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crimes that have been committed by teens over the past several years, that thinking is appearing to be more and more out of date.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.
8 comments:
I agree, and the charges should go back to those originally discussed! I understand that they are "children" who may have been picked on...but what if they had gone through with it?!? I don't live in the Riverton area, but if I did, I would be one irate parent on the courthouse steps. If these young people are not prosecuted to the fullest extent, there is something wrong with our system. The only way to stop these things is to send a message, and this is the time.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
The only reason this story has made such a splash is due to the unfortunate timing of the five kids' arrests. If the so-called plot had been uncovered more than a week on either side of April 20, it would barely be a blip on the media's radar.
It's a nice media circus all 'round.
Originally posted by anonymous:
"What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?"
9-11 happened....now we have Homeland Security! Innocent until proven guilty left with the terroist attacks!
Well I'd like to commend the station that protects the names of the juveniles. The courts, the schools and the government still grant that protection to juveniles, why shouldn't a television station? I say that station probably has the proper principals and there's no real way they can be outdated. It sounds as if they have just decided not to stoop below an integrity level that others have long done away with.
If something was done about the bullying (those who pick on these kids) maybe it wouldn't escalate to a "planned shooting."
I agree with the statement where the bullying may be a contibuting factor in this situation. While bullying is not new to the schools, it is time that teachers and administrators take a hard look at their policies for dealing with this. I know of many instances where they have turned a blind eye at reported cases. The good old days are gone when the worst thing kids had to worry about were getting beat up. The violence has increased and weapons are more readily available to the ones that decide to fight back. One last point, we as parents and society as a whole are letting the kids down. We have allowed the video games to become good babysitters, with a good number of the games being of a very violent nature. It is time that we all take a hard look at what we do to support all kids and help keep them on the right track. Time to put the word "no" back in our decision making with the kids and stick to it.
Post a Comment