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

Why? A dunk is a legal play. I covered a game where a kid suffered a similar fate (without paralysis) on a break away layup.

 

I bet if they talked to No. 40, he feels awful. There didn't look to be any malicious intent; he was trying to foul the kid and it was a freak thing.
A quote from him would have helped any story.

 

I don't have a problem with running it. I just don't see the "It's journalism!" as a reason.

 

The name runs.

And I actually covered the offended team -- minus Alex Etherington -- in its next game. We briefly touched on what happened (the team wore shooting shirts with his number and his Twitter handle on the back) and then went on. Didn't name the kid, but everyone in central Indiana who was listening would've known it by then.

 

Again, here is the reason for not naming the kid in this particular instance. You start with the fact that this story is about a sensationalized cheap foul and not anything else, not Etherington's injuries, not Etherington's recovery, and not a fair analysis of the foul as projected in the video. You jump to Facebook sheep mentality and say sheepishly,"why wouldn't post #40's name." Here is why. The kid is a juvenile. He is a teenager. He has a family. He has a school. Watch this video twenty times and you might, as editor, first take red pen to the 'Cheap Shot' lead. But Cheap Shots get readers and clicks. So instead you swallow the red pen whistle and omit 40's name. You omit because you are a decent responsible person and understand that your call will last many facebook years longer than this 'cheap shot' article.

 

If a high school kid throws an interception that is absolutely critical to the outcome of the game, I think you can mention it, in plain English without judgment.

I wouldn't expound for three grafs on what a shitty quarterback he is.

In this particular instance, the kid more or less committed assault. I don't have a problem mentioning him.

 

Likewise, I don't run the names of suspected bank robbers because they have families and may have kids and probably went to school. It's bound to be embarrassing.

 

OK, you made your case. We disagree with it. Dude's that worried about spending his whole life under a dark cloud, don't commit a flagrant foul. Or better yet, don't play basketball.

 

The fact that sportswriters think high school kids participating in educational programs are the equivalent (for the purposes of this argument) of bankrobbers shows exactly how ridiculous this profession can be.

 

Kid did it in front of hundreds of people and on video.

End. Of. Story.

By the way, I'm fine with not calling it a cheap shot or writing columns to rip the kid or making the kid the focus of the story over the one who got injured. But you can just matter-of-fact write "Joe Blow pushed him and was called for an intentional foul."

I also think it would be a good idea to keep on top of Joe Blow to see what happens with him. Apology? Suspension? Etc.

It's really not complicated at all, to me.

 

Basketball is an extracurricular activity, not an educational program.

I think maybe you shouldn't criticize journalists so much, since you clearly don't understand journalism too well.

 

An extracurricular activity is there for the purposes of education. It is a program. Therefore it is an education program.

I understand it entirely. I also think it's silly when you start take rules that were created for people fulfilling the the news gathering function of society and then unthinkingly apply them to the role of what amounts to small-town entertainment writing. Preps writers are not society's watchdogs and they don't need to be.