I use the quotes because the term victim necessarily implies or suggests involvement in a crime, which doesn't always do justice to the situation. The greater reality I was dealing with was an issue of privacy, not an issue of public safety: to what degree does this "victim" deserve to remain anonymous for their involvement in a story that, if reported fully, would serve the public good? (As a side note, I want to keep the specifics of my reporting process off this blog, to keep it out of the public record for now)
There are several reasons I side with those who say to leave "victims" completely anonymous (as as completely anonymous as possible):
First, I think newsworthiness is something of a verb: You have to do something newsworthy to be a stand-alone newsworthy figure. If you become a part of a story of interest to the public, a journalist really needs that person's consent to be used as a story.
Second, at the point where a person has consented to be identified, the journalist has a duty to tell that person's story, not just reveal that person's name. That's what's so egregious to me about revealing the identities of victims of violent crimes: beyond the safety concerns of the person being blatantly disregarded, the identification is often cursory and matter-of-fact ('Jane Doe' was mugged by 'John Smith' on Main Street this morning, etc.) and does no justice to that person's story. If we can't tell the victim's story, I would fight against their identification in my story.
Third, and most practically, identifying someone exposes them in the press, and makes them less likely to talk and tell their aforementioned story. Their story is more important than the short-term benefit gained by simple identification.
No comments:
Post a Comment