Kristof scenarios

The three hypothetical scenarios described in Nicholas Kristof's August 27, 2008 column are all quite thought-provoking. It's a tough call, but if I were the reporter in those situations, I would not write a story on any of them. My stance on crime and scandal cases is that no names should be reported unless/until someone is arrested. This is a higher bar than most media outlets currently have, but there have been too many times when newspapers or local TV news have reported on people under suspicion for a crime and questioned by law enforcement but later found to be falsely accused or uninvolved. Many lives and reputations have been needlessly damaged by the spotlight of attention placed on people accused of wrongdoing or "alleged" to have done something improper that later turns out to be unwarranted.

The first scenario, of foreign-born men apparently planning to poison a water supply, is the one most tempting to report, since there might have been a major public-health crisis. However, it is presently at the stage of police questioning the men. If the interrogation led the police to arrest the men, then I would definitely write a story and check more into the men's background. For the possible suspect in the Ramsey child murder, there has been so many red herrings and dead ends since that case came to light that I would be very wary about reporting a new suspect because it would very likely become a "feeding frenzy". In the case of a high-school basketball coach accused of sexual misconduct, that's also be one I'd initially want to write about, but again, unless and until there are credible accusations from players at the current school, it does not merit being reported in my view.

The pleading from the lawyer, wife, and coach in each situation is quite understandable, but in general should not be the deciding factor on whether to report a story that could put an accused person in the media fishbowl. In these scenarios, their protests are not the deciding factor in my decisions. Rather, I feel that it should be a basic guideline for reporters that they refrain from naming people being questioned by police or accused of past indiscretions, because that naming nearly always leads to speculation and assumed guilt by other media outlets and by many readers/viewers of those stories. To me, it's a basic and appropriate use of the prior-restraint principle.