The large LNP front page article “Citizen tip led police to 16-year-old suspect in ‘grisly’ killing of teacher” contained both the name of the suspect and his photograph.
We were used to the tradition of newspapers not identifying, let alone showing photographs, of accused youthful offenders. But before attacking LNP for violating journalistic ethics, we ran a Google check that led to the American Journalism Review articled: “Identifying Juvenile Suspects.”
Here are excerpts from the informative article.
“In years past, it would have been unthinkable to identify a child charged with any crime, serious or not. Minors, it was argued, had a better chance of rehabilitation if they weren’t stigmatized. But today, as more juveniles kill, rape and rob, news managers seem to have a much less difficult time naming them.
“If a child is tried as an adult, there’s usually little debate over naming names. But more outlets are also identifying suspects tried as juveniles when the community has heard a lot about the crime, when it’s particularly vicious or when the accused comes from a prominent family…
“Last month, the New York Times, which in the past usually has not named juvenile suspects, ran a four-part series on children and violent crime in which the paper identified the young criminals with whom it spoke. On one morning, the cherubic face of 11-year-old Jacob Gonzales, who pleaded guilty to an armed robbery during which a 14-year-old shot a woman to death, greeted readers above the fold on page one; on another, the Times detailed the case of convicted murderer Shaul Linyear, 16, and printed numerous snapshots provided by his family.”
Although we abhor LNP’s further sensationalizing the tragic murder at the expense of the privacy of an accused youth, we accept that their decision falls within the margin of today’s journalistic ethics.
