When two girls this fall were accused of attempted murder after Klamath Falls authorities said they put rat poison in the milk cartons of two fellow students at their school, The Oregonian named the girls, ages 12 and 13.
But when two 15-year-olds were accused of arson in connection with a fire at an Oak Grove Safeway store last week, no names were published.
The different approaches reflect the gray area for journalists of identifying juveniles who commit crimes.
Journalists weigh arguments that the newspaper, like the juvenile justice system, should grant juveniles the protection of privacy so they can learn and grow from their mistakes. But what if those mistakes involve serious crimes and might put the public or other students at risk?
That’s in part why the newspaper recently chose to publish the name of a 13-year-old accused of killing an Eastern Oregon man, but earlier chose not to name three teenagers who beat a Lake Oswego girl while another teen videotaped the attack.
Each case is different. But The Oregonian style guide offers this advice:
“There is no rule for identifying juveniles, either as victims or suspects in crime stories. However, the preference is for not identifying juvenile suspects by name unless they are accused of life-threatening or serious crimes. Typically, the closer to 18, the more likely we are to name a juvenile in a serious crime story. Usually, we name a juvenile accused of a life-threatening crime or in any case where he/she will be charged as an adult.”
Journalists wrestle with these issues daily, but I’d be interested in what readers think. What guidelines should help journalists to decide when to name juvenile suspects? Should they be named only when they are charged as an adult? Should they never be named?
Please share your thoughts with me. Tell me how you would’ve handled the above cases.
Beaver-Duck bias?
The most common complaints about The Oregonian Sports section usually involve:
The newspaper is biased against the Beavers.
The newspaper is biased against the Ducks.
Sports Editor Mark Hester keeps those perceptions in mind as he plots college football coverage:
Two reporters are assigned to cover the Ducks regularly.
Two reporters are assigned to cover the Beavers regularly.
“It’s on our minds all the time,” Hester says. “Are we giving the same amount of coverage?”
The editors strive to ensure that the amount of coverage is roughly equal over the course of a season. News developments — such as injuries or arrests involving athletes — might tip the balance at times, as would a bowl bid for one but not the other. That’s why the approach of readers who actually measure the inches of coverage each season might not add up.
And more coverage doesn’t necessarily mean positive coverage. Reporters are expected to be “neutral observers” of teams, not boosters.
That role also means that fans — even on Civil War weekend — shouldn’t believe in conspiracies contending that bias stems from the college backgrounds of the staff. Hester, in fact, had to survey his staff to answer my question about where the primary college football reporters and editors attended school.
They range from Hester’s Mississippi College and University of Texas to Chico State, from Lewis & Clark to Portland State. Three of the 10 primary college football reporters and editors attended the University of Oregon. Two other full-time sports reporters who don’t usually cover football attended Oregon State.
