Editorial Decision: Omit #40's Name from the Story?

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/Cheap-shot-foul-on-dunk-temporarily-paralyzes-In?urn=highschool-329815

I have my opinion but as editor, would you include or omit the kid's (#40 - commits the foul) name from the story?

 

Took me 10 seconds via Teh Google to find out #40's name. Don't know how leaving it out, especially on an article with video that shows him, serves any purpose.

 

I don't have a problem with it either way. It is relevant, especially after reading the Kokomo story where it said there was some chippiness just before that. On the other hand, you can tell what happened (as Indy did) by just saying "he was pushed from behind."
If I were to inject morality into the decision, I say absolutely you include it. That foul was as intentional as it gets. No. 40, if he wasn't trying to injure the guy, had to know that it wouldn't end well. That sort of action ought to have consequences, and getting your name published in the paper as a basketball goon should be the least of them.

 

Any writer who would not name the goon, or any editor who would suggest not naming him, shouldn't be in the business.

 

For you radio and TV types, Peru High School is not pah-roo, but PEE-roo.

 

For something like that, you need to run the kid's name.

 

Of course you name him. How can you write a story all about a "cheap shot" and not name the kid?

 

You absolutely have to run the name.

 

In this Rivals story, it's especially bad.

I can understand a game story if you mention that a player was hurt after being fouled while dunking and not naming the player.

But when your whole item is about what a cheap shot this is, you are being a punk by not running the name.

From the look on the kid's face, it didn't appear that he was trying to make a cheap shot, more that by the time he got there the kid was halfway up to the basket so he went ahead and pushed him but was too low.

 

Looks to me like the writer left the kid's name out so he could call it a cheap shot, but it also looks like it's more of a straight news story than an opinion piece. Me, I'd leave out the term cheap shot and keep the kid's name in there. Now, if you have the injured kid's dad or coach calling the foul a cheap shot, that's different, but I think the writer should just stick to the facts, which can easily be done without using evaluative terms.

 

Not only do you have to put the kid's name, but I think you need to do follow-up stories on what happens to him. Is he suspended? Kicked off the team? How is he being treated? Has he apologized? Is he talking at all? Etc.

That was flagrant enough that the news is only the victim in the short term. Once we know he's OK, the story turns to the other guy and the repercussions for him. I actually googled around a bit and apparently this school and this kid have a history, at least according to what you read on a message board (but who can trust message boards?)

http://indianabasketballdigest.com/index.php?/topic/8218-peru-tigers/

 

I ran into this situation about six or seven years ago covering a football game. At the end of the game, the home team lost their cool and lost the game because of a series of personal fouls. As the teams came together to shake hands, one of the players on the home team attacked the head official. I ran the kid's name, because he was going to be suspended for a long time. I don't see how you don't name the kid who committed the foul, particularly because it caused such a serious injury and will more than likely suffer severe consequences.
The only way I can see you not naming the kid in the gamer is if the writer happen to have been looking down at his stat sheet marking two points and missed the kid who committed the foul. It's obvious with the video who did it, but it may not have been so obvious at the time and just opted to be safe.