When should crime victims' names be published?

"R&B star Rihanna is cooperating with investigators building a domestic violence case against her boyfriend, the singer Chris Brown, a police source said Monday," is the opening line in a news story published Tuesday, but it was a story a day earlier that brought questions and, in a few cases, condemnation of The Times.

The issue: Whether The Times should have published Rihanna's name as the accuser in that first-day news story.

As a post on this journal a year ago noted, the consideration on whether to withhold names is usually reserved for cases involving allegations of rape. (From the L.A. Times stylebook: "The Times does not name rape victims in most cases. Any exception to this standard, for whatever reason, must be approved by the editor, the managing editor, the associate editor or the senior editor.")

But the story unfolding over the weekend involved accusations of domestic violence.

Danny Shea, media editor at HuffingtonPost, wrote on his blog, "The Los Angeles Times decided to run Rihanna's name — despite the LAPD's refusal to confirm her identity, citing state laws meant to protect abuse victims' privacy."

A few others who sent e-mails thought that news organizations have a rule to omit victims' names in certain crime stories. Reader Adrienne Archer thought identifying Rihanna was "sleazy": "If Mr. Brown did these things he should be punished but if his girlfriend was his victim (which the LAPD did not confirm) she should not be. But you have done just that."

Kay Hagan of Santa Fe wrote, "You could not have known for certain that Chris Brown's assault victim had not been sexually violated as well as beaten up, since the police were withholding her name."

To the several individuals who have written, California Editor David Lauter has responded with the following note.

"We handled this case the same way that we routinely handle dozens of crime stories each week: When we know the name of a crime victim, we generally report it. The name of the victim in a crime is part of the public record, and reporting it is part of our responsibility to tell the public what the police are doing and why. We don't make a special exception for celebrities. We do make an exception in sexual assault cases, where we generally withhold the names of victims because of the continuing stigma that sexual assault victims can face. In this case, our reporters knew, based on their reporting, that the crime involved was not a sexual assault, and so we reported it."

(An addendum to the conversation: Although the practice of The Times and other news organizations  has been to not publish names of rape victims in most cases, there has long been debate in journalism circles over whether that policy should be reconsidered. Geneva Overholser, now director of the School of Journalism at the USC Annenberg School for Communication, was editor of the Des Moines Register when she wrote an opinion piece in 1989 headlined, "Why hide rapes?")

Comments

[ah]

For as often as the LAT screws up the transition to the digital age, this is a ridiculous controversy. If this story was of interest to you (and honestly, I was not acquainted with either the victim or alleged assailant) you knew who was involved. TMZ, anyone? What the LAT is good at is covering local news and local scandal. The metro reporters have the right sources to authoritatively cover a mayoral infidelity scandal, a Mel Gibson controversy and this sad situation. They were right, followed established protocol, and that's that.

Alternatively, imagine that the victim here was a prominent female politician. Do you think the LAT would be justified in keeping that private? Or, say, the woman that HBO's CEO Chris Albrecht beat the crap out of? She's not even a public figure and we know her identity, along with the identity of another woman Albrecht beat up. No outrage there, just business as usual. Along these lines, I suppose the LAT should have kept secret the identity of the woman Phil Spector is alleged to have murdered?

In this case it's clear-cut: we're talking about people who have made a conscious choice to lead public lives, and with that comes a price. These are not paparazzi tactics -- everything reported is or will be a matter public record, and therefore fair game. Are you suggesting the LAT not cover the trial? Or the cancelled concerts and lost endorsement deals? I don't begrudge the LAT anything for doing a good job reporting the facts. Great work and good choices!

[Kate]

I agree—in fact, I can't understand why anyone would argue that this information should have remained private. Hopefully this terrible situation will highlight that domestic violence remains a real problem for people from all walks of life—rich or poor, young or old.

I wish Rihanna the best and hope that the outpouring of support that she is receiving (a result of her identity being disclosed, incidentally) help speed her recovery.