The name of the boy who took a gun into Memorial Middle School and introduced Joplin to the terrors so many other school districts have faced recently is well known around the school and the community.
But officially, law enforcement sources, citing juvenile confidentiality rules, have not mentioned the name, nor have the Joplin Daily, the Associated Press, KODE or KSNF, as far as I can tell.
The name, however, has been featured prominently in the Joplin Globe and on KOAM. They have an absolute right to name the teen, no doubt about it and it would not have been done if they had not been able to absolutely confirm the youth's identity. Their right to name him is undeniable, but should he have been named?
I can understand why laws are in place to protect juveniles, but this is a case where a youngster may very well have been considering a Columbine-like massacre at Memorial. If the court decides to classify him as a juvenile, this case will forever be stricken from accessible public records.
By naming the youth now, the Globe and KOAM may be taking steps to make sure the name and the case remain, if not in court records, at least in media archives.
At the same time, I cannot argue with the decisions made by the other media outlets, which opted for caution in not printing or broadcasting the teen's name until such time, if it ever occurs, that he is charged as an adult and the name is entered into the public record.
I would love to see Globe Editor Ed Simpson address this issue in his Sunday column. The best way to bridge a relationship between the reader and the newspaper to take the time to explain why editors make the decisions they make.
As for this blog, for the moment I have no intention of printing the shooter's name until such time as he is charged as an adult. Old habits are hard to break.
10 comments:
I am from a state that kids names are made public on any crime they are arrested for. This has a bad side and a good side, sometimes they are juvenile enough to like the thrill of their name in the paper, forgetting that they broke a law and other times it is a good tool to shock them. It is a tough call for anyone deciding whether to print or not, in this case Joplin is a fairly small town so most people would have known in a few days anyway, but that is not right either. Maybe a little time should have passed, in my opinion, he is probably a child in trouble, I can't help but think this was more a cry for help than a revenge incident, but then I do not know him so I am guessing. Either way he needs help, he is a little kid, he needs help not just judgement passed by a scared community, and that is not to say anyone is wrong for being scared and mad at him, it is really hard to see both sides sometimes.
Confidentiality is designated for juveniles who commit juvenile crimes like shoplifting or sticking gum in the locks at school.
Bringing a loaded AK-47 to school and shooting is about as adult as a crime can get. His name should be public.
If he is charged as a juvenile, he should be treated as a juvenile.
Following is a copy from a post on your Blog Mr. Turner that contradicts your current statements made regarding the Joplin teen. You said KOAM was outdated in their actions and priciples. Which is it?
Tuesday, April 25, 2006Naming the accused
The names of five teenagers charged in connection with the alleged Columbine-style plot at Riverton High School were featured prominently in articles in today's Joplin Globe and Kansas City Star.
The names are also featured on the KSNF website.
At the same time, KOAM is only naming the 18-year-old, citing a policy of not naming juveniles in these cases.
This is another one of those knotty problems that face newsrooms When should you name juveniles who are accused of crimes? One simple solution is not name them unless they are charged as adults, but is that truly serving your readers or viewers?
It usually comes down to a newsroom decision as to whether the crime is heinous enough to merit naming juveniles.
In the Riverton case, those favoring naming names have a number of solid reasons on their side:
-We are talking about a Columbine-type plan, even though there appears to be some doubt as to whether these five teens planned to follow through on their threats. (And Riverton school officials did not help by failing to contact the authorities the second they had an inkling of what had been posted on myspace.com. That certainly would give the appearance they did not take the threat seriously. According to Globe reporter Jeff Lehr's weekend story and other reports I have read and heard, the authorities did not become aware of this plot until they were told by a myspace participant in North Carolina.) The gravity of this plot, in an era in which we have been traumatized by Columbine, Santee, Jonesboro, and other school shootings certainly would make this seem like a case that would merit naming the juveniles.
-The public definitely has a right to know. We are talking about a situation in which lives were threatened. This has an effect on everyone in the community, from parents and students to all of the taxpayers who foot the bill for the school.
-Felony charges were filed. This is not a situation in which teens are being charged with vandalism or disturbing the peace. Though the charges fell short of the conspiracy to commit murder originally mentioned, they are nothing to laugh at.
Those who favor not printing or broadcasting the names appear to be relying more on tradition than anything else. There was a time when public policy invariably came down on the side of keeping young people's names a secret. However, with the gravity of some of the crimes that have been committed by teens over the past several years, that thinking is appearing to be more and more out of date.
It is hard to believe that anyone in this day and age, no matter how young that person may be, does not know that there is something horribly wrong in plotting a mass murder.
While I commend KOAM for sticking to its principles, those principles are outdated. The names of the five alleged plotters, Charles New, Robby Hunt, Caleb Byrd, James Tillman and Andrew Jaeger should be mentioned every time new developments occur in this story.
Nice
You are obviously right and I was aware of the earlier post and probably should have referenced it. This is one of those issues that I have major conflicts on due to the two occupations with which I have been involved throughout my adult life. The teacher in me is conflicted because I have seen troubled teens receive breaks, make the most of them and turn their lives around. On the other hand, those teens have been troubled by things like broken homes, drug and alcohol use, and usually minor crimes, nothing of the nature of the Memorial Middle School shooting. I still tend to be protective of students, but at the same time, the journalist in me always had the belief that if keep the names out of the newspaper and off television we are increasing, not decreasing the possibility that more crimes will be committed, simply because the teens are not having to deal with the consequences of their decisions...and one of those consequences should be negative publicity stemming from the acts they have committed.
As far as the Memorial shooting is concerned, I think about what would happen if something similar, God forbid, should ever happen at South. Maybe it says something negative about my nature, but I can't see how I could find any sympathy for the gunman. Charge him as an adult, and make sure the kid never steps foot in any school or in any other public instituation other than a prison for a long, long time.
Randy, are your intrepid correspondents are slacking off?
Name the kid. Name the family. Report every detail you can find. Today, we discovered that the father has a past. What else is in their background? Who else knows something about the case?
There are some who say this family has suffered enough and don’t deserve to be in the papers and on the news. Well, this family through their actions and irresponsibility has brought shame upon our community and threatened the lives of our students and teachers. Vigorous reporting may bring forward more information that authorities may use to prosecute.
The Globe, despite some inaccuracies in the confusing early hours after the incident, is delivering excellent coverage. The upstart Daily is proving itself a solid news operation matching or surpassing the Globe at every new angle. Sadly, the efforts by the broadcast and national media are incomplete and lacking.
Thank goodness the feds are now on the case. They will push for a conviction. Sometimes the local prosecutor seems hamstrung by the blundering of the Joplin keystone cops and his lack of balls.
Do you really:
A. Believe the national broadcast media should be involved in this story?
B. Want the national broadcast media involved in this story?
C. Believe the local broadcast media is going to provide anything that The Globe and Daily cannot?
If you answered yes to any of the above, stopping sniffing glue.
A juvenile's name should not be used.
And who says this kid hasn't been affected by alcohol or drugs or violence. Who knows that?
Something made him go into a school and start shooting.
The media should be consisted. Just because they CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD do something.
The "Globe" should show some professionalism. Wally Kennedy wrote an inspired story, the best of his career that appeared the day after the shooting.
Then they blow it by printing the kid's name. Thanks, "Globe."
And I should spellcheck.
The media should be "consistent."
Ooops.
Post a Comment