I’ve run into an interesting issue while reading through files from a court case dating back four years. This is not purely historical curiosity, because intervening events have made the former case relevant to understanding a case that’s been in the headlines recently.
So here’s the issue I’ve run into. Maybe some more seasoned reporters out there will have some advice.
When the older case went to trial, it was well reported. But the legal case that got to court was narrowed by a ruling which found prior offenses by those involved, and their previous relationships to each other (if any), were irrelevant to the immediate charges and thus were “off limits.” But today, in light of recent events, those connections are now quite relevant.
The news stories back several years ago only named a few of the people who were were at the scene of the crime as witnesses or participants. Named were the victim, the defendant charged with murder and later convicted, and two others charged (and ultimately convicted) for threatening witnesses. But others went unnamed, including some who testified at the trial. In certain documents filed in court, they were identified only by their initials.
But there were nine people present at the scene, and another who got involved after the incident. I’ve been able to identify all of them from the various court files, trial transcripts, police reports filed in court, etc. One person was 17 when the incident occurred, and made a deal with prosecutors in exchange for his testimony. Others were young adults who were not charged in the case but were present at the scene.
The question is whether I should stick with something along the lines of the previous reporting, using initials or perhaps first names only when telling the story. Or should I use all the information I’ve gathered, including the names of each of the participants.
In most cases, the names probably won’t have much meaning for readers. I think I could tell the story using first names or initials, along with background information like age, neighborhood, high school, etc, without much impact on readers.
It’s the kind of question I would have taken to my editor when I was working at the newspaper.
Today, I don’t have an editor. So I’ve got to figure out how to proceed.
All advice welcome.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A general rule:
If their names serve no purpose, I don’t see the point in naming them. It sounds as if the “let the accused know their accusers” doesn’t apply here. Is that correct?
That said, to name them, a journalist must do their best to reach them for comment and let them know a reporter may name them. That’s an ethics matter. Even stories about Trump require reaching out to his liar-people.
Agreed.
I have posted here for years as Kali but out of respect for the newest member of the Lind family I will use my full name from now on.
I have a website that is critical of a local conglomerate and what I do is post the full names initially as the news reports, and then sometime later I shorten them to first name plus last initial for posterity. I think everyone has a right to learn from and move on from past indiscretions.
Isn’t that contradictory?
I read your blog because you are thought provoking, newsworthy, and not leading… That’s it!…and it’s totally appreciated.
I’m not a big fan when the media (including social) publishes a name that otherwise would stay hidden. But when you agree to be a witness in an open trial, you don’t have a right to privacy. Anyone could attend the trial and hear the name when the witness is called. So I don’t see any issue with the media publishing it.
Publish all of their names. These people are getting away with crime after crime because of the secrecy.
My guess, this is regarding the golf course shooting?