All the News That's Fit to Print? - Ethics in Journalism

Recently, in the area where I live, an article about the arrest of a man who sexually assaulted a minor was published in an online newspaper. The man was named, as was the name of his partner who played a horrific role in the assault. Details, disgusting beyond measure, were also published. 

Quickly, the Internet gathered their torches and pitchforks and launched an attack. People commented, sharing social media profiles, physical addresses, and other personal details pertaining to the perpetrators -- and the victim. The child. 

It did not take much effort to piece together who the child was, where they went to school, who they were related to, friends with. The Internet, in my opinion, assaulted this child yet again. Intensely private details of this child's trauma were shared, and then shared again, all in the cause of attacking these terrible criminals. 

Someone very close to me suffered sexual abuse at the hands of someone who should have protected and cared for them. While many people -- even official, important, powerful people -- believed this victim, they chose not to pursue criminal charges against their abuser because of this very reason. They knew that if they would press charges (as the D.A. said they could), it would take a personal trauma and turn it into a very public one. In this person's case, there were circumstances that I won't share here that reassured them that no other children were at risk, so this person decided to move on, despite the horrible accusations slung their way, by members of the own family. 

I've long wondered about the blurry line of journalistic ethics. Every time I see a photo of a car crash, for example, I can't help but think about the victim's families, friends, and loved ones. Yes, we can report that John Smith, age 47 from Greenville, perished in a car accident, but do we need to share a gruesome photo of the wreckage? I know newspapers (online & in print) are desperate to stay afloat, to stay relevant in this digital age, and they are clawing with all they can muster to gain interest, to get those precious subscribers. But are the clicks worth it?

In the scenarios I described above, I have no interest in protecting the depraved criminals who violate the trust and vulnerability of children, destroying their innocence, scarring them for life. But, when we publish these details, in pursuit of bringing justice to light, the children can be traumatized and assaulted all over again. 

I don't know what the answer is, friends. This is a messy and complicated issue, and my heart goes out to the "unidentified minors" out there, whose stories are told without their permission, without their consent. Shouldn't their identities, their healing, their lives be more important than selling a few papers?