Naming Arnold's "Housekeeper"

Desk, there are reasonable arguments to make for either side. I'm not sure which way I would go and have not given an opinion.

Devil seemed not to understand why it was even a question.

 

This is one where, while I understand the Los Angeles Times' stance from a journalism perspective, they need to understand the world we live in, and that they are protecting absolutely nobody when the name is available 15 seconds away all over the Internet. If they're going to be that resolute about not identifying the woman to protect the kid, they would have not ever published the story, because even they could foresee that someone else would name the woman.

 

So no stories should be written about Lance Armstrong juicing because he has kids?

Are there pictures of the kid on the internet? That is wrong. But naming the mother is not.

Heck, you can connect the dots by naming where she worked.

 

That's a terrible reason. To follow your thinking would mean that the LA Times had outsourced it's journalistic standards to the lowest common denominator.

I can find the name of DSK's accuser/victim -- the hotel made -- in 15 seconds on the internet. It's been printed on Slate.fr, and you don't need to speak French to figure out her name.

By your logic, the LA Times might as well print her name as well.

The best/only argument is that it is the job of the press to tell who, where, when, what, why and only in the rarest of cases, under the rarest of circumstances is there a reason to withhold any such information.

Then you need to square why you name the maid, but not others. Where do you draw the line?

But, you don't let TMZ make the decision for you.

 

There is no comparison whatsoever between Shwarzenegger's housekeeper and the victim of a sexual assault. She willingly had a relationship with a mega-famous movie star with political aspirations, and they had a child. There's no crime here, hence no victim, hence none of the ethical concerns you are raising.

As for not letting TMZ make the decision for you ... that is a noble goal and I think I addressed that it is good in theory. But in the dirty practice of modern journalism, it means very little.

 

Did you read the article I linked to at the start of the thread?

Not every news organization agrees with you, so there is a question. And, it has to do with the child who is innocent.

And, the problem with letting TMZ decide is do you also let Slate.fr decide?

 

I did read the article. I know there is a question; my posts have referenced the LAT decision but can be implied to mean the entire journalism world. It is putting toothpaste back into the tube in this day and age.

 

That's fine. I disagree, but only to a point.

I don't like the media spoon feeding me information. But I think each news organization needs to decide these issues for themselves, and it should involve more than asking what TMZ has done.

 

I'll be back, Bennett!

 

Adelaide hates you.

 

Mildred had a my space page with pictures of her and her son. Was up a few days before it was taken down