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

How do you not name the kid? If he hit a game winning shot, you'd run the name.
Any report worth his salt would have named the kid and gotten a quote from him about the play.

 

Not that this would matter a whole lot to me (or any of the rest of us except snuffy and his protective instinct), but according to the online roster the kid is a senior. If that's correct, there's a better than 50-50 chance that he's 18 years old.

 

"You only write about me when I commit flagrant fouls!"

 

A former newspaper colleague and I had a discussion about this exact topic a few days ago. The entire notion of "protecting" high school athletes by not naming them if they commit a costly foul or miss an important shot is 1. the opposite of good journalism and B. silly. As many have mentioned here, anybody who wants to find out an unnamed kid's name can these days.

And here's another great point, as my buddy noted: "What if it's an individual sport like golf? What if the kid has a 3-stroke lead in the state tourney going into the final 3 holes and finishes bogey-double-triple and loses? Do you write, 'Joe Smith won the state championship because his opponent, whose name won't be mentioned here, made mistakes that won't be mentioned here.'?"

Be journalists. Period. Let truth be your defense. Don't create (or sanction) stupid policies that won't "protect" anybody anyway.

 

I'm sorry, if journalism demands a strict code of honor in the way you cover high school kids participating in educational programs, then journalism is kinda silly.

"If you are sent out to write something about the school play, would you ignore the part where the kid flubbed her lines? Let the truth be your defense."

"If you publish the honor rolls, you have to publish the kids who are failing too."

"Jane Smith was named valedictorian, but only because Johnny Johnnerson had a nervous breakdown and got a B after his parents divorced senior year. Better put that part in the lead."

 

And if the victim doesn't turn out to be OK, it's even more of a story.

 

While I don't necessarily agree with it, I can see a rationale for not including the name of #40.

If Etherington was assaulted in the streets by this same guy in a restaurant after the game, the assailant's name wouldn't be mentioned if he was a minor. In that aspect I can understand why someone would want to omit #40's name from the story.

Of course, that argument does go out the window if you post a video of the act and it clearly identifies #40.

 

THIS is a well-put take on what i was about to post: if any game is deemed worthy of coverage, it must include the positive AND negative (within reason, natch). i've been very taken aback by dissenting opinions here. even hedging opinions.

any event worth covering must be done honestly and openly. we don't cover high s. of course there are some off-court/off-field personal issues schools to be cheerleaders. i find this debate to be embarrassing, truth be told.

heck, the kid covering it for the school paper should identify #40. how can any 'pro' not?

 

I'm surprised this discussion is still going on. The kid committed a foul in front of hundreds of people, let alone on video. I'm sure the PA announce said his name when announcing the foul.

Besides, this is a serious offense. It's not some kid "flubbing his lines in a high school play." Through his negligence, he seriously injured another student in front of hundreds of witnesses.

I really don't see any way around listing his name in this particular instance.

 

There is no justification in not naming the kid. Ridiculous not to.

 

Don't call it a cheap shot. Call it what it is -- an intentional foul. Name the kid, and state that the player who was fouled was taken from the game on a stretcher, etc. Report the facts. What's so hard here?

 

I'd run the name.

The decision to dunk instead of a layup also should be taken into consideration. If it's a layup and there's an intentional foul, we're not looking at the video.