returns some privacy within the larger community because many people may not have been following from the beginning
There’s another much more extreme and famous example with a different outcome: the kidnapping case of teenager Elizabeth Smart in Utah. Everyone knew her name and what she looked like. After she was found months later, and two people were arrested in the case, it was completely pointless for news media to drop her name, even though a rape charge came into play. The case had too much notoriety.
In the local case, Journal editors did what they thought was right under unusual circumstances.
Editors can’t predict where a story will lead, nor change what they’ve published after the fact. They can only take one step at a time, with what facts they have, as a story develops.
