Using the Names of Mass Shooting Suspects

Just got done reading today's LA Times and I saw an interesting A1 story about a campaign to convince media to not refer to the Colorado shooting suspect by his name. Victims and their families are trying to get media outlets and politicians to refer to him as "the alleged shooter" or other vague phrases rather than his actual name in order to curb his notoriety.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-colorado-suspect-a-20120725,0,3376849.story

So far the Colorado governor and President Obama have made speeches where they didn't mention the suspect's name (the Colorado governor went out of his way to say that he wouldn't be doing that). Some broadcasters have avoiding using his name as well (Anderson Cooper tweeted that his show would avoid it for now), while one of the parents of a victim is calling for a boycott of media outlets that name the suspect.

While I understand the sentiment here, expecting a newspaper not to name the person who did this doesn't solve anything and is patently ridiculous. As someone said in the article, it's roughly like the "He Who Shall Not Be Named" from the Harry Potter books - just because we choose not to name a person who did something hideous doesn't mean that it didn't happen or that he's not an actual person (instead of a "suspect" or an "alleged shooter"). And I would suspect that anyone who has enough screws loose to shoot up a movie theater or college campus isn't going to think about this moving forward - they are delusional enough to think that any ban wouldn't impact them since their crime will be the biggest sensation ever.

I'm curious to get other people's thoughts on this: is there any value in not using the suspect's name to avoid giving him what essentially is free publicity and perhaps aiding in his overall goal of trying to become famous/infamous?

 

Politicians don't need to use his name to make their points.

 

Doesn't going out of one's way not to refer to him by name actually ADD to the notoriety?

 

Is the suspect an adult? Then by all means use the name. In fact, we should be putting out everything we learn about suspects in this case. Otherwise, we fall into the same sort of coverup as Penn State, the Catholic church and USA Swimming [/crossthreads]. And before you hit reply, yes, a bit extreme, but sorry, parental units, it's YOUR job to protect your children from stuff like this, not mine.

 

If we are supposed to be the objective tellers of important events, we have to tell all the information and not censor it. Certainly, we can sympathize with the families and the pain and anger they are going through, but if we leave out the name, we are no longer being the objective scribes of history.

 

Use his name. Then execute him.

 

I don't understand this argument.

It goes against basic journalistic precepts. You need the facts in the story. His name is a fact.

 

Same argument I hear people make about victims' names. The information is out there and pretty easy to find, if anyone cares. Guy could use a fictious name for all I care; I don't know him from Adam.

I can't see any compelling reason to go out of the way NOT to use his name unless you truly believe the name is fictious.

 

Problem solved in six words. Amen to that.

 

I think the media has to use his name for obvious reasons, but I understand where the victims' families are coming from, especially given where it happened. Most people outside of Colorado probably don't remember any names from Columbine other than Eric Harris and Dylan Kleybold, so I can see these families not wanting to see that happen in this case.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/omblog/post/photos-of-james-holmes-draw-readers-ire/2012/07/27/gJQA6ySXEX_blog.html

The objection seems to be the "Warholian" use of the creep's courtroom photos.