3 ms·
It’s actually an open discussion in journalism ethics. Many news organizations won’t name juveniles even in jurisdictions where it is allowed. Other guides wi
by kasey_junk 2y ago
It’s actually an open discussion in journalism ethics.
Many news organizations won’t name juveniles even in jurisdictions where it is allowed.
Other guides will be based on the nature of the crime.
Most wire services for instance now don’t name suspects for “minor crimes”. Here is the ap announcement on the topic: https://www.ap.org/the-definitive-source/behind-the-news/why-were-no-longer-naming-suspects-in-minor-crime-stories/ https://www.ap.org/the-definitive-source/behind-the-news/why...
Note that their argument tends to be around the biasing impact on the persons life. As they are unlikely to follow up on the criminal outcome there won’t be a chance to clear the persons name.
In this case I think Krebs is on solid ground as it’s a) not a minor crime b) he can later follow up.
But it’s certainly not an area that is black & white.
- tptacek 2y agoRight, sorry, I was (correctly, right?) assuming this wasn't a minor.
- simoncion 2y agoYes, correctly. The article reports that the fellow is 20, and that the reporter talked to the fellow's mother. It seems very unlikely that Krebs fucked up and the fellow is actually 17. (He couldn't be any younger than that because he wouldn't have been able to enlist.)
- kasey_junk 2y agoJust to be clear, the minor crimes announcement I linked to wasn’t about crimes by minors, it was about the seriousness of the crime. I confusingly talked about both. My broader point was that the norm is changing in the us towards not naming suspects. And there are ethics conversations around this in the industry. But I think krebs is on solid footing for this particular case. He’s well within the norm.