As a lowly newsroom intern many moons ago, one of the first conversations I heard among the ”real” reporters was a debate over an old newsroom rule.
That rule says in news stories about sexual assaults, the victim’s name is never, ever revealed.
Since then, there have been a few times when rape victims have wanted their names used, hoping to lift some of the stigma of shame unfairly put on them.
The journalistic rule about their names — meant to protect their identity — perpetuates that cycle, at least that’s what some reporters would argue. Others would say journalists can’t erase that stigma, only society can do it and then journalists will follow.
Now that old debate has a new twist.
The most publicized rape case in recent history — the case of the Central Park Jogger — has sparked a new level of argument.
The victim’s memoir will reveal her name when the book is published April 8, almost 14 years after she was attacked, beaten and left for dead in the park in Manhattan.
Her name was never a secret. It was listed in police records and she was even identified in some news media before the tradition of anonymity came into play. Her name has been left out of most news accounts since then.
She’s asking to remain anonymous until the book comes out.
Her request angers some journalists who think that since she’s going public with a book, it’s fair game to use her name now.
Recent news developments
The plot thickens. Besides the book, the case has been in the news for other reasons. A judge recently threw out the convictions of five men who spent years in prison for their alleged parts in the attack.
Many journalists feel the jogger’s request is simply to create a bigger splash when the book comes out — and they don’t like being manipulated in a public relations tactic.
But others argue this case is all about control only, and journalistic principles such as fairness, minimizing harm and maintaining independence are not being considered.
”With this case, a journalist could argue that harm is not there, because the victim herself is going to name herself. So it comes down to control, not independence. We want to name her because we are accustomed to being in control. But it’s not enough to be in control just because we can,” said Kelly McBride, who is on the ethics faculty at the Poynter Institute, a journalism institute in Florida.
Journal editors were mixed in their reactions to the case.
Some said they’d have no problem publishing the name now. Others said that while there’s no reason not to, it might not be the right thing to do.
”It’s a rare chance for the media to take the high road — to keep its policy in place until the woman does something to break it,” Opinion Page Editor John Penney said.
Business Editor Judith Brush, who worked in public relations for many years, said the debate probably plays into a PR ploy to create buzz about the book.
Giving up her privacy
The newsroom’s two top editors agreed the jogger has given up the privilege of privacy, but debated under what circumstances it would be appropriate to print her name.
In any situation, Executive Editor Meg Downey and Managing Editor Rich Kleban agreed her decision to go public changes how she should be treated in the news media.
”By writing a book, she is not only giving up her privacy but seeking national attention, which she will get,” Downey said. ”She is part of a major story, which has drawn more attention in the last year because of the court decision exonerating some men originally accused of being among her attackers.”
What do Journal readers think is the right thing to do?
Contact me through telephone, e-mail or regular mail at the addresses below. Responses will be discussed in a future column.
