Christa McAvinew’s story needed to be told; of that editors were certain.
The difficult decision they faced was whether to publish her name and picture while telling it.
The 30-year-old woman with the mental capacity of a 2-year old had delivered a stillborn fetus at a home for the developmentally disabled in Santa Ana where her father had placed her for care. The newspaper reported May 9 that one of her caregivers had been arrested and accused of rape, based on a DNA test.
The newspaper’s investigation into what happened to McAvinew at the Westview Home, 2528 Camden Place in Santa Ana, expanded into an examination of treatment provided at the six Westview facilities in Orange County.
More than a half-dozen editors participated in the crucial conversation about identifying McAvinew.
The newspaper’s guidelines lean toward preserving the anonymity of victims of sex crimes, whether it is a woman who has been raped or a child who has been molested. The newspaper’s guidelines are especially protective of children and call for sensitivity toward any victims who are among society’s most vulnerable members. Some editors favored applying those views to Christa McAvinew’s story.
Others leaned toward identifying her.
“For me, it was a two-step process. The first step was establishing why it would be important for readers to see her name and photograph,” Executive Editor Ken Brusic said. “The answer was that I believed it was important for readers to put a real face on her and to show her as a real person. There’s power in naming her and letting readers see her that you would not get from merely describing her as a disabled person living in a home.”
The second step was considering what harm might be caused if her name and picture were published, Brusic said.
Victims usually continue to live in their communities, and, as Brusic noted, people are not always kind.
The newspaper knew that McAvinew could not speak for herself, so reporters spoke with her father, Bruce, and her attorney, Timothy J. Ryan. They had no objections, Brusic said, and had strong reasons for getting the story out.
Ryan confirmed that he and Bruce McAvinew had “discussed at length whether Christa’s name should be used.”
“We decided that not using her name would have been ‘hiding the ball’ in a way, and that using her name would make the story more personal,” Ryan said.
They also allowed a Register photographer to take pictures of father and daughter together for an article that ran last Sunday.
“Christa’s father wanted the articles to open up the public’s eyes,” Ryan said. “He wanted to do a public good and alert people, particularly those faced with these decisions, to look into the background of these homes.”
Two readers questioned using Christa McAvinew’s name and picture, suggesting that she should have been protected from public view.
Editor Tonnie L. Katz struggled with the decision for that reason. She was persuaded only when assured that McAvinew’s father and attorney did not object.
“Had they objected, we would not have used her name,” Katz said. “When I saw the story and the pictures, I was so glad we had made the decision we did. They made her a human being rather than an anonymous person. In a way, it made the horror of what happened to her greater.
“Reading about her and seeing her beautiful smile made me think about our responsibilities as members of society. This is exactly our role, to be the watchdog. The newspaper, I think, had to tell her story because she really could not tell it herself.”
Ryan said he spoke with Bruce McAvinew after the articles and photographs were published. Ryan praised the reports’ accuracy, thoroughness and fairness.
They have no regrets about co-operating, he said.
Tony Saavedra, one of the reporters on the story, said he was prepared to write without using Christa McAvinew’s name and was surprised when Ryan said that he and Christa’s father had no objections. He supported the decision to publish her identity.
“These people live their whole lives faceless and voiceless,” he said of many developmentally disabled people. “This story made them real, made them human.”
From an ethics standpoint, the newspaper took appropriate care to weigh the value of printing the information with the possible harm of doing so. Editors informed those who would be most affected about their reasoning and asked for their thoughts.
Doing so made a difficult decision easier — and the story more meaningful.
