To some readers, the news staff never appears more heartless than when it focuses on children caught in traumatic situations. Whether the child is a victim of violence or accused of crime, the questions are: Why do pictures have to be published? Why do identities have to be revealed?
But the intent of a responsible news staff is not to exploit children. Most of the time, the intent is to inform the public about situations that threaten children.
The Courant’s policy is to name victims, except in the case of a sexual assault or when there is “demonstrable danger to the victim.” The policy advises that “care should be used in publishing photos and identifying victims in violent crimes when the suspect is at large and when there is reason to believe that the identity of the victim is not otherwise known to the suspect. The decision to withhold a name should be made by the senior editor in charge.”
The newspaper also has guidelines for naming young suspects in criminal cases: “We do not publish names of juveniles [in Connecticut, under age 16] taken into custody for most crimes. Exceptions are made when the crime is such an unusual one or so public in nature that no good would be served by not publishing the suspect’s name. In such instances, the senior editor in charge of the news desk, or higher authority, must approve the decision to identify the youth.”
When it comes to children, however, there are issues to consider beyond the name. Editors also should consider whether a story informs a larger community at the expense of a vulnerable child.
The answers aren’t always straightforward.
The Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma offers guidelines for journalists dealing with such issues. As Ochberg Fellow with the Dart Center Ruth Teichroeb points out, the last thing a journalist should “do is add to the pain of young victims with insensitive coverage.”
“No matter what the topic, different ground rules apply when interviewing children,” Teichroeb writes. “Children’s vulnerability means they have a right to greater privacy even if such heightened protection is not provided by law. Journalists must respect that right despite the competitive pressures of news coverage. Protecting child victims from further trauma should take precedence over getting a good quote.”
Perhaps not everyone in The Courant’s newsroom would agree with that, but based on the conversations I’ve had over the years, I know that there are members of The Courant’s audience who do.
At its website, www.dartcenter.org, the Dart Center offers a comprehensive list of suggestions for sensitive coverage of children in traumatic situations. Many of the suggestions are an integral part of discussions between reporters and editors pursuing stories concerning children. Here, I’ve summarized the points I found to be most important so readers understand that such stories are not taken lightly.
Reporters should seek permission from a parent or guardian before interviewing or photographing a child, explaining the ramifications of the decision. If prior permission is not possible, attempts should be made to contact an adult for permission before using material. Informed consent means explaining to a parent and child what the story is about and how the interview is expected to be used (for example, as a front-page story or an inside feature). Permission does not absolve journalists of their responsibility to use good and ethical judgment.
A parent or someone the child knows should be present during the interview. After the interview, reporters should check back with parents and older children to let them know how quotes will be used and when the story is expected to run.
Editors and reporters should try to balance the public’s need to know and the importance of the information with the harm that can be done to a juvenile, especially given the prevalence of the Internet.
Dart’s list is extensive. The one suggestion that resonates most: “Treat kids like you’d want a reporter to treat your own children.”
