Readers walk in editor's shoes for special feature

Throughout the past week, readers have had the opportunity to let us know how they would handle a variety of scenarios, of they were in the shoes of the editors. The Sunday Herald-Tribune posed three scenarios and asked for comments. Below are the questions asked, excerpts of some of the solutions offered by readers, and Sunday Herald Tribune regional editor Lynn Wade's take on the scenario.

Field sobriety dilemma

* Local police conducted a sobriety checkpoint, and you photographed a prominent citizen's family member being given a field sobriety test. The person was not charged, and it's the best-looking photo you have. Can you publish the photo? Should you? Why? why not?

What readers said

Readers on both sides of the state line had a wide variety of opinions on this one.

On the Internet, "kmcr104" said "I wouldn't want people to see my picture when I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do the story but not highlight anyone involved other than the officers trying earn their keep," suggesting using another picture.

"Smoogleboogle" suggested getting permission of the person photographed, and said photos of a sobriety checkpoint wouldn't be newsworthy. Another suggested publishing the photo regardless of the person's connection to a prominent citizen.

"Shorty" said such a photo "shows that the police are not bias. And neither is the editor." Another reader suggested publishing the photo and explain the checkpoint process.

What we would do

It's likely that we would publish the photo. What the police are doing, and who they're doing with, is the public's business. The prominence of the citizen isn't a factor, but we put it in the scenario because oftentimes, people wonder about such things. It's likely that we would pair such a photo with a news story that would explain sobriety checkpoints; and, if sources were available to do so, we'd discuss the value of sobriety checkpoints from more than one point of view. Since the photo would have been taken in public, we would not need the permission of the person in the photo to publish it; however, it would be important to make it clear in the caption that the person was not charged in this case.

Date rape scenario

A sports figure is charged with date rape; do you name the accuser? What if other news outlets have already named the accuser? When is it appropriate to name the accuser in sex crimes? What length should you go to to protect an alleged victim's identity? Should measures extend to the newspaper's Web site and comments on it from the public?

What readers said

One reader, "like2b_onree" said "I would set a default policy of not naming the accuser if they are also the alleged victim, but I would have a set of rules and guidelines governing the use of the accusers name in the rare case that I thought it was important information to provide to the public. Two of the most important rules governing the use of publishing the accusers name would be to make every effort to obtain their permission to do so, and if they are not of legal age it would simply be against our policy to publish their name.

"If other news outlets are publishing the name of the accuser/victim I would not use that as a green light for a Lemming approach to reporting. As an editor our paper would always follow our own code of ethics and established policies and procedures."

This reader went on to say that clearly posted rules and policies would be a good idea on Web sites, too.

What we'd do

We have policies in place already; we don't name the victim in sex crimes except in very rare occasions, especially if the victim is a minor. If the victim is not the accuser, we name the accuser, unless doing so would identify the victim.

We do print the age and city of residence, but never the address of victims. As for the Web site, we reserve the right to monitor and remove any comments deemed objectionable by our staff. We do not edit comments, but if it contains objectionable material, we may remove the entire item.

Murder trial scenario

Your reporter is covering a murder case and writes several pre-trial stories, using testimony at the preliminary hearing and court documents. The judge has issued no restrictions. After two stories have been published, the county prosecutor asks you to tell your reporter to back off on coverage, because the defense attorney has asked for a change of venue, claiming the stories may have prejudicedthe jury pool and that a change of venue would be costly to the county. Do you tell the reporter to back off? Do you let him continue with pre-trial coverage? Please explain your decision.

What readers said

Reader "like2b_onree" said, "The defense attorney is claiming that the two published stories may have damaged the ability of the defendant to get a fair trial. In fact he has officially asked for a change of venue, meaning he believes the damage is already done. It seems the prosecuting attorney wants you to censor yourself for the financial benefit of the county. Both are trying to use your paper to their advantage, while the judge has no official position or opinion of your reporting at all.

"As an editor I would instruct the reporter to continue with this subject unless given a legal moratorium against it."

Web user "kmcr104" said the public has a right to know what's going on but those accused of crimes also have a right to a fair trial. "The reporter could continue to gain information and interviews but wait until the right time to disclose the information," this reader suggests.

What we'd do

For the most part, we agree with "onree." We would continue with normal coverage of the court process related to the crime and information gleaned therein unless ordered by a judge to do otherwise.