New Haven Independent

Posted by: DR | September 18, 2009 11:53 AM

Paul,

I'm in agreement with your decision to not name names unless and until there is a compelling reason to.

Posted by: William Kurtz | September 18, 2009 11:54 AM

Honorable, yes; effective no, given that tabloids, commercial news outlets and gossip mongers typically engage in a race to the bottom to publish every detail. Plus, like I think I said in another thread, journalists should also consider the value in examining how and why people fall under suspicion and investigation. There's a fine line between preserving someone's anonymity, and facilitating secret investigations.

In my view, it would have been appropriate to publish Mr. Clark's name once a warrant was served on his home and his person. Then, the responsible journalist should hold the police accountable for their findings--if they were able to clear someone, they should say so.

Posted by: Edward_H | September 18, 2009 12:48 PM

Stay true to what you think is right. If people want to know the names of every suspect and see pictures of accused hookers and johns there are plenty of other news organizations out there.

Posted by: robn | September 18, 2009 1:25 PM

If someone is arrested and charged, its appropriate to name that person. Before that, theres more than 50/50 chance that the person didn't do the crime and that the release of their name could permanently mar their reputation. Using an excuse that "other media outlets did it already so therefore, it OK" is lame. Thats like saying if a guy chips a hole in a dike and lets water trickle through, it won't make a difference if I and 100's of other people do the same thing.

Posted by: anon | September 18, 2009 2:13 PM

Effective in my mind, considering that I don't pay much attention to commercial news outlets and do not watch television.

It's nice just to get the straight facts and see our community journalists respecting their fellow citizens.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | September 18, 2009 2:30 PM

I would argue that the fact that Clark’s name was connected with the murder is in itself news, and should have been reported.

NHI has a somewhat baffling policy for releasing names. Their crime log section which lists court sentencings (for crime already committed and found guilty) rarely includes the offender’s name, although sometimes it will mention their “street name”.

Posted by: robn | September 18, 2009 4:22 PM

BEEN CALLED WORSE,

You fail to see the difference between reporting facts and reporting the fact that people are spreading rumors? The first is journalism and the second is gossip.

I'll use an old analogy. Take a feather pillow up to East Rock and let loose the feathers over the side of the cliff. Then try to collect the feathers back into the pillow case. Thats whats its like when somebody spreads a rumor about you...nearly impossible to define or contain.

Thank You NHI for upholding a standard that should be followed by international media.

Posted by: Edward_H | September 18, 2009 6:29 PM

By not publishing the names of suspects you won't get yourself all wee-weed up like the rest of the media did in this case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/nyregion/17hofstra.html

Posted by: Been Called Worse | September 18, 2009 9:09 PM

ROBN,

I grasp the difference between fact and gossip quite well, but thanks for the analogy.

I would argue that the fact that Clark’s name was connected with the murder is in itself news, and should have been reported.

Clarks name was in fact linked to the murder. The various other news sources did not pull it out of thin air. At that point in the investigation, he was not named as a suspect, so yes, it was just rumor/gossip. By the rest of the world's media running his name, it becomes news (again not necessarily fact).

Having said that, in this case I understand NHI taking a stand on principle and not releasing the suspects name. Imagining if the DNA evidence was a miss or inconclusive, what a nightmare it would have been for a falsely accused individual.

Having said THAT, I still find the crime roundup section baffling, with reportings from court on guilty pleas/sentences to not report individual's "street names" as opposed to their government names. I have raised this issue at least 5 times in prior postings without receiving an explanation that would allow me to understand the reasoning, and form an opinion on this policy.

Posted by: Hood Rebel | September 19, 2009 1:46 PM

NHI Team,

Great job sticking to principle.

Some of the coverage provided by the runaway national cable news channels and some local media outlets added up to scandalous reporting.
Then they packed up their gargantuan satellite trucks and media gear and raced off, unchallenged, unchecked, and no self-assessment,to add scandal to the next "hot" story.

Posted by: Larz | September 19, 2009 4:34 PM

Your respect for credibility and fairness is outstanding, highly professional.

Posted by: Bill | September 21, 2009 10:04 AM

The police arrest logs are public information and published in many newspapers, whether it's for DUI or murder.