« Vendetta | Main | An "ordinary citizen" »
January 19, 2006
Question No. 4
In the Local & State section of today’s Monitor, you published a story about five Concord teenagers arrested for vandalism. Yet only one of those arrested was named and had her picture in the paper. Why?
As the story points out, the identified girl is 17 and the four others are younger – one 16, three 15. In New Hampshire, 17-year-olds are treated as adults by the court system, those under 17 as juveniles. In reporting criminal cases, it is the Monitor’s practice to name adults when they are arrested.
That said, we had a discussion at today’s news meeting about this story.
The story came in late yesterday. It was not on the news budget at our 4 p.m. news meeting. Thus I was surprised to see it in the paper this morning. I reacted to it as both a veteran editor and a veteran parent.
The picture in particular gave me pause. The story was about five arrests, but I thought the picture made it seem to be much more about one arrest. I appreciate that the police department gives us photographs of crime suspects. They add a great deal to our coverage. And I know the rules – 17 and older and the law considers you an adult, under 17 and you’re a juvenile. But experience tells me that a child’s 17th birthday does not necessarily confer adulthood on him or her. Some 15-year-olds are more mature than 17-year-olds, and even the brightest and seemingly most responsible teenagers do stupid things. It also seemed to me that, while destructive and perhaps even malicious, the vandalism was essentially a dumb prank.
All I have just written, I have written with hindsight not available to the editors making the decisions last night. When we discussed the issue at today’s news meeting, there were several opinions around the table. I think if I had had all the facts before me beforehand, I would have run the story as written – with the 17-year-old named – and as played – across the top of the Local & State section. It was, after all, a strong news story. But I would not have run the picture.
My hope after today’s Monday morning quarterbacking is that if something similar happens in the future, the editors will have a lively internal discussion of all the factors, call me or Managing Editor Felice Belman if they need another opinion and make a sound decision.
Whatever editors decide on such questions is a judgment, and thus open to criticism. We all learn from the process.
(Footnote: When we report on motor vehicle violations or accidents, the names of the drivers are public record even if they are 16, and thus we publish the names.)
Posted by Mike Pride at January 19, 2006 06:00 PM
Comments
Mike - I had the same reaction after reading the letter complaining about the picture. yes, the 17 year old should have been named, but nix the picture.
Good blog -- you should publish in the paper this dialogue regarding the photo.
Posted by: Dan Wise at January 24, 2006 09:11 AM