Here’s your latest chance to play “So You Want to Be a News Director?”
Earlier this month, reports surfaced that Cottage Grove 14-year-old Angela Tschida was missing, and had possibly run away with a 37-year-old convicted sex offender her mom had dated.
Nearly every media outlet ran with the story and ran Angela’s picture. Normally, you’d take great care with names and photos of a kid, but that call was perfectly reasonable given the girlhunt.
But now that Angela has been found, do you keep running her picture? As one journalist asked me, “Doesn’t that possibly subject her to further and unnecessary attention?”
Newspapers and TV have split on this question, at least where web versions are concerned. The Pioneer Press and Star Tribune aren’t running the photo; all four network TV stations are. (Her image is the top story on KARE11‘s site at the moment. Can’t find anything at all at MPR.) What would you do?
(Update: The Strib ran the photo in Tuesday’s print edition.)
Argument against running the photo: the need to show Angela’s face has passed; treat her like you would any other minor.
Argument for: cat’s out of the bag; her photo’s been everywhere. Even if you wanted to protect the girl, her photo will pop up for any moron with a Google Search.
Follow-up question: now that she has been found, do you stop reporting her name? Same two arguments apply.
I’m in the no photo (starting … now) camp. Don’t see how you can avoid printing the name, given its relatively prominence and necessity in identifying the evolving story.
Assents, demurrals welcome.
I agree on dropping the picture.
Just because her picture will show up in a simple Google search doesn’t mean the media has to participate or further facilitate it.
What, exactly, does continuing to run her picture bring to their story?
I’m not at all compelled by the “cat’s out of the bag” argument.
The question an editor needs to ask is: What is the news value of running the photo *today*? Can you look the child’s mother in the eye and provide an suitable justification for publishing or broadcasting a picture of her daughter?
A few years ago in Spokane, we faced the same dilemma covering the disappearance of a young girl from North Idaho. She was saved from her abductor (who had murdered her younger brother and other family members) when a waitress at a Denny’s recognized her from news coverage and called the police. That’s a pretty strong argument for running photos of missing kids.
Once the child was safe, though, we no longer had a missing person, but a crime victim. There’s a much higher bar for publishing photos of crime victims. Especially kids.
The fact that you can’t go back and erase the internet is a pretty weak rationalization. Do what you can now, starting today, to minimize the additional public exposure this poor girl needs to endure.
Was she abducted?
Is she a “mis-guided youth”?
It seems there are plenty of interesting assumptions on both sides of this “question”.
Even raising the question raises questions.
That being said, I see no real point in continuing to publish her photo.
There is no journalistic reason to run the picture. The basic problem is that TV doesn’t know how to do a story without having something to aim their cameras at.
I can’t think of a valid argument for running the picture. She’s found. She may have gone willingly with the predator, but she is 14, so she is clearly a victim (of bad judgment if nothing else). I doubt if most readers remember the picture and I doubt if many would actually do a Google search to find it.
As two commenters have pointed out, quoting one, “Once the child was safe, though, we no longer had a missing person, but a crime victim.”
An underage crime victim — kidnapping at the very least — of a man with a history of sex crimes.
If he is found, he will surely be charged with at least one crime. There is no point in further running her picture or, depending on the nature of the charges, her name.
We’re still a human society, and our first priority should be the protection of our children. The only reason to run a minor’s photo, IMO, without the permission of the parents, is for the minor’s protection. That is no longer a consideration. By all means, run the photo of the adult who kidnapped her — as well as those of the people in the media who are exploiting a minor.