|
This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Youth Crime Coverage in Japan and the U.S.
A Comparative Study of Naming Juveniles in Youth Crime Coverage
in Japan and the U.S.
By Tom Brislin, University of Hawaii
and Yasuhiro Inoue, Hiroshima City University
The International Communication Division
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
for its Annual Convention, August 2005
Abstract
This study examines the underlying values and practices in
journalistic policies and decision-making between Japan and the
United States on whether to identify youth offenders in serious,
capital crimes. Benchmarks in youth crime coverage, particularly in
Japan, are examined. Base-line comparative data is presented from a
survey of U.S. and Japanese journalists on factors that might
influence naming of youth offenders, and on opinions of the handling
of specific youth crime cases.
A Comparative Study of Naming Juveniles in Youth Crime Coverage
in Japan and the U.S. [1]
Tom Brislin, University of Hawaii
and Yasuhiro Inoue, Hiroshima City University
Introduction
Youth crime poses great societal concerns and is an important area of
news coverage. Youth crime also poses a set of unique journalistic
concerns. Is the naming of a youth offender a critical aspect of
disclosure for public assessment of the problem, or is it a violation
of the privacy normally afforded juveniles that could stigmatize the
immature offender through adulthood?
The United States and Japan have both experienced an increase in the
frequency and intensity of youth crimes. It is not only the shock of
the age of the offender, but also the severity of the crime that has
propelled youth crime into headlines and breaking news bulletins.
Newsrooms in the two countries have taken divergent paths in the
coverage of youth offenders, although there is indication that some
journalists in those newsrooms are more convergent in their personal
opinions on whether to name them.
This study examines the underlying values and practices in
journalistic policies and decision-making between the two countries
on whether to identify youth offenders in serious, capital crimes.
Benchmarks in youth crime coverage, particularly in Japan, are
examined. Base-line comparative data is presented from a survey of
U.S. and Japanese journalists on factors that might influence naming
of youth offenders, and on opinions of the handling of specific youth
crime cases.
The U.S. and Japan provide a relevant vantage point for the study.
Both are democracies with constitutionally protected press rights,
but are often pitted against each other on the global stage in terms
of economy, culture, practice and interests. They have certainly
developed press values and practices that are culturally unique, and
which have come in conflict in other areas of coverage. Globalization
causes, and often welcomes, such friction that, like the grain of
sand in the oyster, can bring about transformative change. In the age
of the cyberspace and satellite news channels, cultural and legal
boundaries are virtually nonexistent. Restrictions on youth crime
coverage in one country are easily bypassed by the readily accessible
media of another. The data from this study presents a base-line from
which to measure potential changes in the Japanese press traditions
from the relentless assault of those from the U.S. that are carried
in globalization's wake.
The Press, Juveniles and Privacy U.S. and Japan
From historic tradition, an individual in the U.S. is said to reach
adulthood at the age of 18, even though he or she is not conferred
with all rights at that age, such as the purchase of alcohol. In
Associated Press style, at age 18 a boy becomes a man and a girl a
woman. In journalism tradition, at one time only those 18 or older
committing crimes were named (Fink, 1995; Smith, 1999). In Japan,
because of its own social and legal traditions, that age is 20,
codified in Article 61 of the Juvenile Law (Mainichi Shimbun, 2000).
The hesitancy to name those younger than 18 in criminal cases in the
United States grew out of a social tradition that maturity alone
would significantly contribute to the rehabilitation of youth while
publicity would hinder it, and that an immature act by an immature
person should not mark him for life as a criminal (Carr, 2001;
Kresnak, 2003). That standard might have been ignored in the past if
either the youth, or the victim of the crime was a prominent person.
Today it has been completely overrun by the dramatic and alarming
phenomenon of more and more serious crimes committed by younger and
younger persons. School shootings and other acts of youthful violence
and terrorism have increasingly occupied front pages and evening newscasts.
The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics (1996) merely
warns: "Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of
sex crimes." The Radio-Television News Directors Foundation (Kirby,
2004) guidelines offer: "Juveniles should be given greater privacy
protection than adults"(p. 40) and "do unto other people's kids as
you would have them do unto your kids" (p.43). Tompkins (2000) of the
respected Poynter Institute for Media Studies offers a 17-point
checklist before naming a juvenile, including considerations of harm,
implication, family, impact, and alternatives. An examination of
statements of ethical practice shows a considerable variance in
determining at what age special protection against publicity should
be allowed. The Akron Beacon Journal's Public Editor gives a vague,
but fairly typical policy statement: "It is the Beacon Journal's
policy to not name juveniles unless the crime is violent or the event
attracts a huge amount of public attention" (Needs, 2004, p. 3).
The Virginia Pilot broke from its no-naming-under-18 policy in 1991
to identify by name and photo a 16-year-old charged in the brutal
murders of two boys aged 9 and 7. Editors decided, "the interests of
the accused were less compelling than the public's interest in
knowing what was going on" (Sipe, 1991, p.2). The New York Bar
Association sets their guideline for the press at age 16 (Carr,
2001). The Oregon Statesman Journal (1999) sets its own standard at
15; Virginia's Roanoke Times (2003) at 14. Some news outlets defer
the decision to the courts: If the juvenile is charged as an adult,
the name will be published. Under that policy, The Seattle Times
found itself publishing the names of the youngest murder defendants
in the state's history two 12-year-old girls (Martin and Armstrong,
2004, p. 1). The Shelby Star in North Carolina published the name of
a 12-year-old girl charged with stabbing her uncle to death, noting
she would not be tried as an adult (McDowell, 2003). A poll of New
Jersey newspaper readers revealed 54 percent of respondents "want to
learn the names of juveniles charged with serious crimes" (Guenther, 1999).
A watershed case in the United States for naming very young juveniles
was the 1998 shootings that killed five and wounded 10 at Westside
Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas by 11-year old Andrew Golden and
13-year-old Mitchell Johnson:
The boys were charged as juveniles, as Arkansas law stipulates for
anyone under fourteen. Still, by his own account, the managing editor
of the New York Times took less than five minutes in deciding to
print the boys' names, before local police had officially released
them. The Washington Post followed suit the next day . . .. The Los
Angeles Times held out two days. Chicago Tribune editors debated a
full three days before breaking their decades-old rule of providing a
veil of protection for juveniles under seventeen (Hancock, 1998, p.18).
This introduces the case where it is not the offender or victim who
is prominent, but the crime itself that achieves prominence, and
demands that those responsible be named (Needs, 2003). By the time
Dylan Klebold, 17, joined 18-year-old Eric Harris in their 1999
killing spree through Columbine High School, there was no pause for
thought in naming the two.
Hubner and Wolfson (1996) present an interesting historic look on
how adult attitudes have shifted toward viewing youth as the enemy,
rather than the future, of society:
once they get to be nine and ten, once they start to misbehave,
become truants, once they stop obeying their parents so easily,
people don't love kids anymore. The American public, as well as may
parents, have very ambivalent feelings, and when those kids commit
crimes? Right away, we stop thinking of them as being children of our
family or children of our community. Automatically, they become
somebody else's children (p. 2).
Some adults call for the naming of all juvenile offenders under the
rationale that publicity should be part of the punishment and can
serve as a deterrent, both to the potential youthful offenders and to
their parents. They continue that the public has a public safety
right to know the names of offenders, and that any limitations on
naming any offenders is "an unconstitutional form of prior restraint"
(Carr, 2001, Chapter 11, p. 2). Indeed, some juvenile courts in the
United States have shifted philosophy and opened their records for
journalistic and public scrutiny (Day, 2003).
Media Ethicist Deni Elliott (1990) counters these arguments with the
simple statement: "the more journalists value a piece of information,
the less they value or protect the child (p. 8)."
Although Article 61 the Japanese Juvenile Law "prohibits the
publication of information that reveals the identity of suspects or
convicted criminals below the age of 20," it provides for no
punishment or fine for violation. The Osaka High Court ruled in 2000
the Juvenile Law "does not take precedence over the constitutional
right of freedom of expression" (Mainichi Shimbun, 2000). The court
rule was in favor of a magazine that published the name of a
19-year-old who stabbed a 5-year-old to death.
However, the Nihon Shinbun Kyokai (2000), Japan's Newspaper
Publishers and Editors Association, which holds sway over the conduct
of the nation's newspapers and network television newsrooms, has
maintained since 1958 a prohibition against publishing names or
photographs of juveniles under 20. Because of the controlling power
of the organization over the kisha kurabu (press clubs in which all
mainstream newspapers and TV news outlets maintain membership), which
in turn exercise much controlling power over the coverage and content
of news and standards of newsgathering, no mainstream journalist or
news organization would defy the ban, despite the reminder by the
court of constitutional protections. [2]
As Jun'ichi Seto (1998), wrote for the Foreign Press Center of Japan:
Whatever approach one takes, the increasingly serious nature of
crimes by juveniles can be viewed as symbolic evidence of the fact
that the education system and social systems that have been in place
in Japan for half a century since World War II have ceased to be
relevant. Japanese society has once again entered a major period of
transition. Because the law focuses on the rehabilitation of the
youth in question, society is left without a proper understanding of
the facts of the case. What this indicates is that between the value
of exposing the facts of an incident and that of ensuring the
rehabilitation of the youth involved, the latter has been afforded
higher priority (p. 2).
Not only are youthful offenders in Japan not named in the press, even
for serious, capital crimes, they are also often not prosecuted
through the criminal justice system. By law, children under 14 years
of age cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions.
Writing in Japan Today, Tokyo's vice governor for public safety said:
Juvenile crime has become more frequent and heinous, and the age of
offenders is becoming lower and lower. In the case of juvenile crime,
under the present situation we cannot hope that the criminal
judicature will act as a deterrence. The thinking is that youngsters
who commit a crime in principle should be protected and brought up in
a healthy manner, so it is very unusual for them to receive
punishment as criminals" (Takehara, 2004).
The strict, no-naming-under-20 policy extends beyond journalism.
Internet Providers have yanked photos of juvenile offenders from web
sites, including the infamous 17-year old Fukuoka bus hijacker (Asahi
Shimbun, 2004a). The privacy privilege extends beyond the juvenile's
youth into adulthood. Even when juvenile offenders involved in the
most heinous crimes are released after they have turned 20, their
names are still withheld in later stories about their
crimes.[3] Additionally, the privilege is not just applied
internally. News accounts in Japanese media of the U.S. Columbine
shootings left out the names of Harris and Klebold, and digitally
blurred their faces in accompanying photos, even though they were
named and shown in readily available foreign media such as the
International Herald Tribune and CNN (Nakamae and Ishizuka, 2004).
Juveniles and Privacy: International Perspectives
A review of various national codes of ethics and statements of
journalistic practices provides an international context for coverage
of youth crime, and shows a definite leaning toward the protection of
youth. Some call for changing or shortening names and manipulating
photos to mask identity. Australia's law bans the naming of those
under 17 (McDermid, 1998). Radio Telefis Eireann (Ireland) agrees and
adds extra layers of protection, saying no publication of "the name,
address, school attended or other close identification of any child
or young person (under 17 years) appearing in court" (2003). The
Austrian Press Council (1983) states "Reports of 'false steps' of
juveniles must not hinder or make more difficult their
resocialization. In such cases the names must be shortened." Chinese
journalists report they are instructed to create generic pseudonyms
for youths involved in crime up to the age of 18 (Wang, 2005).
The German Press Council (1994): "Wherever possible in the case of
minor offences committed by juveniles, names and identifying
photographs should not be published out of consideration for young
persons' future." Similar proscriptions are provided by the National
Federation of the Italian Press, Croatian Journalists Association,
Norwegian Press Association, Syndicato de Periodistas del Paraguay,
Portuguese Syndicate of Journalists, Congress of Russian Journalists,
and Federation of the Spanish Press (UNICEF, 2004).
The British Broadcasting Commission (2003) respects the anonymity of
youth under 18 involved in Youth Court Proceedings and the British
Radio Authority Programme Code 2 (1993) notes the Children and Young
Persons Acts of 1933 and 1969, "It may be an offence to publish the
names and addresses of person aged 17 or under who are involved in
court proceedings." Cleland Thom (2004), a British journalism
trainer, goes further in his advice: "We cannot use the name,
address, school, photo of or including or any details leading to the
identification of any child (over 10 but under 14) or young person
(over 14 but under 18) concerned in the proceedings in any way"
(p.2). Thom warns of the "jigsaw effect," where two or more media
outlets might offer different information that in aggregate could
piece together an identity, even though identification is not
possible from the individual accounts.
The international organization UNICEF (2003) instructs journalists to
"Always change the name and obscure the visual identity of any child
who is identified as
charged or convicted of a crime" (p. 2).
UNICEF's recent publication, "The Media and Children's Rights" (2005)
states, "Gratuitous identification my put them at extra risk, by
encouraging a sense of notoriety, for instance, and reducing their
chances of rehabilitation. It is also a denial of their rights." The
publication challenges journalists to do extensive follow-up stories
on any youth crime: "Have you followed up your report on the arrest
or charging of children? Are they safe? If they are in custody, what
are conditions like? Are they incarcerated with other children or
with adults? Do they have access to appropriate services, such as
legal advice and counseling" (p.31)?
Japan Youth Crime
Despite a year of sensational youth crime news, Japan's mainstream
newspapers and broadcast news outlets maintained their collectivist
policy to withhold names of any offender under the age of 20,
regardless of the seriousness or circumstances of the crime.
Headlines throughout 2004 proclaimed such stories, as:
"Youth admits beating lover's boy, 4, to death," (Japan Times 18
February, 2004)
A 17-year-old boy sentenced to 10 years in death of clothing shop
operator by dragging him with car. ("Teen gets 10 years for death of
retailer," Yomiuri Shimbun 27 February, 2004)
"Police: 19-year-old boy left girl's body in river," Asahi Shimbun,
16 March 2004
A 19-year-old boy and his 16-year-old girlfriend are charged with
killing the boy's mother and injuring his father and brother. They
were "feeling suicidal." ("Couple sent to reformatory for fatal
attack," Yomiuri Shimbun 19 March 2004)
Two junior high students, 15 and 14 arrested for trying to murder
the mother of one with an ax. They were afraid of being scolded for
stealing a bicycle. ("Teens held over ax-murder attempt on mom,"
Japan Times 20 May 2004)
A 13-year-old girl pushes a 5-year-old boy off the fourth floor of
an apartment building. ("Teen girl who pushed boy from building faces
tests," Japan Times, 1 July 2004)
An 11-year-old boy slashes schoolmate with kitchen knife.
("Classroom slasher faces three options," Japan Times, 8 July 2004)
A 15-year old boy arrested for stabbing death of his 16-year-old
friend's mother. ("Boy, 15, arrested in stabbing death of friend's
mom," Asahi Shimbun 11 August 2004)
A 15-year old girl randomly stabs a passerby in Toyama Prefecture.
She was angry at being reprimanded for her hairstyle. ("Girl Says she
stabbed man for attention," Japan Times 13 August 2004)
"Teen arrested after slashing throats of father, sister at Wakayama
home" (Japan Times 24 August 2004)
A 13-yeear old boy helped the alleged killer of his mother to
abandon the body. ("Teen to be sent to center for abandoning mother's
body" Japan Times 2 September, 2004)
"Teen says he killed dad, torched house," Japan Times 16 September, 2004
"Cops say 2 more teens present at Saitama Pref. beating death,"
(Yomiuri Shimbun 21 September, 2004)
19 year-old batters his parents to death with a 4kg iron dumbbell.
("Son, 19, admits killing parents" Japan Times, 25 November 2004)
"Missing schoolboy (15) admits slaying mom" (Mainichi Shimbun, 18
December. 2004)
"4 youths arrested over schoolgirl's murder in abandoned building"
(Mainichi Shimbun, 23 December. 2004)
"Japanese student (19) stabs mother to death in cellphone bill
row." Agence France-Presse, 29 December, 2004, in Infotech, Retrieved
December 30 from http://news.inq7.net/breaking/index.php?index=7&story_id=22692
In each story there was a similar boilerplate explanation: "The
youth's name is being withheld because of Japan's Youth Law."
Three particular events in 2004 also sparked renewed discussion among
some Japanese journalists about the long-held policies. One was a
tragic crime involving very young children, and two were
uncomfortable reminders of crimes past.
"Sixth-grader kills her classmate, 12: Slaying at school in Nagasaki
stuns nation," (Japan Times, 2 June 2004): On June 1 in Nagasaki,
12-year-old Satomi Mitarai was lured into an empty classroom at
lunchtime by an 11-year old classmate who slashed her neck and waited
for her to bleed to death while kicking her head. The classmate later
said she was angry that Satomi had posted mean messages about her in
an internet chat room. The tragedy of the killing shocked the nation
and particularly the journalism community as Satomi's father is Kyoji
Mitarai, Sasebo Bureau Chief of the national daily Mainichi Shimbun.
Subsequent investigations showed the troubled classmate wrote poetry
posted on her internet diary months earlier saying she was in
"despair" and that "agony dominates" her life. She also posted a
story based on the movie "Battle Royale" about middle school students
who kill each other, and 10 days earlier she threatened a male
classmate with a box cutter (Japan Times, 2004a).
Journalists recognized the need to probe the background and living
conditions of the 11-year-old, and struggled with the constraints of
not identifying her:
In dealing with juvenile crime, the education and reform of the youth
involved take priority over finding causes. However, closing a case
involving serious crime with questions still unanswered is not
acceptable, especially as juvenile crimes with no clear motivation
occur frequently in this country. We need to clarify the causes of
such cases by creating a comprehensive system to do so separately
from family courts while being careful not to infringe on
children's human rights. (Iwata, Yomiuri Shimbun, 2004)
"Kobe Killer Set Free: Reformatory Parolee 'has grown up,'" (Japan
Times, 11 March, 2004): Earlier that year the infamous "Youth A" was
released from a youth reformatory, seven years after, at age 14, he
killed two children in Kobe, aged10 and 11. He decapitated one and
impaled the head on a school gate. The gruesome 1997 crime had become
iconic in stories of Japanese youth crime. The release of the young
murderer reawakened conflicted emotions and the debate between
punishment and rehabilitation. Despite the fact that "Youth A" was
now 22, the press continued to keep his identification private, even
though it was reported that he assaulted his female psychiatrist in
charge during counseling:
Naturally, quite a few people harbor doubts about whether he is truly
repentant. They also wonder if he is capable of committing a similar
crime again. His crimes were so dreadful that he will not be easily
accepted back into society . . . . Probably he will have to change
his name and live out his days trying to conceal his past. We wish to
emphasize that people, and this goes for the media, too, should not
try to track him down and reveal his whereabouts and way of life to
the public. This sort of intrusive behavior will only hinder his
efforts at rejoining society. It may also thwart his efforts to make
amends for his victims' bereaved families (Asahi Shimbun, 2004b).
"Imaginative Filmmakers Shed Light on Dark Side of Humanity," (Japan
Times, 4 July 2004): The year also saw the release of "Concrete," a
film about the 1989 abduction of a high school girl by four Tokyo
boys who beat and raped her for 40 days and then disposed of her body
in a drum filled with concrete. The release drew critical outrage,
which limited its screening to only a few art theatre venues. In a
break from journalistic tradition, however, one of the youths, now 33
was identified after he was convicted and sentenced to four years in
the kidnapping brutal beating of another man. In the coverage of his
contemporary case Jo Kamisaku was identified as one of the "Concrete"
boys. The judge justified Kamisaku's naming: "There is room for doubt
over whether he actually faced up to the past incident and tried to
make a new start with deep regret over his actions" (Mainichi Shimbun, 2005).
On top of these events, an Asahi Shimbun (2004c) survey showed 81
percent of respondents "said they are anxious about becoming victims
of juvenile crime," as the number of minors aged 14 to 19 who
committed serious crimes such as murder and robbery rose 11.4 percent
to 2,212 in 2003. Prosecutors at the same time were calling for a
change in the youth laws to allow criminal investigation and
prosecution of youths under age 14, after police had arrested 212
juveniles aged under 14 in 2003 who committed serious crimes, up 47
percent from the previous year. The age for criminal prosecution had
been previously lowered from 16 to 14 following the Kobe "Youth A"
case. (Japan Times, 2004b).
Research Questions
Researchers were interested in gathering baseline data for this pilot
study comparing U.S. and Japanese news media policies and practices
on covering youth crime, and the attitudes and opinions of U.S. and
Japanese journalists on those policies and practices. Research Questions were:
R1: To what degree do U.S. and Japanese journalists see consistent
newsroom policies in naming juvenile offenders in the coverage of youth crime.
R2: To what degree are U.S. and Japanese journalists consistent in
agreeing with their respective newsroom policies.
R3: What factors do U.S. and Japanese journalists consider primary in
formulating a policy on naming juvenile offenders.
R4: What story elements might influence U.S. and Japanese
journalists in a decision to name a youthful offender.
R5: How do U.S. and Japanese journalists respond to specific cases of
crime coverage in whether their newsroom would, and should, name a
juvenile offender.
R6: What demographic factors of journalists might correlate with
decisions to name juvenile offenders.
Method
The researchers constructed a survey questionnaire that could be
administered in English and Japanese to a sample of journalists in
Honolulu and Hiroshima. The two cities were selected to represent
U.S. and Japanese journalists only in the context of gathering
baseline data for this pilot study. Honolulu and Hiroshima are
similar in size and media concentration. They share historic and
cultural connections as well as being the researchers' home cities.
The bulk of Hawaii's issei (first generation) immigration came from
Hiroshima and neighboring Fukuoka prefectures. Honolulu and Hiroshima
have enjoyed a "sister-city" relationship for decades and the two
cities' newspapers and broadcast news outlets are similar in size.
The questionnaire asked journalists whether their newsroom had a
policy limiting the naming of juveniles, whether they agreed with the
policy, and what they thought the minimum age should be for naming
juveniles. A second set of questions asked what journalistic factor
should be primary in considering a policy on naming juveniles, and
what degree of influence various crime story elements would have on
naming a juvenile. The final set of questions presented juvenile
crime story cases based on actual events in Japan or the U.S.,
including several discussed in this study. The journalists were asked
first whether their newsroom would name the juvenile, and then
whether in their own opinion regardless of newsroom policy, the
juvenile should be named. Demographic information of age, gender,
newsroom position and years in journalism was also gathered.
Journalists at Honolulu's two daily newspapers and four TV news
stations, and at Hiroshima's two newspapers, one news agency bureau
and three TV news stations were invited to participate. 176
questionnaires were delivered to newsrooms in Honolulu during a
survey period of December 5-31, 2004, and 82 were returned for a 47
percent rate. 115 were delivered to newsrooms in Hiroshima during a
survey period of December 15, 2004 -January 15, 2005 and 83 were
returned for a 72 percent rate. The two city samples were evenly
matched for newspaper journalists (n=57). Honolulu had more
television journalist respondents (n=25 v n=19), but Hiroshima also
included seven news agency journalists who serve both newspaper and
broadcast newsrooms. One Hiroshima broadcast outlet NHK, the
national network declined to participate.
Results
Policies & Ages: Japanese journalists were unanimous in setting their
newsroom's policy of not naming any juvenile under the age of 20 in a
crime story. U.S. journalist responses showed no similar
consistency: 58 percent reported no policy, or they didn't know if
there was a policy in their newsroom, or that there was no minimum
age for naming juveniles, "it depends," or no response all
indicating no consistent policy. 24 percent gave the traditional age
18 as the minimum age for naming a juvenile in their newsroom. The
remainder of U.S. respondents gave minimum ages ranging from 12 to
19, with 13 percent of the responses falling between ages 14 and 17 (Table 1).
Table 1 Newsroom Juvenile Naming Policy & Agreement [4]
Newsroom Policy on Youngest Age to Name Juvenile U.S. Japan
No Policy 11% --
No Minimum Age 6% --
Depends 18% --
DK/na 23% --
12-13 2% --
14 2%
16 6% --
17 5%
18 24% --
19 1% --
20 -- 100%
Agree With Newsroom Policy U.S. Japan
Yes 28% 39%
No 6% 4%
Sometimes/Depends 40% 54%
No Policy/DK/na 26% 4%
Although Japanese journalists recognized the consistency of their
newsrooms' policy, 54 percent said they agreed with it only
"sometimes. It depends on the crime." Only 13 percent would maintain
the minimum age at 20 (Table 1). Twenty four percent said there
should be no minimum age. Forty percent of U.S. journalists gave
only partial agreement to newsroom policies and 59 percent felt there
should be no minimum age for naming youthful offenders. Only 13
percent would not name a juvenile under the age of 16 (Table 2).
Table 2 Journalist Opinions on Minimum Age for Naming Juveniles
Youngest Age to Name a Juvenile Should Be: U.S Japan
No Minimum Age 59% 24%
0-11 9% --
12-14 11% 16%
15 4% 6%
16 7% 5%
17 4% 2%
18 2% 13%
19 -- 12%
20 -- 13%
DK/na 5% 8%
18 2% 13%
19 -- 12%
20 -- 13%
Factors & Influences: Both countries' journalists cited the privacy
of juveniles as a primary factor in formulating policy of whether to
name them in crime stories, with a slightly heavier emphasis by
Japanese (35 percent) than U.S. (24 percent) journalists (Table 3).
U.S. journalists gave similar emphasis to Free Press Rights (21
percent), Public Safety concerns (22 percent) and "Other" factors (17
percent), which centered on story factors such as "severity of the
crime." Japanese journalists emphasized Public Safety (30 percent)
and Following the Law (11 percent).
Table 3 Factors Influencing Policies on Naming Juveniles
Primary Factor in Considering Newsroom Policy: U.S. Japan
Freedom of the Press 21% 8%
Privacy Rights of Juvenile 24% 35%
Competition with Other Media 1% 1%
Following Historic Practice 4% 5%
Following the Law 9% 11%
Policies of Parent/National Media -- 2%
Concerns for Public Safety 22% 30%
Other 17% 6%
DK/na 2% 1%
Both U.S. and Japanese journalist respondents said the story factor
likely to carry the most influence in naming a juvenile would be the
brutality of the crime. Other influential story factors include
multiple victims of the crime, the prominence of the juvenile and the
setting of the crime, such as a classroom, schoolyard or other public
place. U.S. journalists gave more weight to the prominence or age of
the victim. Neither set of journalists saw much influence in how
other media handled the story (Table 4).
Table 4 Factors Influencing Stories on Naming Juveniles
Story Factors Influencing Naming of Juveniles:
Prominence of Juvenile U.S. Japan
Little to No Influence 34% 48%
Some to Strong Influence 66% 52%
Prominence of Victim
Little to No Influence 40% 62%
Some to Strong Influence 60% 38%
Age (Youth) of Victim
Little to No Influence 37% 60%
Some to Strong Influence 63% 39%
Juvenile Named by Other Media
Little to No Influence 62% 72%
Some to Strong Influence 38% 28%
Multiple Victims
Little to No Influence 30% 40%
Some to Strong Influence 70% 59%
Setting of Crime (Classroom, Schoolyard, etc.)
Little to No Influence 37% 46%
Some to Strong Influence 63% 53%
Level of Brutality or Viciousness of Crime
Little to No Influence 20% 39%
Some to Strong Influence 80% 60%
"Influence Index:" Combining and averaging the influence scores
across all story factors creates an aggregate "Influence Index" to
compare U.S. and Japanese journalist responses. The greater the
index, the more likely the group is influenced to name juvenile
offenders (M=10.47; Range 0 (not influenced at all) to 21 (most influenced)):
U.S. Journalist Average: 11.61 (SD=5.95, n=82)
Japanese Journalist Average: 9.34 (SD=6.02, n=83)
t=2.44, p.05
Cases Name or Not: Table 5 displays the results of responses to
particular coverage cases of juvenile crime, based on real events in
Japan and the U.S. In general, both countries' journalists felt their
newsrooms would be more conservative in naming juveniles than the
journalists think their newsrooms should be.
Table 5 Case Studies
Newsroom Newsroom
Would Name Should Name
U.S. Japan U.S. Japan
Jonesboro Case - 13 & 11-year old Yes 48% -- 79% 19%
boys shoot and kill five students No 12% 100% 16% 63%
and teacher in schoolyard. DK 40% -- 5% 18%
Kobe Case 14-year old boy Yes 40% -- 78% 28%
kills and decapitates student No 14% 99% 15% 61%
DK 46% 1% 7% 11%
Sexual Assault 16-year old Yes 14% -- 42% 17%
son of city councilmember No 42% 99% 48% 68%
sexually assaults 10-year-old DK 44% 1% 10% 15%
DUI 16-year old girl steals Yes 38% -- 69% 23%
car, crashes into and kills No 16% 99% 21% 66%
family of four DK 46% 1% 10% 11%
Congressman stabbed Yes 69% 1% 91% 30%
by 17-year old boy No 6% 93% 6% 54%
DK 25% 6% 3% 16%
Fukuoka Case 17-year-old boy Yes 57% 1% 86% 33%
hijacks bus, kills one passenger No 12% 98% 7% 55%
and injures five others DK 31% 1% 6% 1%
Nagasaki Case 11-year old girl Yes 25% -- 44% 8%
slashes throat of 12-year-old No 29% 99% 38% 77%
sixth-grade classmate DK 46% 1% 19% 15%
Concrete Case Six boys abduct, Yes 54% -- 91% 48%
rape & kill 17-year old girl, encase No 9% 98% 5% 39%
her body in concrete DK 37% 2% 4% 13%
In only three of the eight cases did a majority of the U.S.
journalists think their newsrooms would name the juvenile offender.
It should be noted that large numbers of U.S. journalists said they
simply didn't know what their newsrooms would do, reflecting the
earlier responses showing a lack of consistent policy, or knowledge
of a policy. Virtually none of the Japanese journalists felt their
newsrooms would name any of the juveniles in any of the cases.
Majorities of Japanese Journalists also said they thought the
juveniles should not be named in all cases except the one based on
the "Concrete" abduction, rape & murder crime.
U.S. journalists would hesitate to name only the very young girl in
the Nagasaki based case and the son of a city councilmember in a
sexual assault case. Strong majorities advocate naming the juveniles
in the remaining cases. A quarter to a third of Japanese journalists
would break ranks from their newsrooms to advocate naming "Youth A"
in the Kobe based case, the 17-year old boy who stabbed a
congressman, the 17-year old Fukuoka bus hijacker and the "Concrete" juveniles.
"Naming Index:" Combining and averaging the positive naming responses
across all cases creates an aggregate "Naming Index" to compare U.S.
and Japanese journalist responses. The greater the index, the more
likely the group is to name the juvenile in the case (M=3.85; Range 0
(no naming) to 8 (most likely to name)):
U.S. Journalist Average: 5.67 (SD=2.2, n=82)
Japanese Journalist Average: 2.06 (SD=2.6, n=83)
t=9.58, p.001
There was no significant difference between U.S. newspaper and
television journalists in making a naming decision:
U.S. Newspaper Average: 5.75 (SD=2.1, n=56)
U.S. TV Average: 5.50 (SD=2.45, n=26)
t=.48, n.s.
There is a marginally significant difference between Japanese
newspaper and TV journalists, with broadcasters more likely to name
juvenile offenders:
Japanese Newspaper Average: 1.80 (SD=2.5, n=64)
Japanese TV Average: 2.95 (SD=2.88, n=19)
t=1.7, p=.09
A multiple regression analysis, measuring the relative correlations
between the "Naming Index" and other factors showed that the country
(U.S. or Japan) and the "Influence Index" did have an impact on
journalists' decisions to name juveniles. On the other hand, neither
the respondents' job classification, gender nor age contributed to
the likelihood of naming a juvenile offender:
Table 4: Multivariate Regression Analysis on Factors Impacting Naming
of Juveniles
R
R2
_
p
.66
.43
.000
Country (0=US, 1=JPN)
-.57
.000
Media (0=Paper, 1=TV)
.04
.51
Gender (0=Male, 1=Female)
-.03
.64
Age
.02
.74
Influence Index
.23
.000
F (5, 158)=23.68, p .001
Discussion, Limitations and Conclusion
This study produced base-line data that confirms the conventional
wisdom that Japanese journalism remains consistent in its collective
policy to not name juveniles under the age of 20 in any crime story,
regardless of the severity of the crime. A review of recent
commentary on the problems of youth crime in Japan, and the data
reflecting individual opinions of Japanese journalists, however,
shows there is some dissension from, and questioning the relevance
of, the nearly half-century old policy and a desire to lower the
minimum age of publicity. Some industry and societal factors drive
the debate, such as Freedom of the Press and Public Safety concerns.
Television journalists in Japan tend to respond more akin to their
U.S. counterparts than to their Japanese newspaper colleagues, and
show a greater tendency toward desiring to name juvenile offenders.
U.S. journalists are constant in their inconsistency in terms of a
policy on naming juveniles and seem to have adopted no policy, or no
minimum age, as their policy. Senior editors might be surprised at
this result, as the debate over naming juvenile offenders is still a
cogent topic in journalism ethics. Newsrooms might find it productive
to engage their staffs in a conversation about underlying values and
policy considerations in naming juveniles in crime stories. U.S.
journalists, as expected, are far more willing to name juvenile
offenders than their Japanese counterparts, and even their own newsrooms.
This study has several natural limitations. It succeeds as a pilot
study in establishing base-line data from which a larger study of
"national" level, rather than regional-level, journalists could be
made. But it has little predictive value for either group of
journalists, and has limited generalizability.
International/intercultural studies of this nature are rife with
potential multilingual and translation problems. Fortunately for this
study, one researcher is bi-lingual, and both have extensive
experience in each other's country, as well as experience as
professional journalists. They were able to arrive at phraseology
that would have equal meaning in each language and professional
culture. Some difficulties within professional cultures produced
limitations. Although Japanese journalists were more responsive in
completing and returning survey questionnaires (after the publicly
expressed approval of the editor), a key newsroom the Hiroshima
bureau of the national NHK network, opted not to participate. In
Hawaii the response rate was lower as U.S. journalists have a
tendency to disdain surveys. In future studies it would be more
productive if a specific representative sample group of journalists
was identified and interviewed by telephone.
As with all comparative studies, there is an intrinsic value of
learning more about national and cultural differences in press
systems. There is also an instrumental value for journalists in
understanding the values and practices of "other" press systems, as
much of foreign correspondence is reporting on what the local press
is reporting on. The knowledge of those "local" values and practices
provides a necessary context for meaning in "global" reporting. The
data from this study might also prove of value for those seeking a
set of globalized standards for covering youth crime. The
International Federation of Journalists proposes:
It is because the mass media are the leading edge in the creation of
global markets that the IFJ believes it would be helpful if
journalists throughout the world were better equipped to appreciate
the differing standards and ethical concerns for their colleagues and
media consumers in other countries and cultures . . .. By sharing
information and experience it should be possible to develop broad
international guidelines that will encourage common approaches to
coverage of stories involving children and exposing child
exploitation in all its forms (Jempson & White, 1997, p. 6)
References
Asahi Shimbun (2004a, 26 October). "Photo of teen deleted from Net
under new rule."
________ (2004b, 12 March). "Kobe killer paroled."
________ (2004c, 28 January). "Poll: 81% say public security crumbling."
Austrian Press Council (1983). Code of Honor of Austrian Press, in
Magic (Media Activities and Good Ideas for Children). New York:
UNICEF. Retrieved February 28, 2005, from
http://www.unicef.org/magic/users/media_guide4.html
British Broadcasting Corporation Producers' Guidelines (2003).
Children and Programmes: Anonymity, and Youth Court Proceedings, in
Magic (Media Activities and Good Ideas for Children). New York:
UNICEF. Retrieved February 28, 2005,
from http://www.unicef.org/magic/users/media_guide4.html
Broadcasting Standards Commission Guidelines on Children, United
Kingdom (2003). Article 32, in Magic (Media Activities and Good Ideas
for Children). New York: UNICEF. Retrieved February 28, 2005, from
http://www.unicef.org/magic/users/media_guide4.html
Carr, B., ed. (2001). Legal Handbook for New York State Journalists.
Albany, NY: New York State Bar Association.
Day, L. (2003). Ethics in Media Communication: Cases & Controversies.
4th Ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
Elliott, Deni (1990). Suffer the Children: Journalists Are Guilty of
Child Misuse, FineLine: The Newsletter on Journalism Ethics. 2:2, May, 1,8.
Fink, C. (1995). Media Ethics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
German Press Council (1994). Article 13, in Magic (Media Activities
and Good Ideas for Children). New York: UNICEF. Retrieved February
28, 2005 from http://www.unicef.org/magic/users/media_guide4.html
Guenther, Alan (1999, 9 May). Tug of War over Access, Gannett New
Jersey Newspaper Group. Retrieved November 12, 2004
from http://www.injersey.com/access/story/1,2331,182665,00.html
Hancock, LynNell (1998). Naming Kid Criminals: Should We Protect
Them? Columbia Journalism Review, July/August, pp. 18-19.
Hubner, J. and Wolfson, J. (1996) Children, Crime and the Media, in
Somebody Else's Children: The Courts, The Kids and The Struggle to
Save America's Troubled Families. New York: Crown. reprinted in The
Children's Beat Newsletter, Casey Journalism Center on Children and
Families, Winter 1997, 2-5.
Ishizuka, Marahiko (2004). Director, Foreign Press Center Japan.
Personal conversation, 22 November.
Iwata, Itsuki (2004). "Sasebo case leaves questions: Family court
ruling does little to explain why a girl, 12, was killed," Yomiuri,
21 September.
Japan Times (2004a, 6 June). "11-year-old killer left cry for help in
poems posted on the Internet."
________ (2004b, 9 September) "Nozawa pushed crackdown on juvenile crime."
Jempson, M. and White, A. (1997) Information and Child's Rights The
Challenge of Media Engagement: International Survey of Journalistic
Standards Establish for Reporting Children's Issues, London: The
Presswise Trust. Retrieved November 12, 2004 from
http://www.mediawise.org.uk/display_page.php?id=127
Kirby, Kathleen (2004). "The Dangers of Covering Kids," Communicator,
58:10, November, 40-43.
Kresnak, J. (2003). Juvenile Justice, in Covering Crime and Justice:
A Guide for Journalists. Criminal Justice Journalists. Retrieved
November 12, 2004 from http://www.reporters.net/cij
Mainichi Shimbun (2000, 4 March). Naming the Killer Teen.
________ (2005, 1 March). Released Killer Gets 4 More Years in Prison
Over Beating.
Martin, Jonathan and Armstrong, Ken (2004, 22 August). "Confounding
murder case tests court system in turmoil," Seattle Times.
McDermid, C. (1998). Labor Governments Push Debate About Naming
Juveniles Facing Charges, World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved
November 12, 2004 from http://wsws.org/news/1998/nov1998/chi-n10.shtml
McDowell, E. (2003, 16 February). Too Young To Identify, But Old
Enough To Arrest, Charleston Post and Courier.
Nakamae, Hiroshi (2004). Staff Writer, Nihon Keizai Shimbun. Personal
conversation, 22 November.
Needs, M. (2003, 2 November). News Choices Spur Dissent, Akron Beacon Journal.
Nihon Shinbun Kyokai (2000). The Canon of Journalism. Retrieved
November 12, 2004 from http://www.pressnet.or.jp/english/index.htm /
Statesman-Journal (1999). Newsroom Ethics Policy. Retrieved November
12, 2004 from http://www.asne.org/ideas/codes/statesmanjournal.htm
Radio Authority Programme Code 2, United Kingdom (1993). Reports on
Young Offenders, in Magic (Media Activities and Good Ideas for
Children). New York: UNICEF. Retrieved February 28, 2005, from
http://www.unicef.org/magic/users/media_guide4.html
Radio Telefis Eireann , and National Union of Journalists, Ireland.
(2003). Guidelines on Children in Broadcasting, in Magic (Media
Activities and Good Ideas for Children). New York: UNICEF. Retrieved
February 28, 2005, from http://www.unicef.org/magic/users/media_guide4.html >
Roanoke Times (2003, 23 December). Newspaper Ethics: Naming Juveniles
in Crime and Court Stories. Retrieved November 12, 2004 from
http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/ethics/ethics26.html
Seto, Jun'ichi (1998). "Juvenile Crime" Foreign Press Center of
Japan. Retrieved November 12, 2004 from http://www.fpcj.jp/e/shiryo/jc/jc.html
Sipe, Kerry (1991). "Everyone Already Knew," FineLine, The Newsletter
on Journalism Ethics. 3:5, May, 2.
Smith, R. (1998). Groping for Ethics in Journalism. 4th Ed. Ames,
Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
Society of Professional Journalists (1996). Code of Ethics. Retrieved
November 12, 2004 from http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp
Takehara, Yukata (2004, 11 November). Japan Today. Retrieved November
12, 2004 from http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=comment&id=672
Thom, Cleland (2004). "Guidelines for Reporting Young People Involved
in Crime," London: Cleland Thom Journalism Training Services.
Retrieved February 28, 2005,
from http://www.mediawise.org.uk/display_page.php?id=642
Tompkins, A. (2000). Ethics: Identifying Juveniles, Poynter Online,
St. Petersburg Florida: Poynter Institute for Media Studies.
Retrieved November 12, 2004, from
http://www.poynteronline.org/content/content_view.asp?id=5555
UNICEF Media Team (2003). Principles for Ethical Reporting on
Children. London: The Presswise Trust. Retrieved February 28, 2005,
from http://www.mediawise.org.uk/display_page.php?id=594
_____ (2004). Journalism Codes From Around the World. Magic (Media
Activities and Good Ideas for Children). Retrieved February 28, 2005,
from http://www.unicef.org/magic/users/media_guide4.html
_____ (2005). The Media and Children's Rights. London: The Presswise
Trust. Retrieved February 28, 2005, from
http://www.mediawise.org.uk/display_page.php?id=125
Wang, Zhenghua (2005). China Daily National News Reporter. Personal
Conversation, 27 January.
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire on Coverage of Juveniles Crime
1. According to your newsroom policy, what is the YOUNGEST age at
which a juvenile charged with a serious crime would be named in a
news story? ___________________.
2. In general, do you agree with your newsroom's policy on naming or
withholding the names of juveniles charged with serious crimes.
a. Yes, I agree. b. Sometimes. It depends on the crime. c. No, I
disagree d. We have no policy. e. I don't know.
3. Do you think there should be a minimum age at which juveniles
would not be named in news coverage, regardless of the crime?
a. Yes, there should be a minimum age. b. No, there should be no
minimum age. (Go to Q 5) c. I don't know.
4. What do you think that minimum age should be for not naming
juveniles, regardless of the crime? _______
5. In considering a newsroom policy about naming of juveniles
involved in serious crime, which of the following list do you think
should be the primary factor?
a. Freedom of the Press b. Privacy Rights of the Juvenile c.
Competition with Other Media
d. Following historic practice e. Following the law f. Policies
set by parent or national media
g. Concerns for Public Safety h. Other (please specify)
_________________________________
The following questions involve a list of factors that might be
involved in a story about a serious juvenile crime. For each one,
please indicate whether, in your own opinion, regardless of newsroom
policy, it SHOULD influence a decision to name the juvenile in the story.
6. The Prominence of the Juvenile. (For example, if he or she is
related to a prominent or public figure.)
a. No influence b. Little Influence c. Some Influence d. Strong
Influence e. I don't know
7. The Prominence of the Victim. (How well known the victim or his or
her family is.)
a. No influence b. Little Influence c. Some Influence d. Strong
Influence e. I don't know
8. The Age of the Victim. (An extremely young victim).
a. No influence b. Little Influence c. Some Influence d. Strong
Influence e. I don't know
9. What if the Juvenile has been named by another news medium?
a. No influence b. Little Influence c. Some Influence d. Strong
Influence e. I don't know
10. The number of victims in the crime (Multiple victims two or more).
a. No influence b. Little Influence c. Some Influence d. Strong
Influence e. I don't know
11. The Setting of the Crime (A Classroom, Schoolyard or Public Place)
a. No influence b. Little Influence c. Some Influence d. Strong
Influence e. I don't know
12. The Level of Brutality or Viciousness of the Crime (Multiple
stabbings, dismemberment, violent beating).
a. No influence b. Little Influence c. Some Influence d. Strong
Influence e. I don't know
The next questions describe serious crimes committed by juveniles.
Please indicate first the likelihood of your news organization naming
the juvenile or juveniles involved, and second, whether in your own
opinion, regardless of newsroom policy, the juvenile or juveniles
should be named.
Two middle school students, 13 and 11, shoot and kill four students
and a teacher, and wound 10 others after setting a false alarm to
lure them into the schoolyard.
13. In my newsroom: 14. In my own opinion:
a. Yes, We would name the juveniles. a. Yes, We should name the juveniles
b. No, we would withhold the names. b. No, We should withhold the names
c. I don't know. c. I don't know
A 14-year old youth stabs an elementary pupil to death, decapitates
him and displays the victim's head on the school gate.
15. In my newsroom: 16. In my own opinion:
a. Yes, We would name the juvenile. a. Yes, We should name the juvenile.
b. No, we would withhold the name. b. No, We should withhold the name.
c. I don't know. c. I don't know
The 16-year old son of a City Councilmember sexually assaults a
10-year old neighbor.
17. In my newsroom: 18. In my own opinion:
a. Yes, We would name the juvenile. a. Yes, We should name the juvenile.
b. No, we would withhold the name. b. No, We should withhold the names.
c. I don't know. c. I don't know.
A 16-year old girl becomes intoxicated, steals a car, and driving at
a high rate of speed, crashes into the car of a family of four,
killing them all
19. In my newsroom: 20. In my own opinion:
a. Yes, We would name the juvenile. a. Yes, We should name the juvenile.
b. No, we would withhold the name. b. No, We should withhold the name.
c. I don't know. c. I don't know.
A 17-year old boy stabs to death a congressman who was making a speech.
21. In my newsroom: 22. In my own opinion:
a. Yes, We would name the juvenile. a. Yes, We should name the juvenile.
b. No, we would withhold the name. b. No, We should withhold the name.
c. I don't know. c. I don't know.
A 17-year old boy hijacks a highway bus and kills one female
passenger and injures 5 others.
23. In my newsroom: 24. In my own opinion:
a. Yes, We would name the juvenile. a. Yes, We should name the juvenile.
b. No, we would withhold the name. b. No, We should withhold the name.
c. I don't know. c. I don't know.
An 11-year old intentionally cuts her 12-year old classmate's throat,
killing her, in school.
25. In my newsroom: 26. In my own opinion:
a. Yes, We would name the juvenile. a. Yes, We should name the juvenile.
b. No, we would withhold the name. b. No, We should withhold the name.
c. I don't know. c. I don't know.
Six boys from 16 to 18 years old abduct a 17-year old high school
girl. They rape and beat her for more than a month. She dies from the
violence and they put her corpse in a drum and fill it with concrete.
27. In my newsroom: 28. In my own opinion:
a. Yes, We would name the juveniles. a. Yes, We should name the juveniles.
b. No, we would withhold the names. b. No, We should withhold the names.
c. I don't know. c. I don't know.
Finally, just a few questions about you:
29. What is your age? ____________
30. Gender a. male b. female
31. What best describes your position in your newsroom?
a. reporter b. sub- or copy editor c. photographer d. editorial
writer e. desk or supervising editor f. senior editor
32. How many years have you worked in journalism? _____________
[1] This study was assisted through a grant from the Hoso-Bunka
Foundation of Japan
[2] In 2003 the National Police Agency changed its rules to allow
the release of names and photos of juvenile suspects 14 or older in
serious crimes, such as murder or rape, if they were still at large
and deemed likely to repeat the crimes. Nihon Shinbun Kyokai allows
the publication of such names and photos if it assists the police in
an open investigation.
[3] An exception, as noted in a case cited in this study, is made
when the offender commits a similar, serious crime as an adult.
[4] Table Notes: Because of rounding errors, not all columns add up
to 100%. DK/na=Don't know/no answer
|
