New Haven Independent

Posted by: Rev. Samuel T. Ross-Lee | October 26, 2009 7:49 AM

What is the journalistic value of photographically identifying this kid in this story?

If he is/was trying to protect the reality of his situation from his classmates, as the story states, that's been ruined by thoughtlessly putting his face out there like that.

VERY insensitive if you ask me.

Posted by: Paul Bass | October 26, 2009 8:35 AM

Thank you for that comment. This is a tough question for us. Our reporter spent a while with the families and the woman working with them to discuss how they would be presented in the article. That included who wanted pictures taken, who didn't, and how.

We waited several days to publish the story, during which time they or the professional working with them could have contacted us if they'd changed their minds.

It is important to us that homeless people have a face and a name when they choose to, rather than being hidden. And we understood Lateef's and his mother's comments as meaning that they didn't want to have to hide, and they're trying to figure out how to deal with that. They are seeking not to be embarrassed or to feel the need to be embarrassed.

All that said, I think you raise an important and humane point. Journalists have to take extra care in presenting information from people who don't have a professional stake in dealing with the press.

Politicians and public relations people have lots of experience in dealing with reporters. So it's not taking advantage of them to include information or photographs they volunteer to give, even if that ends up embarrassing them (as long as we didn't set out to embarrass them).

We do have an extra responsibility to people who lead more private lives and haven't asked to be featured in the news. Those judgment calls end up being trickier.

In the end, we do try to trust people, to give them the benefit of the doubt for being able to make their own decisions, rather than try to go overboard in "protecting" them from themselves. We want to be sensitive. We don't want to be paternalistic.

What do other readers think?

Posted by: Norton Street | October 26, 2009 9:39 AM

"He said he has lots of friends at school, but they don’t know where he lives, and he doesn’t plan to tell them. “It’s embarrassing,” he said."

What's embarassing is the number of jobs we've exported to India and China so that our corporations can make obscene profits at the expense of our workers, the places we live and ultimately everyone's quality of life.

Posted by: robn | October 26, 2009 9:39 AM

I think that a story like this wouldn't be glamorous enough for the front page of the Reg. Thanks NHI for giving us news about our community.

Posted by: streever | October 26, 2009 9:47 AM

Reading the comment, I could see the Reverend's point, but knowing Melinda & the NHI I felt confident that the appropriate permission was given.

Posted by: lucky to have a home | October 26, 2009 9:53 AM

I'm curious if Lateef (and his Mom) were asked if they minded his pic was published and if he knew what that really meant. I thought the same as Rev. Lee when I read the article.

I just think its a sad state that we are one of the wealthiest states in the wealthiest nations and have such a high homelessness rate. I just can't figure it out anymore...

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | October 26, 2009 10:06 AM

Check this website they may be able to help.

http://www.naehcy.org/

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | October 26, 2009 10:29 AM

Rev. Samuel T. Ross-Lee

How come the Black Church Pulls in 420 Billion a year. Yet we have these type of problems in the comunity.

http://streetknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/special-report-where-is-the-420-billion-dollars-given-to-black-churches/

Posted by: Norton Street | October 26, 2009 11:16 AM

Lucky to have a home,
I used to find it truly puzzling that large sections of this city's neighborhoods are delapidated, crime rates were high, unemployment were high when, like you said, "we are one of the wealthiest states (second to Jersey?) in the wealthiest nations". Obviously there must be something wrong with how we've accumulated our wealth, how we spend and invest our wealth, and how we've distributed our wealth.
We have accumulated our wealth by changing what we veiw as wealth. We have stopped using social capital as a way to show our wealth and instead only focused on paper (and more recently electronic) capital. Instead of having a dense fabirc that connects people in our environments, we have instead opted for sprawling landscapes of big box stores, enormous insurance companies, and gigantic corporate offices that funnel money to a few distant owners while neglecting to reinvest in the communities that provide their profits. We are such a wealthy country because we have individual citizens who have astronomical amounts of money. We are not a country defined by a culturally and socially rich populace, we are a country defined by an elite group of super rich, a class of people who have "made it" and have proceeded to pull the ladder up with them as to ensure that the rest of the country does not make it past "lab rat" status. If our public spaces, our physical environment, the places we inhabit is any indication our of status, then we are truly a impoverished nation. We can circulate money all we want to, but without large, long term investing into permanance then all we will continue to have is a richly broken country. Our cities, the places were culture is born, grown and experienced, are burning and have been for 50 years.
We spend and invest our wealth is temporary material things. Recreational shopping has replaced meaning investments if people, places and ideas. Does anybody know why our historic government buildings look Greek and Roman? It's because we wanted to express permanence, rigity, solidity and power by using a long lasting, strong and impressive architecture. The giant glass towers we now erect show how little we care about our future and this reflects where our country has been trying to go for the last 50 years.
I can't even say we distribute our wealth. Throwing money at poor people does nothing. Investments must be made into environments in order to uplift people. If there aren't enough jobs, isn't enough good housing, aren't safe streets, aren't shopping options, aren't transpotation options, then there aren't enough things to motivate an impoverished population. Our big companies aren't making our environments pleasant to be in. But we are not better, we fill our homes with TVs, collectable plates, electronics, teddy bears, tons of plastic toys and somehow wonder why our public spaces, outside our homes are crappy.

Is the giant shopping center that recently opened in North Haven really a good investment? Is it pleasant to inhabit? Are there transportation options? Is it walkable? Is there diversity in building types and uses? Is there ample green space to provide relief from the built environment? ... How is it that the corner lot at Winthrop and Whalley is still vacant? What is it that we, as a population, are doing that makes our environment so worthless yet our country so wealthy?

Posted by: Anothermother | October 26, 2009 3:03 PM

Is Lateef eligible for the TAG (Talented & Gifted)enrichment program? Sounds like he might be; he and his mom should ask at school. It's only an hour a week at best, but might meet him where he is. It would be a bummer if this smart kid was slowed down by his arrival in NHPS.

It would also worth asking about scholarship opportunities at the private schools. Go for it, Lateef!

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | October 26, 2009 3:39 PM

Norton Street

I agree with you. In fact I always ask this question.How come people are hanging on pay check to pay check and These people are still the wealthiest people in this country.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/30/forbes-400-gates-buffett-wealth-rich-list-09_land.html

This is happen here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/nyregion/15housing.html?_r=1&hpw

Posted by: fingers | October 26, 2009 7:17 PM

We had a student who was alone in a shelter. She bused in from Waterbury every day to attend a New Haven school. There are no kids' shelters in New Haven.

Posted by: Hood Rebel | October 27, 2009 2:23 AM

This is a an important story highlighting the realities of families in our community and the sad situations too many children endure.

However this child's picture should never have been shown. Even if the child thought it was cool to do so, clearly the family is in crisis. Was this really a good time to ask a family coping in this tragic situation to make such a decision?

Posted by: Milton | October 27, 2009 4:35 AM

Verta Douglas is my cousin. We reconnected via Facebook, thanks to another cousin. What she mentioned in this article was the same thing she told me about 2 months ago. Of course there's more to the story, but this is spot-on. She also told me how gifted my lil' cousin Lateef was. Pray for the both of them, as well as the other family in this story.

Posted by: Rev. Samuel T. Ross-Lee | October 27, 2009 7:02 AM

Bass wrote: "It is important to us that homeless people have a face and a name when they choose to, rather than being hidden. And we understood Lateef's and his mother's comments as meaning that they didn't want to have to hide..."

Exactly what statement from this young kid or his mother helped you to understand that he wanted his picture plastered on the internet when you reported in the first paragraph, no doubt, that they have used subterfuge to conceal the fact that they are homeless in the first place?

Your explanation here reveals more about what YOU wanted to do than it does what this family desired for itself, its privacy and ultimately its dignity.

Not WANTING to "have to hide" is not the same thing as not NEEDING to hide.

Finally, the fact that you choose to use interpretation to come to the decision to print the picture reveals that you probably didn't ask them outright, which would have given them explicit control over the decision, thus making the decision subject to your subjective will and not their explicit desire. If that's not paternalistic, I don't know what is.

[Editor's Note: We did ask them outright if we could use their photos in the story, and they said yes. The other family chose not to have their faces photographed. The choice was theirs. We trusted them to make it.]

Posted by: Rev. Samuel T. Ross-Lee | October 27, 2009 8:59 AM

[Editor's Note: We did ask them outright if we could use their photos in the story, and they said yes. The other family chose not to have their faces photographed. The choice was theirs. We trusted them to make it.]

Who is the "them" that you asked? And the use of the picture in that moment belies the fact that this kid has tried to conceal his situation at school where both you and I know, kids can be cruel in their treatment of anyone who is perceived as "different" in any way from the norm.

What you choose is what you thought was in your best interest, as you are often using photos of Af-Am. in your stories in ways that tend to belittle them. Now that is my interpretation.

Posted by: Delia | October 27, 2009 11:19 AM

Actually it was Anthony who had said it was embarrassing to have to tell his friends that he lived in a shelter. Anthony was the boy who's face is not shown.

Let's be fair. Part of the reason companies outsource has to do with the high taxes and all sorts of fees and other expenses businesses have to pay in order to do business here. The American business has to compete globally with other businesses that do not have to pay the same wages, pay the same taxes, follow the same regulations, etc., etc. that businesses here do. I do support such regulations that require businesses to operate cleanly (think air, water and soil quality) so don't get me wrong. I also want a fair wage for a fair day's work. I understand also, that some smaller businesses that are trying to grow can't have their products manufactured here because other businesses (making the same category of product) before them have already moved overseas and they can't find a manufacturer in the states that can produce the same good here at a competitive price and so that business struggles. You can believe me or not but my husband has just such a business with that problem. We can pretend every problem we have as a society is because of someone else, the big business or 'the bad guy of choice' but in reality it is not a simple problem. Some of our current problems are because government encouraged/required lending institutions to loan money to people who were not capable of paying back that money -- whether they bit off more than they could chew or didn't make a downpayment (and therefore have no equity right off the bat) they defaulted on their loan and the rest of us are paying for it. Setting people up to fail with mortgages they cannot pay is not helping them.

I worked hard since I was 12 to provide for myself and became one of these teenagers in the story at 17, 2 years before I graduated from high school so I know how hard it is. I was one of the lucky ones and in my home state there was a program that my school put me in touch with and they provided some assistance for me until I graduated from high school - but during that time I still worked 7 days a week while in school full-time. If it wasn't for that program I might not have succeeded as well as I have (I went on to put myself through college and also finished graduate school in '06 and I have a professional job and a modest home that I can afford). I am now 32.

Posted by: Jim Blunt | October 27, 2009 11:28 AM

My understanding of the NHI's policy towards publishing the names of suspected criminal is that it does not do so as a general rule.

With such a high moral reporting standard towards suspected criminals, I am honestly shocked that the NHI would use the name and photo of a vulnerable minor, with a vulnerable mother in its reporting. Their permission has nothing to do with the fact that they have been exploited in this article. GOOD journalism provides many creative methods of conveying difficulty, evoking empathy, etc. without having to use the name and photo of a minor whose reputation and wellbeing is at risk by doing so.

"Lateef doesn’t know what to tell friends at school who ask where he lives. Mom said to tell them he lives with his aunt. But he can’t invite them over."

How will he feel if his friends read this article? The above statement alone should have been enough reason to leave his photo and name out of the article. As I have already said, I am shocked and offended that the NHI chose to publish the name and photo of a vulnerable 6th grader. Whether Lateef or his mother gave permission, a good reporter would have been more sensitive and found a creative and equally impacting way of telling the story without exploiting a vulnerable sixth grade boy.

Paul Bass, why do you work so hard to respect the identities of those who have been accused of, and are likely guilty of, criminal activity, yet you will allow a vulnerable young boy's name, photo, school, grade and sensitive/potentially humiliating living situation to be published for all of his friends to see.

Perhaps the NHI's new slogan should be:

Protect the criminal! Exploit the vulnerable!

Posted by: Jim Blunt | October 27, 2009 12:25 PM

Delia, you need to re-read the article. you are wrong.

"Lateef doesn’t know what to tell friends at school who ask where he lives. Mom said to tell them he lives with his aunt. But he can’t invite them over."

Posted by: fearless | October 27, 2009 12:59 PM

I disagree big-time with publishing the photo of this student. I believe that this is typical journalistic sensationalism, exploiting the kid/family who do not realize what is going on and think that photos of the kid actually will help them. The photos will only hurt the kid with his peers, once the kid tells his peers" hey, my picture is in the newspaper." NHI doesnt get the taunting and harassing that will follow this kid." HEY HOMELESS, YOU LIVE UNDER A BRIDGE, YOU EAT AT THE SOUP KITCHEN, YOU DONT BATHE, ETC,ETC." NHI doesnt get that? I find that hard to believe.

Lets face the facts. all media, will exploit anyone, including children /families who dont realize what is happening, to get a story.

Paul, if you embarrass them, you embarrass them. You cant say 'WE DIDNT MEAN TO"! You cant have it both ways! You dont want to be paternalistic? You dont want to go overboard to protect them from themselves? How about exploiting a kid who will get hammered by his peers once they get a hold of this story? YOU DIDNT THINK OF THAT? My sense is that you SHOULD have been more paternalistic and gone overboard to protect a victim, a kid, from continuing to be victimized, which he will long after this story is gone from print. You think kids forget?

Posted by: concerned parent | October 30, 2009 4:23 PM

i think its in the best intrest of both mom and child to be seen and heard than hide behind the scene, things should be more open to people in this situation, they have the programs for them but cant qualify cause of no income, that should not be the case, surely to say this woman and child is seeking for a place to live and decent paying job to get them by. Its a shame that there is no such thing as second chance in this rich state called CONNECTICUT..

Posted by: JimbBlunt | November 3, 2009 12:46 PM

Um... Concerned Parent, are you serious? CT is by definition a "welfare state." ANYONE who wants a handout in CT gets one. As a matter of fact, those who start receiving welfare are NOT helped to develop skills, find employment and move past their difficulties. On the contrary, CT is guilty of oppressing minorities through multi-generational welfare dependence.

Secondly, would you want your child's name, age, school and face published in the context of potentially humiliating circumstances for all of his/her friends to see... especially if your child made clear to you how embarrassed he/she was and scared for friends to find out. Lateef made his feelings very clear.

Your perspective is completely out of touch with the very real racial and socio-economic segregation and oppression that defines New Haven.