Hiccup on teen mom feature ...

Even with her cooperation?

 

Not sure of your point. Just pointing out that pregnant teens are not uncommon.

 

Right. My presumption would be that she would have no idea of the shitstorm that would be coming her way. If she's 18 now, she was probably 15 when she gave birth and maybe only 14 when she was raped and impregnated BY HER OWN UNCLE. Why would you identify that girl as the victim of such a crime. Can you even accomplish that legally?

Besides, as has been said, would you simply take her word for it that the uncle was indeed the father if there hasn't been a court case establishing it? Would you demand to see the long-form birth certificate? Take them on Maury Povich's show and have a DNA test done? "Uncle Dick, you ARE the father!!"

 

Yeah. You'd have to get the uncle's side.

"My bad. She said she was 18."

 

Well, no, of course I wouldn't just take her word for it. Or ignore the uncle and write it up. This isn't covering a gamer. I'm assuming all of the SOP of journalism here.

And a couple things:

(1) I have read stories about high school boys who have had sex with their teachers and had their lives destroyed, etc., etc. from it. Read a great one in Rolling Stone a couple years ago. Very well-told and powerful. How do you feel about that? And, again, how did you feel about "Friday Night Lights"? What about eating disorder pieces?

(2) Also, there is nothing illegal about identifying crime victims, at least in the United States. You could identify a 5-year-old rape victim if you so chose. Legally.

 

Even if the OP was a troll, it's a great hypothetical to bat around.

 

above is the 'money' quote that got my juices flowing, dw. seemed like you were arguing that no great journo fails to 'close the deal,' k.e., write the piece, win awards, take the perks, without giving pause to ponder the after-shocks for the subject.

if that was not your the intended mission statement, my apologies. but it's awfully hard not to reach that conclusion.

of course this would not be my first failure in reading comperhension, as others can attest....

 

I think that a great journalist would be confident that he could and would handle the story fairly and honestly. That doesn't mean that you give the source, for example, editorial control. It does mean that you've already internalized things like empathy for the source. I don't consider that mutually exclusive from a desire to tell great stories. Sometimes great stories involve real people.

 

What he said. I've already e-mailed several teaching colleagues as well as sportswriter friends asking for opinions. I'll definitely be using this scenario in a sportswriting class I teach in the fall.

 

Most papers wouldn't name the victims of race or incest, as a paper policy.

So if you did the story about this girl being a teen mom/athlete, well that's a fine story that has been done. I'd say most high schools and colleges have athletes who have had kids.

*--Now, you couldn't venture into the possible incest/rape angle without naming her, so if you went down that road, you'd have to have discussions with your editor (obviously) and the family and the cops.

It's not an easy story. Not without likely repercussions for the girl and her kid. And if no charges have been filed, a libel suit would certainly be within the realm of possibility.

Bottom line, no prep reporter would be making the call on a story like this. The executive editor and/or publisher would have to sign off.

**--Assuming this is true.

 

I haven't read the stories you've read so I don't know how I feel about those boys or about people with eating disorders. And I don't remember enough of "Friday Night Lights" to be able to properly answer your question because, quite frankly, I wasn't all that impressed by it. I liked the concept and appreciated all the time and research and effort Bissinger put into it, but it just didn't grab me the way it obviously grabbed so many others.

As for your second point, I did not realize that. I live in a jurisdiction where that just isn't done - publication bans are a matter of course, even when everybody in town knows who's been victimized and who did it - so I'm really not sure how to feel about the fact that it happens or may happen in the States. On one hand, I think that just because something's legal doesn't mean it's right. On the other hand, as I said, sometimes the ban is a joke because all the details are already known to all and sundry. I have mixed feelings, I guess.

 

Of course. You wouldn't name a 5-year-old rape victim. But not because it's illegal. But because you're a human being.

P.S. I do think the tradition of not naming adult sexual assault victims is a stickier wicket. I understand why we don't - because of the stigma. But I think we end up reinforcing the myth that there is something to be ashamed about.