An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
The girls are African-American from struggling neighborhoods. Would their names be printed if they lived up the street from publisher Margaret Buchanan? How about if the 12 year old had a parent sitting on one of those trustee boards next to "No Conflict of Interest" Maggie?
We do not in Shreveport, unless the minor ends up charged as an adult. Minors named only when they're killed in an accident/homicide or seriously injured in an accident.
Quick, somebody play the race card, Gannett Diversity Initiatives to the rescue!!
When Tom Callinan was editor he was very skittish (rightfully so) about naming minors. The newspaper did that occasionally when the crime was serious such as a rape or homicide. Shoplifting and car chase doesn't seem to up to that level.
Another great call, Carolyn. Now go back to picking out furniture for that "midget crystal palace" monument to yourself.
Read the stories; they're damn good, especially the follow-up. Now be honest: without the names, the stories are not nearly as compelling. Henry Walker
A lot of stories might be more "compelling" if names were published where they're usually not published now. Rape stories, for example, by naming the victim. What limits do you generally favor? And can someone tell us what limits the Cincinnati Enquirer normally imposes on publishing names in crime stories?
This could be a question to "Ask the Enquirer" and give some traction to another Washburn washout. In the weeks since Jim flagged it on this blog, "Ask the Enquirer" is still hearing crickets. Twitter https://twitter.com/asktheenquirerFacebookhttps://www.facebook.com/AskTheCincinnatiEnquirer
Minors stopped being "MINORS" (ie, protected because of age and inexperience):When they realized they could falsely accuse teachers, bus drivers and other adults of assault. When they realized they could get attention by being skanks (Jamie Lynn Spears, Teen Mom, et al) and getting pregnant.When they decided shooting their perceived enemies was easier than turning the other cheek or letting "the system" take care of the problem.The idea that minors over age 12 deserve "protection" in any way other than contract law is as outmoded as the notion that schools ought to give kids the summer off to help their parents on the farm.
Speaking of Washburn's Midget Crystal Palace, word is that it will run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.Seems a bit much because she hasn't done anything since she got there except alienate staff and lay off people.
It's a moot point in my state. You can't get minors' names unless they're charged as adults.
I agree with 1:56 in his or her conclusion that leaving minors unnamed is completely anachronistic, but I disagree with the presumption that a given minor is capable of exercising the same judgment as a mature individual. That said, damned straight: unless a person is a victim of a crime, I think names of those accused should be published. Their friends, family, etc., everyone knows who they are anyway — and a "protected" childhood transgression, if only alleged and then disproven, will still come up in any serious background check later in life.
Is their police blotter outsourced to Journatic? Maybe 35-cent/hour freelancers in the Philippines with no jouro bona fides are compiling it.
Washburn just has to keep up with MB's digs. She remodeled her boardroom to the tune of $80,000 while employees were being perp walked out the door. But of couse that was capital dollars and not true expense, at least that was the way we were all brainwashed to belive.
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe in a reader