The public have a right to know information, reporters are not in the business of protecting suicidal teenagers but giving information to adults. They should follow that foremost.
Oliver Ortega Chua
· 1 year ago
Of course the public has a right to information. I'm not arguing that. (How about my "right" to know your name?) I'm not arguing against the freedom of the press or for the classifying of information. If a reader really wants to find out their names, the information can be obtained through public records.
For example, when Kobe Bryant was accused of rape, the press withheld the name of the accuser. Of course it was under court order, but it was still public record. I remember it well because Tom Leykis (who is not a member of the press) revealed her name on his radio show.
No, the media is not in the business of "protecting suicidal teenagers." As a business they are in the business of maximizing profits. Unless the person committing suicide is a famous person, naming names does not increase profits one bit.
What I'm arguing against is giving those with suicidal tendencies an incentive to grab their "15 minutes of fame."
I would argue that, as a member of society, the media has a duty to take discretion in protecting society. After all, reporters omit facts all the time. The name isn't pertinent unless, like I mentioned earlier, the person was somehow already famous. If a media outlet can take steps to protect the society at large, they should do it.
Here's what Peter Y. Sussman of the Ethics Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists said regarding naming names:
"We have an obligation to minimize harm, balanced against the need to seek truth and report it... Just because authorities release details in formal court documents does not mean that we are obligated to print them all. Whether we admit it or not, we are always omitting details..."
All Comments
For example, when Kobe Bryant was accused of rape, the press withheld the name of the accuser. Of course it was under court order, but it was still public record. I remember it well because Tom Leykis (who is not a member of the press) revealed her name on his radio show.
No, the media is not in the business of "protecting suicidal teenagers." As a business they are in the business of maximizing profits. Unless the person committing suicide is a famous person, naming names does not increase profits one bit.
What I'm arguing against is giving those with suicidal tendencies an incentive to grab their "15 minutes of fame."
I would argue that, as a member of society, the media has a duty to take discretion in protecting society. After all, reporters omit facts all the time. The name isn't pertinent unless, like I mentioned earlier, the person was somehow already famous. If a media outlet can take steps to protect the society at large, they should do it.
Here's what Peter Y. Sussman of the Ethics Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists said regarding naming names:
"We have an obligation to minimize harm, balanced against the need to seek truth and report it... Just because authorities release details in formal court documents does not mean that we are obligated to print them all. Whether we admit it or not, we are always omitting details..."