Recent stories have taken a sharp turn in The Oregonian’s reporting on the disappearances of two Oregon City girls.
For the first time since of one of the girls disappeared in January, the newspaper reported that both girls had been sexually abused.
The information has been included in several stories since August 15. Most notably, a story in last Sunday’s editions explored in more detail the backgrounds of the girls, Ashley Pond and Miranda Gaddis, both 13. Ashley disappeared in January, and Miranda in March.
The usual practice at The Oregonian — and at most daily newspapers — is to withhold the names of victims of sexual abuse and rape unless they choose to make their situations public.
Such decisions usually are up to the victims and their families because of the stigma sometimes attached to the victims. In the case of the missing Oregon City girls, events have overtaken editors’ desire to keep private some of the sadder details of their lives.
Chiefly, Ward Weaver, a self-proclaimed suspect in the case, was arrested and charged earlier this month with the rape of his son’s girlfriend. Weaver’s son, Francis, then alleged that his father had admitted killing the girls.
Whether Ward Weaver is connected to the disappearance of the girls — he knows both — remained unknown as of late last week. However, The Oregonian’s editors decided, the combination of violence in his past and the alleged sexual attack on the young woman revised the circumstances for reporting.
Ashley Pond alleged a year ago that Weaver had sexually abused her. He was not charged in that situation. Abuse of the girls by other men in their households had been proven, however, and those and other matters became pertinent, editors decided.
It had become clear that “the girls were victims in a larger context than their disappearance,” said Peter Bhatia, executive editor of The Oregonian. The personal facts of their lives became germane to the overall story, he said.
Andy Parker, editor of the South Metro Bureau, which covers the Oregon City area, directs reporters covering the case. “The watchword,” Parker said, “has been that it is the goal to write the story without victimizing these families.”
However, as the case became more complex, the newspaper’s job, Parker said, became “to represent the truth in these girls’ lives, to represent the challenge the investigators are facing.” That meant publishing sometimes cruel facts.
Linda Beloof, an attorney who has been a spokeswoman the girls’ mothers, criticizes the media in general for putting the mothers in the position of being blamed and for “revictimizing” the girls. (She expresses her concerns in an “In my Opinion” piece in this section.)
Editors and reporters are not oblivious to the pain involved. “I don’t think any of us liked publishing what was published,” Bhatia said.
From my perspective: Releasing detailed information about the girls’ lives is a serious decision that cannot be made casually. They are children. Their families are hurting.
At the same time, the larger society has a legitimate — not simply prurient — interest in the disturbing events.
The community should know whether systems aimed at protecting children are doing so as well as they can. Within necessary limits, people should know as much as possible about this investigation and its progress as they assess the dangers in their own lives and how they can address them.
They can do that with the help of responsible reporting.
The Oregonian’s editors know that their decisions are subject to criticism and can cause pain, but they also know they are the key to providing at least some answers to myriad concerns surrounding the missing girls.
Their decisions leave editors and others uneasy, but those decisions have been made thoughtfully. I expect they will continue to be.
