David Newhouse rips NYT for Victim 1 story

Have to say I agree with him. I was reading the nyt story and asking myself why some of the details were needed. They did everything but name the kid under the front of "we will not reveal his actual name."

http://mobile.pennlive.com/advpesn/pm_29239/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=l1MHBFJC

 

For those not using their phones: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/a_patriot-news_statement_on_re.html

The Patriot-News has done a fantastic job on this case, but this is at least the second time they've defended their coverage with a bit of prickliness toward national media and a feeling of extreme paranoia. That's off-putting. Stop saying "our coverage is better than theirs" and be content that, for the most part, you're coverage is better than theirs.

 

It does seem like a lame thing to do -- the local paper whining about the "media frenzy" and specifically about the New York Times, which has and underlying "we're with you!" message to the readership that I don't much like.

And having said that... yeah, sounds like the NYT screwed that one up. There's a lot more to legitimately protecting someone's identity in a sex crime case than merely withholding the name.

 

Yeah, I thought that as soon as I read the story. Ticked me off too. Irresponsible. I'm glad someone called them out on it, though he could have made the point just as easily without having to point out "hey, we could have done all this and didn't." He could have made that point a little more subtly -- and definitely didn't need to put the Google line in there; that doesn't help -- but, still, glad to see someone call them on that.

It was an interesting profile, but they overstepped. There really wasn't anywhere near the level of anonymity there needed to be there.

 

Versatile: I respectfully disagree. I read the Newhouse item and came away with the impression that he is pissed that the Times straddled/crossed a line that shouldn't be straddled/crossed regarding the ID of the child.

I understand the feeling and didn't like the Times' piece for that reason. It was as if the editors, in an attempt to one-up the competition, ignored a bright line.

And FWIW: I noticed something on Twitter the other day, from a Times writer, linking a particular story on the subject and touting it as the best reporting to date on the topic.

THAT sales pitch made me squirm.