|
Names in the News: A study of journalistic decision-making in regard
to the naming of crime victims
Michelle Johnson
School of Communications
Box 353740
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-3740
(206) 543-7999
email: [log in to unmask]
This is a student paper. Please enter it in the MacDougall
competition.
Names in the News: A study of journalistic decision-making in regard
to the naming of crime victims
Several studies have documented a trend of journalists using fewer
names of crime victims, but few have looked at how journalists decide whether or
not to use victims' names. This study looks at journalists' decision-making
process and finds most journalists have standard practices they probably follow
with relatively little thought. However, they are willing to consider many
variables, including the effect of identification on victims, and are probably
becoming less routinized and more sensitive in their decision-making.
Names in the News
Names in the News: A study of journalistic decision-making in regard
to the naming of crime victims
Finding a theoretical framework for studying journalists'
decision-making in regard to ethical problems can be frustrating for scholars.
In most studies, the data have shown that journalists do not follow any kind of
procedure that conforms to classical models of ethical decision-making. After
attempting to categorize editors' decision-making process in regard to naming
rape victims, one researcher concluded:
. . . editors do not seem to play favorites with
ethical theories. If an argument supports their current
practice, they
embrace it as a good argument. If it does not, they reject it.
This
practice-oriented approach to justifying their opinions is
probably
typical of journalists who have not been educated in formal
ethical
theory, and we presume most have not.[1]
This conclusion, however, does not do justice to journalists'
decision-making process. Few people who have not been trained in classical
ethics can outline a procedure for decision-making that is clearly utilitarian,
Kantian or otherwise formally structured. Henry Aiken suggests that discussions
of ethical decision-making that pit one system against another are, in fact,
fairly useless.
AIKEN'S LEVELS OF MORAL DISCOURSE
Instead, Aiken suggests analyzing ethical decision-making according
to the depth of thought given to the issue.[2] He outlines four levels of
thought at which people may make decisions. First, there is the expressive
level. Here, people instinctively evaluate things as good or bad. In many
cases, these assessments are adequate; they establish personal preferences.
At the next level, people make decisions based on moral rules.
They begin to address the question of what is right or what should be done.
They may decide to tell the truth because it is the right thing to do. In many
cases, these rules are so ingrained in people's minds, the course of action
requires little conscious thought.
Aiken says most people stop their decision-making process at the
level of moral rules. However, more complex problems sometimes force them to
ask whether the course of action suggested by a particular moral rule is in fact
the right one to take. "It may be that the moral rules conflict, or that a
consistent adherence to them would result in general inconvenience or suffering.
It may be that they run too persistently against the grain of human need or
inclination."[3] In these cases, people move to an ethical level of
decision-making in which they reevaluate their moral rules and attempt to
determine why a particular course of action is the right one.
Finally, Aiken says, people may move to a post-ethical level,
where they begin to ask why they should be moral or why they should do the right
thing. For some people, such as Kant, the answer to this is given. Every
rational being is assumed to recognize moral rules and to question them is to go
beyond the bounds of reason.[4] But for others, the questions of the
post-ethical level are compelling. For example, Aiken says, existentialists
work at this level because they consider themselves only bound by moral rules
for as long as they choose to be.
LEVELS OF DISCOURSE IN JOURNALISTIC DECISION-MAKING
Scholars such as Louis Hodges and Robert Steele have adapted
Aiken's levels of discourse in teaching ethics to journalists.[5] Steele's
model addresses three levels of discourse: gut reaction, which is similar to the
expressive level; rule obedience, which is adherence to moral or professional
rules; and reasoned thinking, which combines the ethical and post-ethical
levels. This study will use Steele's framework to examine journalists'
decision-making process in regard to naming crime victims.
Scholars have found evidence of journalists making decisions at the
gut level, or based on their initial instincts.[6] In an examination of
journalists' decision-making process in covering a suicide recorded on film,
Patrick Parsons and William Smith found that most journalists gave little
thought to how they would use the film. Most considered no alternatives to the
course of action they took.[7] Given that most journalists produced similar
coverage of the event, Parsons and Smith suggested that standards on how to
present graphic events were so well established that most journalists did not
have to think about what to do. The "correct" choice was ingrained in them.
While it appears that journalists reacted instinctively in this case, it may be
that they can only rely on these "gut reactions" in clear-cut situations where
there is no question about what rules prevail.
An ethical dilemma in which there are clear-cut answers, however,
is almost an oxymoron. Researchers have found that journalists often consider
several moral rules relevant to their dilemmas, and in fact, Parsons and Smith
noted the influence of journalistic norms on journalists' "gut" decisions.[8]
In a study on journalists' motives for making decisions, Singletary et al. found
most journalists are concerned with "credibility with the audience, the public's
need to know, and standards of their colleagues and employer, and of their
field."[9] The inclusion of various groups' standards on this list suggests
journalists acknowledge guidelines or codes of behavior that they should follow.
Some researchers say the prevailing moral rule in modern journalism
is the maintenance of objectivity.[10] Rilla Dean Mills found that when
journalists talked about ethical decisions, they most often talked about
circumstances in which they were asked to do something that might inhibit their
ability to be objective, such as taking gifts, being involved in community
activities or having business investments in certain areas. They also talked
about biases on their part or on the part of management that might influence how
they wrote particular stories. Mills concluded that for most journalists: ". .
. ethics were viewed as questions of adherence to a rather narrowly defined
code
of professional behavior."[11]
But other researchers have uncovered evidence of journalists
engaging in reasoned decision-making.[12] Steele found that photojournalists
used a variety of methods for making decisions. Often, they tried to put
themselves in their subjects' shoes or consider the consequences of their
actions. They also applied their personal ethics and standards within their
field. In summarizing photojournalists' decision-making process, Steele said:
They are generally individuals who have strong
feelings about journalistic ethics and they often enunciate
their
ethical values quite clearly. At the same time, once they put
that
camera on their shoulder, they are forced to balance their
personal
ethics with the competing values of their working environment.
The
forces of competition, peer pressure, organization and
management
expectations, production aesthetics, and journalistic norms
make that
value balancing a dilemma.[13]
MAKING DECISIONS ON IDENTIFICATION
During the 1980s and early 1990s, researchers documented a trend in
news organizations using fewer names and addresses of victims in their
stories.[14] This was particularly true in the case of sex-crime victims, which
96 percent of newspaper editors said they would not identify in 1988.[15]
However, at the same time that journalists were reporting using fewer names and
addresses, they said they were making more decisions about using those names and
addresses on a case-by-case basis. As a result, a 1990 study found that only 41
percent of newspaper editors had a hard-and-fast rule to never use rape victims'
names.[16] These studies indicate that journalists may be moving from an era of
rule obedienceD"we name rape victims" or "we don't name rape victims"Dto one of
reasoned decision-making in regard to the identification of crime victims.
The authors of these studies suggest journalists may have been
motivated to change their approach to the identification of crime victims
because of dissatisfaction on the part of the public. Journalists feared
members of the public would seek legislation limiting their access to
information if they did not show more sensitivity toward victims.[17] Input by
victims' advocates, increased sensitivity toward victims and awareness of
community standards also may have influenced journalists' decision-making.
While the studies of the past two decades did a good job of
describing standardsDand the changes in standardsDwithin the journalistic
community, they do not shed much light on why journalists do what they do and
how they make decisions to do that. Thomason and LaRocque found that
journalists who are concerned with the public's right to know are more likely to
use victims' names, and those who are concerned with victims' privacy are less
likely to do so.[18] This difference begins to explain journalists' decisions,
but it doesn't illustrate the level of thought journalists are engaging in.
They may be following a moral rule, such as "I have a duty to include all
information the public has a right to know," or they may be evaluating several
different factors and deciding the public's right to know outweighs all the
others, including potential harm to the victim.
This study fills a hole in the literature by showing the level of
thought journalists engage in when deciding whether or not to name crime
victims. It distinguishes between journalists who are making decisions
reflexively, trapped, as Steele would say, by rule obedience, and those who are
trying to make reasoned, defensible decisions. In addition, it takes a first
step at measuring the complexity of journalists' decision-making process by
examining the number of factors journalists consider and the weight they give to
each factor. Unlike previous researchers, I have not given attention to the
result of journalists' decision-makingDthe means of identification used or not
used in particular situationsDbecause the issue was not what they would do but
how they would decide to do it. There may be many satisfactoryDeven
rightDdecisions in a particular situation. For me, the question was whether or
not journalists were putting a significant amount of effort into making a
satisfactory decision.
METHOD
A telephone survey was conducted of journalists at all state
newspapers and television stations during February 1996. All mainstream, daily
newspapers and television stations with news departments were included in the
sample.[19] In addition, 39 weekly newspapers were selected in the following
manner: the largest weekly in each of the state's counties was chosen from a
list of weekly newspapers provided by the state Newspaper Publishers
Association. Four counties did not appear to have a weekly newspaper so one was
substituted from a nearby county. Obviously, this is not a random sample. It
is a purposive sample, designed to yield information about standards and
decision-making at the state's most influential news organizations.
At the newspapers, interviews were conducted with the city editor
or the staff member designated by others as most appropriate. At the weeklies,
respondents' exact job titles varied considerably; they included editor,
managing editor, news editor, city editor or some other variation thereof. In
some cases, the publisher also served as editor.
At television stations, interviews were conducted with the news
director except in two cases. In one case, an interview was done with a news
producer, and in another a public relations director was interviewed after it
was determined that he was familiar with the news operations of the station and
the news director and producers could not be reached.
RESPONSE RATE
In total, 79 news organizations were contacted, and 72 interviews
were completed, yielding a response rate of 91 percent. The response rate for
television stations was 71 percent as contact could not be made with news
directors at four stations even after more than five attempts. The response
rate for daily newspapers was 96 percent, with one editor declining to be
interviewed. The response rate for weekly newspapers was 95 percent. One
editor declined to be interviewed, and at another newspaper, the editor's
position was temporarily vacant. To replace those two newspapers, two more
weeklies were chosen from the same area, so that of 41 weeklies contacted,
interviews were completed at 39.
Looking at the respondents as a whole, 49 percent were from weekly
newspapers. Five percent were from semi-weekly newspapers.[20] Thirty-two
percent worked at daily newspapers, and 14 percent worked at television
stations.
Most of the newspapers were small, community-oriented
organizations. Fifty-five percent had a circulation of less than 10,000.
Twenty-one percent had a circulation of 10,000 to 24,999. Sixteen percent had a
circulation of 25,000 to 50,000 and 8 percent had a circulation of more than
50,000.
The television stations served population areas of 77,000 to
2,000,000 people. Seventy percent served population areas of less than
1,000,000 people. The average population size was 712,170 people.
RESULTS
Most editors and television news directors decide whether or not to
name crime victims on a case-by-case basis. However, editors of daily
newspapers are less likely to make decisions on a case-by-case basis than are
editors of weekly newspapers or television news directors (See Table 1).
Sixty-one percent of the editors at daily newspapers said they make case-by-case
decisions on whether to use victims' names. In contrast, 87 percent of weekly
editors and all the television news directors said they do.[21]
Editors at daily newspapers may be more likely to rely on a policy
in making decisions about naming crime victims because they have more staff
members to supervise. Twenty-nine percent of the news organizations in this
study had one person covering crime part-time or in addition to other duties.
Six percent had one person covering crime full-time. The other news
organizations had more than one person covering crime. Daily newspapers were
much more likely than weekly newspapers to have more than one person covering
crime (Table 2). However, they weren't more likely than television stations to
have multiple people covering crime, so staff size cannot explain the difference
between daily newspapers and television stations in their use of a policy on
naming crime victims.
THE INFLUENCE OF POLICY
News organizations that rely on policies in making decisions.
Looking at the 14 news organizations that rely on a policy to determine whether
or not they will name victims, one can see there is no standard in the industry
(See Table 3). Two respondents said they name victims of all crimes.[22] Four
usually do not name victims of any crime. The others name victims of some crimes
but not others. Five will not name victims of sex crimes. Two will not name
victims who are juveniles.
News organizations with established policies. While only 19
percent of the respondents said they rely primarily on their policies to make
decisions about naming crime victims, 47 percent work at news organizations that
have policies on the issue. Again, daily newspapers are more likely to have
formal policies than weekly newspapers or television stations (See Table 4).
Most of the policies outlined by respondents dealt with juveniles
or sex-crime victims. Thirty-five percent of the policies prohibited the naming
of juveniles, and they usually included juvenile suspects and victims.
Sixty-two percent prohibited the naming of sex-crime victims, although a few
allowed identification if the victim filed a civil suit.
A handful of news organizations had policies that were based on
reasons for withholding victims' names. One news organization had a policy that
calls for respect for victims' privacy. Three had policies that said victims
should not be named if there was a threat to their safety.
COMMON PRACTICES
While less than half of the respondents have policies on naming
victims, a majority have some guidelines they follow. Sixty percent said there
are crimes for which they would always name the victim. Seventy-eight percent
said there are crimes for which they would never name the victim.
Using victims' names. When asked to name the crimes for which they
would always use victims' names in stories, most journalists cited murder (See
Table 5). Thirty-eight news organizations say they use murder victims' names.
For half of those news organizations, it is the only crime for which they will
always name the victim. Twelve news organizations name victims of all serious
felonies, and four said they usually name victims of all crimes except sex
crimes. Four news organizations name victims of property crimes or identify
them by their address.
Reasons for using victims' names. Most journalists have reasons
for using particular victims' names, although the depth of thought in their
answers varies greatly. When asked why her newspaper used particular victims'
names, one editor listed five reasons: the names are of interest to readers;
they make the story more complete; people may know the victim; the accused needs
to face his or her accuser; and it seems fair to name all parties involved in
the incident. In contrast, four respondents could give not explain why they
named victims. Nearly 80 percent of the respondents who said they always use
the names of some crime victims gave one or two reasons for using those names.
The most common reason journalists gave for naming a victim was
that the victim was dead (See Table 6). There seems to be a sense among
journalists that reporting deaths in the community is part of their job.
Several editors noted that deaths affect other community members who need to
make mourning arrangements or who may want to offer comfort to the victims'
families. Also, a few journalists said murder victims cannot be harmed by
having their names in the newspaper. Unlike living people, they cannot be
embarrassed or re-victimized, and from a practical standpoint, they can't sue
for invasion of privacy or libel.
Other journalists said the public should be informed about serious
crimes regardless of whether or not they resulted in a death. These journalists
said people want to know about these crimes, and they have a right to know about
them. These responses indicate journalists are most likely to name crime
victims when they see a community need for the name to be known or some social
good resulting from the act. They either think victims will not be harmed by
identification, or they think the good of the community in these instances
outweighs any harm to the victims.
Withholding victims' names. When asked to name the crimes for
which they would never use victims' names, most respondents cited sex crimes
(See Table 7). This is not surprising given the extensive discussion about
naming rape victims within the journalistic community. Of the 49 respondents who
said they would not name victims of sex crimes, 45 specifically said they would
not name rape victims. Thirty-two others specifically said they would not name
victims of child molestation.
Journalists seem to be most concerned about victims of so-called
unspeakable crimes.[23] In addition to sex crimes, respondents were most likely
to say they would not name victims of child abuse or domestic violence. They
also showed an inclination to withhold the names of suicides and juvenile
victims of any crime.
Reasons for withholding victims' names. Again, most journalists
seemed to have given some thought to why they do not name victims of these
crimes. Only two could not articulate a reason for it. Most could give one or
two reasons, and one-fifth provided three reasons.
Most commonly, journalists said they do not name victims of a
particular crime because they do not want to embarrass them or subject them to
some kind of social stigma (See Table 8). Not surprisingly, respondents almost
always gave this reason when explaining why they do not name victims of sex
crimes. Journalists were also quick to cite privacy as a reason for not naming
sex-crime victims. Their use of phrases such as "the private nature of the
crime" or "It's a privacy issue" indicates they see a fundamental difference
between being a victim of a sex crime and being a victim of other crimes.
Generally, they did not cite privacy as a reason for not using the names of
victims of non-sex crimes, although a few did mention privacy as a reason for
not naming juvenile victims.
The second most common reason journalists gave for not using
victims' names was a desire to protect them from further harm. In a few cases,
respondents specifically mentioned protecting victims from further physical
harm, but often it was unclear whether they were referring to physical or
emotional harm. They tended to use phrases such as "it might victimize them
further," "I don't want to re-victimize them," "to protect the victim" and "the
victim could be further hurt."
Some respondents cited social norms as a justification for not
naming victims of particular crimes. Ten named journalistic tradition as a
reason for not naming victims, usually victims of sex crimes, and three said
naming victims of certain crimes would violate their communities' standards.
COMMUNITY INFLUENCE
Respondents seemed to be fairly well informed in regard to
standards within their communities.[24] Seventy-two percent had discussed their
policy or practices for naming crime victims with community members.
Thirty-nine percent had discussed the issue with victims' advocates, and many of
those who hadn't indicated the primary reason for this was the absence of a
victims' advocacy organization in their community. Nearly all the journalists
had discussed their policy with law enforcement agents. Seventy-five percent
had talked to police, and 59 percent had talked to a district attorney or local
prosecutor.
Influence of police. As a result of their discussions with
community members, law enforcement agents and other journalists, 34 percent of
the respondents said they had made changes in their policy or practices.
Further analysis showed that discussions with police were most likely to result
in change (See Table 9). Forty percent of the news organizations that had
engaged in discussions with police made some kind of change in their policy or
practices, while only 8 percent of those who had not talked with police did.
Making changes in policy or practices was not significantly related to
discussing the issue with other journalists, district attorneys, victims
advocates or community members in general.
Types of changes made. Of the respondents who made changes in
their policy or practices, 10 made a specific change in policy, and seven said
they had become generally more sensitive in their use of victims' names. Four
had made exceptions to their normal practice or policy in specific cases but had
not changed their standard practices or policies.
The specific changes news organizations made were diverse. One
newspaper stopped using victims' names until after the case had been decided in
court. Another stopped using the names of child and sexual abuse victims.
Somewhat similarly, one newspaper began using the generic term sex crime instead
of words like rape, incest or molestation because the specific word could
identify the victim by age or relationship to the perpetrator. In contrast,
another newspaper began using the term incest whereas it hadn't before because
staff members feared unintentionally identifying the victim.
Talking about changes made at his newspaper, one editor said: "In
general, I think the trend is to be very deferential to crime victims and to try
to protect them."
MAKING DECISIONS
The decision process many journalists use in deciding whether or
not to use victims' names is fairly complicated. When given 11 items they might
consider in deciding whether to use a victim's name, respondents on average said
six of those items would be important or very important to them in making their
decision (See the list of factors in Table 11). If one includes items they said
would be somewhat important to them in making their decision, then the average
number of factors they consider increases to eight. In addition, 25 percent of
the respondents volunteered an additional factor they would consider in deciding
whether or not to use victims' names. Most often, they said they would consider
possible interference with a police investigation or a possible threat to the
victim.
The existence of a policy, or even reliance on one, was not related
to the number of factors journalists considered in making a decision.
Respondents who relied on a policy to make decisions considered as many other
factors as did those who made decisions on a case-by-case basis. They did say
they would give more weight to a policy than did those who made decisions on a
case-by-case basis, but the difference between the groups was not statistically
significant.[25]
However, respondents who had more involved decision-making
processes, that is those who considered more factors, were less likely adhere to
absolute guidelines and seemed to be more protective of victims' identities.
The more factors respondents considered, the less likely they were to say there
were crimes for which they would always name the victim (See Table 10). At the
same time, the number of factors respondents considered was not related to their
likelihood to say there were crimes for which they would never name the victim.
Therefore, it seems that as journalists begin to think more about naming victims
and include more factors in their decision-making process, they become less
likely to routinely name victims of crime.
Journalists' decision-making process seems to become more
routinized the longer they are in the field. There is negative correlation of
moderate strength between the number of years journalists have worked in news
and the number of factors they consider in deciding whether or not to name crime
victims (r= -.25, p<.05). There is a stronger correlation between the number of
years journalists have worked in their present job and the number of factors
they consider (r= -.30, p<.01). Therefore, changing jobs seems to have a
mitigating influence on how routinized journalists become.[26] Of course, one
could argue that as journalists spend more time in the field, they become better
at identifying key issues that will cause problems for their news organizations
or for victims, and that while their decision-making process becomes more
routinized, it also becomes more efficient.
Weight given to factors in journalists' decision-making process.
The most important factor for journalists in this study was whether or not the
victim's family had been told of the crime (See Table 11). Sixty-seven percent
of the respondents said family notification would be very important to them in
making their decision. Another 14 percent said it would be important. Most
respondents indicated it was important because in cases of death they did not
want to publish victims' names until family members had been told. However,
there were differences between news organizations in the amount of weight they
gave to family notification. Journalists at television stations placed more
importance on family notification than did those at weekly newspapers.[27] This
difference may be due to the length of the organizations' news cycle.
Television stations gather news continuously and broadcast every couple hours.
It's quite likely that they may have a report of a death before police can find
all of the victim's immediate family. With daily newspapers, there is less of a
risk of publication before family have been notified, but it's still a
possibility, particularly when deaths occur near the papers' deadlines. But by
the time weekly newspapers go to press, it's almost certain family members will
have been notified. Therefore, editors at weekly newspapers have less reason to
worry that family members will learn about the death from the newspaper.
The second most important factor for respondents was the kind of
crime. Forty-three percent said it would be very important to them in making
their decision, and 38 percent said it would be important. In their comments,
journalists generally indicated the kind of crime was important because if it
was a sex crime, they would not use the victims' names.
The third most important factor was the age of the victim.
Forty-two percent of the respondents said that was very important to them, and
another 26 percent said it was important. Respondents usually remarked that
they would not use the name of minor victims or that they would be more cautious
in using the names of minor victims.
Journalists also found the source of the victim's name to be
important. Seventy-two percent said it was very important or important to them
where the name came from. Many said they would not use a victim's name unless
police confirmed it. However, 13 percent said getting the name from the police
rather than an unofficial source would not make a difference to them when they
were deciding whether to use the name. One editor said that as long as the name
came from a source she trusted, she did not need to confirm it with police.
Fifty-one percent of the respondents said a formal policy
established by their newspaper would be very important to them in deciding
whether or not to use a victim's name. Another 31 percent rated it important or
somewhat important. However, 41 percent of those who said a policy was at least
somewhat important worked at news organizations that don't have a formal policy.
A few explained this inconsistency by saying that if their news organization had
a formal policy, it would be important to them in making a decision. It's worth
noting that there were significant differences between news organizations in the
importance journalists assigned to a formal policy.[28] Not surprisingly,
journalists at daily newspapers, which were more likely to have formal policies,
said a policy would be more important to them than did journalists at television
stations or weekly newspapers.
Fifty-six percent of the respondents said how well-known the victim
was within their community would be important or very important to them. There
were significant differences between news organizations, however.[29]
Television news directors found this factor to be much more important than did
editors of weekly newspapers. Editors at daily newspapers fell in the middle in
their estimation of the importance of celebrity. It's likely that this factor
is more important to television news directors because they can transmit less
news overall due to time constraints, and so the news they do carry must
interest as many people as possible. Generally, people are more interested when
a "known" person is a victim than when an "unknown" is. Newspapers carry more
news and can afford to give publicity to crimes involving people who are not
well-known. In addition, several weekly newspaper editors remarked that in
their small communities everyone knows everyone else so even people who have no
claim to celebrity are in fact well-known. Weekly newspaper editors may be more
likely to treat victims equally since they all have some degree of name
recognition within their community.
Respondents also differed over the importance of a request by the
victim not to use his or her name. Overall, 35 percent of the respondents said
a request by the victim would be important or very important. But television
news directors placed much more importance on a request than did weekly
newspaper editors.[30] The reason for this difference between news
organizations is unclear. Three-fourths of the respondents had received
requests from victims not to use their names, and in those cases, 77 percent
left out the victims' names in at least some instances. Twenty-nine percent
left the name out of their stories whenever they received requests from victims.
But television news directors were no more likely to heed victims' requests than
were newspaper editors regardless of the amount of importance they said they put
on those requests.
THE VALUE OF THE NAME
Most news organizations in this study did not carry a lot of crime
news. Fifty-six percent carried less than three local crime stories per
broadcast or issue.[31] Only 3 percent carried more than six local crime
stories per broadcast or issue. In regard to the crime news they did report, 85
percent of respondents could see some value in including victims' names. Most
commonly, they said people in the community might know the victim and want to
know he or she had been hurt. Alternatively, they said, community members might
want to know that no one they knew was the victim (See Table 12). Journalists
in large communities were just as likely to mention this as those in small ones.
Most of the value journalists saw in publishing or broadcasting
victims' names came from the potential benefit to the community. They mentioned
raising awareness of crime, making victimization seem more real, helping people
to assess their own risk and allowing people to reach out to each other. Some
also saw a benefit in satisfying the public's curiosity.
A couple reasons journalists gave for naming victims seemed to deal
more with their concepts of their duties than any immediate benefit to the
public. They said victims' names made stories more complete and provided a
public record of the crime. However, they could not elaborate and explain why
these things were important to the public.
CONCLUSION
As in other studies, most journalists said they decide whether or
not to use crime victims' names on a case-by-case basis. However, there still
seems to be a fair amount of rule obedience involved in their decision-making.
Many have policies to which they give at least some consideration, and most
outlined crimes for which they would or wouldn't name victims. While these
guidelines are informal, they may be just as influential as formal policies.
Philip Meyer says journalists' unwritten rules of behavior often influence them
more than formal codes or policies because they are "often unconscious" and
"difficult to describe and analyze" and deal with in a reasoned manner.[32]
A certain amount of rule obedience may be necessary in journalism,
where decisions sometimes have to be made quickly. If managers can outline
rules for their reporters to follow in run-of-the-mill cases, they decrease the
overall number of conversations they must have with reporters and can focus on
those situations that need a lot of thought. A majority of respondents in this
study said they discuss whether or not to name a crime victim with their
reporters in regard to a few, exceptional stories.[33] In most cases, they rely
on their reporters to know how to deal with victim identification.
Far more important to me are indications that on at least some
occasions journalists are engaging in a fairly substantial amount of thought in
regard to how they will identify victims in the news. They are willing to
consider a variety of factors, including the type of crime, family notification
and the victim's age, that may alert them to possible embarrassment or trauma on
the part of the victim or survivors. They also are willing to consider the
social good, as evidenced by a reluctance to interfere with police
investigations or to expose the victim to further threats.
There does seem to be a presumption of publication, however.
Respondents were able to give more reasonsDand in my opinion better reasonsDwhen
asked why they would not name victims of certain crimes than they were when
asked why they would name victims of other crimes. This indicates that many
probably assume they should include victims' names in stories and, as a result,
have engaged in a questioning of standards and motives primarily to justify not
naming victims. If one assumes victims' names should be included in stories
about crime, there is no real reason to justify that action, and indeed, a
noticeable number of respondents relied on pat answers, such as "people want to
know," "the public's right to know" and "the victim is dead so people need to
know," to justify their actions.
Their responses to the question of why don't they name victims of
certain crimes seemed more thoughtful and sensitive. They showed a desire to
protect people from further harm, a respect for people's dignity and privacy and
a respect for community standards. Many of the phrases respondents used in
explaining why they don't name victims of particular crimes mirrored arguments
in the literature on naming rape victims. The journalistic community's
discussion about the identification of rape victims seems to have sensitized its
members to the effect their work has on victims generally. In contrast to other
recent studies, this one did not find near unanimity in journalists saying they
would not name rape victims, but I think that is also a reflection of continued
discussion about the issue. In recent years, more and more journalists have
argued that not naming rape victims perpetuates the stigma attached to the
crime.
Like Thomason and LaRocque, I think some of journalists' concern
about how to identify crime victims stems from a fear of censorship. In
particular, I think they are concerned about decreased access to crime reports.
Most of the respondents in this study said police had withheld victims' names
from their reporters on at least some occasions, and discussions with police
were likely to result in a change in policy or practice at news organizations
while discussions with other groups of people weren't. My sense is that
journalists are willing to self-censor to some degree so that police will not
feel the need to censor by restricting access.
Finally, I would like to address the issue of how the discussion
about naming crime victims has been framed in communications and legal
literature. Often, scholars tend to focus on either the public's right to know
or victim's right to privacy or a perceived clash between the two. I don't
think this is an accurate portrayal of how journalists approach the issue.
Certainly some do, and some toss around the phrase "public's right to know" like
some kind of magic formula. But when asked what value a victims' name has for
readers or viewers, many respondents gave answers that indicated they were
concerned with a need to know as opposed to a right to know.
My sense is that the language of journalists is changing, and
perhaps with it, the standards and goals. Many journalists still talk about
informing the public, presenting information in a complete and accurate form and
fulfilling the public's right to know. These phrases fit into a kind of
old-school model of journalism in which journalists' duty was to provide as much
information as accurately as possible. What the public did or didn't do with
that information was not the journalists' responsibility. But quite a few
journalistsDat least in this studyDseemed concerned with the effects of their
work. They talked about the possible effects on victims and the public, and
they seemed aware that members of the community, including victims and police,
held them responsible for those effects. Their answers implied a recognition of
social responsibility. I think the criticism leveled at journalists in recent
years may have forced themDor at least some of themDto rethink their purpose and
their role in their communities.
TABLES
Table 1: Method of decision making by type of news organization (in
percent)
Weekly newspapers
n=39
Daily newspapers
n=23
Television stations
n=10
Decide on case-by-case basis
87.2
60.9
100
Follow a policy
12.8
39.1
0
Total
100
100
100
x2=9.20, df= 2, p<.01
Table 2: Number of staff members covering crime by type of news
organization
(in percent)
Weekly newspaper
n=39
Daily newspaper
n=23
Television station
n=10
One person
51.3
17.4
10
More than one person
48.7
82.6
90
100
100
100
x2=10.46, df=2, p<.01
Table 3: Policies of news organizations on naming crime victims
Policy
Number of news organizations
Percent of news organizations outlining a policy
Name all victims
2
14.3
Name no victims
4
28.6
Name all except those of sex crimes
4
28.6
Name all except juveniles
1
7.1
Name all except juveniles and sex crime victims
1
7.1
Have a procedure based on the type of crime
2
14.3
14
100.0
Table 4: Establishment of formal policy by type of news
organization (in percent)
Weekly newspaper n=39
Daily newspaper
n=23
Television station
n=10
Formal policy
35.9
78.3
30.0
No formal policy
64.1
21.7
70.0
100
100
100
x2=12.00, df=2, p<.01
Table 5: Crimes in which the victim is always named by number of
news organizations following that practice[34]
Type of crime
Number of news organizations
n=42
News organizations as percent of those who always name victims of
some crimes
All crimes
1
2.3
All crimes except sex crimes (including murder)
4
9.5
All serious crimes/felonies (including murder)
12
28.6
Murder
21
50.0
Property crimes
4
9.5
42
99.9
Table 6: Most common reasons why journalists always name victims of
certain crimes by percent of respondents
Reason for naming victims
Number of news organizations
n=42
News organizations as percent of those who always name victims of
some crimes
The person is dead. (Given in regard to murder)
12
28.6
The crime is serious.
10
23.8
People want to know.
8
19.0
There is a public right to know.
5
11.9
It's an element of the story.
4
9.5
The crime affects a lot of people. (Given in regard to crimes where
a life is taken.)
3
7.1
People may know the victim.
2
4.8
44
104.7
Table 7: Crimes in which the victim is never named by number of news
organizations following that practice
Type of crime[35]
Number of news organizations
n=56
News organizations as percent of those who never name victims of
some crimes
Sex crimes (including rape and child molestation)
49
87.5
Child abuse
4
7.1
Domestic violence
3
5.4
Suicides
2
3.6
Minor, less serious crimes
3
5.4
61
109.0
Table 8: Most common reasons why journalists never name victims of
certain crimes by percent of respondents
Reason for not naming victims
Number of news organizations
n=56
News organizations as percent of those who never name victims of
some crimes
May subject them to social stigma or embarrassment.
27
48.2
Desire to protect them from further physical or emotional harm.
17
30.4
Privacy issue.
12
21.4
Journalistic tradition.
10
17.9
No need for people to know name.
8
14.3
Age of victim.
6
10.7
Naming would violate community standards.
3
5.4
Victims might not report crime if names were published.
2
3.6
85
151.9
Table 9: Percent of news organizations making changes in their
policy or practices by whether or not they discussed naming crime victims with
police
Talked with police
Had not talked with police
n=
Made changes in policy/practices
95.5
4.5
22
Had not made changes in policy/practices
74.4
25.6
43
x2=4.28, df=1, p<.05
Table 10: Practice for naming crime victims by degree of thought
given to issue by respondents (in percent)
Journalists considering few factors
n=14
Journalists considering an average number of factors
n=45
Journalists considering many factors
n=9
Will always name victims of some crimes
78.6
62.2
25
No standard rule for naming victims
21.4
37.8
75
100
100
100
x2=8.15, df=2, p<.05
Table 11: Weight respondents place on different factors in deciding
whether or not to use victims' names
Average score on scale of importance
(Maximum possible=5; Minimum possible=1)
Whether the victim's family had been told about the crime.
4.31
The kind of crime.
4.08
Whether the victim is a minor.
3.90
Whether the name came from the police or an unofficial source.
3.88
A policy established by your news organization.
3.86
How well-known the victim was in the community.
3.40
Whether the victim was alive.
3.35
Whether the crime was one in a series.
3.03
A request by the victim not to use his/her name.
2.96
Whether a suspect had been arrested.
2.78
Another news organization in the area using the victim's name.
2.13
Table 12: Reasons victims' names add value to news stories by the
percent of respondents[36]
Percent of respondents citing reason
Viewers or readers may know victim.
37.5
Makes the story more complete.
30.6
Makes the victim seem more real, less like a statistic.
20.8
Name satisfies people's curiosity.
15.3
Name helps locate the victim geographically or demographically so
people can assess their own risk.
15.3
Name helps raise awareness of crime in the community.
13.9
People may be inspired to reach out and offer support to the victim.
11.1
It provides a public record of the crime, particularly in the case
of death.
8.3
152.8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aiken, Henry David. Reason and Conduct. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1962.
Hausman, Carl. The Decision-Making Process in Journalism.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1990.
Hayes, Dona. "Local Television Coverage: Ethics and Decision
Making." American Behavioral Scientist 35 (1991): 166-180.
Herman, Judith Lewis. Trauma and Recovery. New York:
BasicBooks, 1992.
"Many editors agree on how to report rapes." Editor and
Publisher, 22 January 1983, 2.
Merrill, John C. "Is Ethical Journalism Simply Objective
Reporting?" Journalism Quarterly 62 (1985): 391-393.
Philip Meyer. Ethical Journalism. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 1987.
Mills, Rilla Dean. "Newspaper Ethics: A Qualitative Study."
Journalism Quarterly 60 (1983): 589-594, 602.
Oukrop, Carol E. "Views of Newspaper Gatekeepers on Rape and
Rape Coverage." Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas,
1982.
Photocopy.
Parsons, Patrick R. and William E. Smith. "R. Budd Dwyer: A
Case Study in Newsroom Decision Making." Journal of Mass Media
Ethics 3
(1988): 84-94.
Singletary, Michael W.; Susan Caudill; Edward Caudill; and
Allen White. "Motives for Ethical Decision-Making." Journalism
Quarterly
67 (1990): 964-972.
Steele, Robert M. "Video Ethics: The Dilemma of Value
Balancing." Journal of Mass Media Ethics 2 (1987): 7-17.
Thomason, Tommy and Paul LaRocque. "Newspaper Identification
of Crime Victims: Editors Change Address Policies." Paper
presented to
the Newspaper Division at the national convention of the
Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Minneapolis,
Minn.,
August 1990.
Thomason, Tommy and Paul LaRocque. "Television and Crime
Coverage: A comparison of the attitudes of news directors and
victim
advocates." Paper presented to the Radio-TV Journalism Division
at the
national convention of the Association for Education in
Journalism and
Mass Communication, Boston, Mass., August 1991.
Williams, Russell B. "Ethical Reasoning in Television News:
Privacy and AIDS Testing." Journal of Mass Media Ethics 10
(1995):
109-120.
Winch, Samuel P. "On naming rape victims: How editors stand
on the issue." Paper presented to the Commission on the Status
of Women
at the national convention of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, Mass., August 1991.
Wolf, Rita; Tommy Thomason; and Paul LaRocque. "The Right to
Know vs. the Right of Privacy: Newspaper Identification of
Crime
Victims." Journalism Quarterly 64 (1987): 503-507.
[1] Samuel P. Winch, "On naming rape victims: How editors stand
on the issue" (paper presented to the Commission on the Status of Women at the
national convention of Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Boston, Mass., August 1991), 8.
[2] Henry David Aiken, Reason and Conduct (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1962), 65-87.
[3] Ibid., 75.
[4] Ibid., 83.
[5] Steele adapted his model from Hodges' teaching which draws on
Aiken's work. Bob Steele, personal correspondence with author, March 19, 1996.
[6] For example, see Carl Hausman, The Decision-Making Process in
Journalism (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1990), 4, 99; Dona Hayes, "Local
Television Coverage: Ethics and Decision Making," American Behavioral Scientist
35 (1991): 178.
[7] Patrick R. Parsons and William E. Smith, "R. Budd Dwyer: A
Case Study in Newsroom Decision Making," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 3 (1988):
88-89.
[8] Parsons and Smith, 92.
[9] Michael W. Singletary, Susan Caudill, Edward Caudill and
Allen White, "Motives for Ethical Decision-Making," Journalism Quarterly 67
(1990): 972.
[10] Rilla Dean Mills, "Newspaper Ethics: A Qualitative Study,"
Journalism Quarterly 60 (1983): 589-594; John C. Merrill, "Is Ethical
Journalism Simply Objective Reporting?" Journalism Quarterly 62 (1985):
391-393.
[11] Mills, 594.
[12] Robert M. Steele, "Video Ethics: The Dilemma of Value
Balancing," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 2 (1987): 7-17; Russell B. Williams,
"Ethical Reasoning in Television News: Privacy and AIDS Testing," Journal of
Mass Media Ethics 10 (1995): 118.
[13] Steele, 16-17.
[14] Tommy Thomason and Paul LaRocque, "Television and Crime
Coverage: A Comparison of the Attitudes of News Directors and Victim Advocates"
(paper presented to the Radio-TV Journalism Division at the annual convention of
the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston,
August 1991); Winch, "On naming rape victims: How editors stand on the issue";
Tommy Thomason and Paul LaRocque, "Newspaper Identification of Crime Victims:
Editors Change Address Policies" (paper presented to the Newspaper Division at
the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Minneapolis, August 1990); Rita Wolf, Tommy Thomason and Paul
LaRocque, "The Right to Know vs. the Right of Privacy: Newspaper Identification
of Crime Victims," Journalism Quarterly 64 (1987): 503-507; Carol Oukrop,
"Views of Newspaper Gatekeepers on Rape and Rape Coverage" (Kansas State
University, Manhattan, Kansas, 1982, photocopy); "Many editors agree on how to
report rapes," Editor and Publisher, 22 January 1983, 2.
[15] Thomason and LaRocque, "Newspaper Identification of Crime
Victims: Editors Change Address Policies," 6.
[16] Winch, 6.
[17] Thomason and LaRocque, "Newspaper Identification of Crime
Victims: Editors Change Address Policies," 7; Thomason and LaRocque, "Television
and Crime Coverage: A Comparison of the Attitudes of News Directors and Victim
Advocates," 6.
[18] Wolf, Thomason and LaRocque, 506-507; Thomason and LaRocque,
"Newspaper Identification of Crime Victims: Editors Change Address Policies," 9.
[19] The sample included 24 daily newspapers and 14 television
stations. One daily newspaper was not included because it only covers business.
[20] For the purposes of analysis, these newspapers were grouped
with the weeklies.
[21] Further analysis showed no relationship between newspapers'
circulation size, and their likelihood to make decisions on a case-by-case
basis. However, weekly newspapers had significantly smaller circulation sizes.
Ninety-five percent of the weeklies had a circulation of less than 25,000, while
only 43 percent of the dailies did (x2=20.84, p<.001).
[22] This result was surprising and may be misleading. All news
reports on the subject that I have found say only one newspaper in the state
regularly names victims of all crimes, including sex crimes. Therefore, I
expected only one newspaper to fall into this category. However, comments made
by editors at some of the small weeklies indicated that when they think about
naming crime victims, they don't think about victims of violent crimes, such as
rape or murder, because they have few of those crimes in their areas. For
example, one editor said there has been only one murder and no rapes reported in
his circulation area during the 18 years he has worked at the paper. I believe
the response of the second of these two newspaper editors to this question is
due to this kind of situation. The editor has a policy of naming victims of all
crimes that occur in his area, but it's likely that he hasn't dealt with a story
about a sex crime.
[23] Among others, Judith Herman has used this term. Judith
Lewis Herman, Trauma and Recovery (New York: BasicBooks, 1992), 1.
[24] In addition, they seemed well informed about standards
within the journalistic community. Sixty-one percent had discussed the issue of
naming crime victims with journalists employed by other news organizations.
[25] Respondents who relied on a policy to make decisions gave it
an average score of 4.29 on a five-point scale of importance, while those who
made decisions on a case-by-case basis gave policy an average score of 3.76.
F=1.47, p<.23.
[26] The number of years journalists have worked in the field is
tightly correlated to the number of years they have worked at their present job
(r=.58, p<.01).
[27] F=4.20, p<.05. The mean scores on the scale of importance
for the three groups were: television stations, 4.90; daily newspapers, 4.46;
and weekly newspapers, 3.78. Using Scheffe's test, one finds the means for
television stations are significantly different from that of weekly newspapers
at the p<.05 level.
[28] F=4.36, p<.05. The means for the three groups were:
television stations, 3.70; daily newspapers, 4.57; and weekly newspapers, 3.48.
Using Scheffe's test, one finds the mean for daily newspapers to be different
from that of weekly newspapers at the p<.05 level.
[29] F=3.46, p<.05. The means for the three groups were:
television stations, 4.30; daily newspapers, 3.69; and weekly newspapers, 3.00.
Using Duncan's multiple range test, one finds the mean for television stations
to be different from that of weekly newspapers at the p<.05 level.
[30] F=3.63, p<.05. The means for the three groups were:
television stations, 4.00; daily newspapers, 2.83; and weekly newspapers, 2.77.
Using Scheffe's test, one finds the mean for television stations to be different
from that of weekly newspapers at the p<.05 level.
[31] For newspapers, stories were defined as articles of more
than three column inches. Some newspapers run news briefs or shorts about crime
in addition to bylined stories.
[32] Philip Meyer, Ethical Journalism (Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 1987), 17.
[33] Twenty-two percent said they discuss it in regard to all
stories, and 8 percent said they discuss it in regard to many stories. Seven
percent have no discussions, and in one case no discussion was possible because
the editor was the entire reporting staff.
[34] In Tables 5 through 8, percentages may add up to more than
100 because respondents were able to list more than one crime or reason.
[35] Ten news organizations, or 17.9 percent, also do not name
child victims of any crime.
[36] Respondents could give an unlimited number of reasons. The
number given ranged from zero to five, with an average of 1.63.
|
