Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

You're funny.

 

The point is that the media does withhold information under certain circumstances. Crimes committed by minors is another.

 

This is the example I think of, too - refrain from something that's news-worthy because of a greater societal good.

I'd also say you can provide details "history of mental health issues, suffering from PTSD, former beet farmer, known to have expressed hostile attitudes towards women and left-handed people" without naming him or showing his picture.

 

The two examples are on polar opposite sides of the justice system. They are not comparable at all.

 

So?

 

They are very comparable: The media agrees, as a matter of policy, to withhold certain information from the public in an effort to shape public behavior. In the rape victim case, it is to ensure that rape victims aren't afraid to come forward. In the rampage shooter case, it is to prevent potential copycat shooters from identifying with the shooter.

 

They're comparable, just not on the variable you chose to look at (victim vs perpetrator). They are comparable in other ways, namely, "is withholding this information good for society?" (or, if you prefer saying it in the negative - "Is publishing this information bad for society?").
It's bad to create an environment where future victims won't feel comfortable coming forward b/c their name might end up in the paper/on the news.
It's bad to create an environment that leads to copycat killers.

ADD: Dick beat me to it.

 

It's not rape victims, it's ALL victims, with obviously a few exceptions.

Being victimized does not make one a public figure. Perpetrating a crime does.

 

That's circular. The media chooses to cover it that way. The media selects who becomes a public figure. There's nothing inherent about perpetrating a crime that makes one a public figure.

 

You mean, other than entering the public record via a police report or a court case?

 

Being named in the public record doesn't make one a "public figure."

 

For the limited purpose of reporting that crime, yes, it does.

You're arguing that it shouldn't. I don't agree.

IMHO, to truly "make a difference," you'd have to ignore it completely, which isn't happening.