Problems at Patch.com

It's more than just pedophiles and deranged spouses. What about the children of law enforcement officers or federal agents? What about foster kids? What about the children of CPS workers (you take my kids, I'll take yours)? How about the kids of government employees with high-level security clearance (family members are kidnap collateral for classified information)?

These scenarios may sound crazy, but the reality is all of these people routinely take precautions to protect their identities and those of their families.

There should be zero expectation that the coach of a second grade basketball team would be giving media interviews and a team photo would be published online. The responsibility is on the coach to keep the trap shut until it's cleared with parents.

 

Can you demonstrate a single example of a child being harmed because of being identified in the media?

You can come up with a "what if" scenario for any imaginable situation involving a child. The mere fact that you can come up with a "what if" isn't a justification for fearing that what if.

 

The lengths people will go to in the desperate need to rip Patch never cease to amaze me. There are enough good reasons to rip that piece of crap article, but apparently, that just isn't enough.

 

So you're against running honor rolls?

 

We don't know it wasn't. These leagues usually make parents sign releases consenting to almost everything under the sun, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is buried somewhere in the small print.

That being said, the article is crap.

 

STRANGER DANGER!

SOUND THE ALARMS!

Alert the helicopter parents (and editors!)

 

Your paper has NEVER fielded a request from a law enforcement officer to remove identifiable information from your website?

We get about two requests a year. Usually it's something to do with their kids, exactly like a school honor roll. "I'm Officer Krzyzewski with Metro PD narcotics division and I don't need people knowing my kid is in Mrs. Jones' second grade class at Sunrise Elementary in Sleepertown."

And we honor this type of request every time. It's different now that the information is Googleable every day, instead of published once on page B6 and then archived on microfilm.

 

I'd honor a request like that in order to be polite.

 

I'm perhaps wrongly assuming that the honor roles aren't including identifying photos, and I believe there is a difference between second and third graders and high school kids.
Look, we can go in circles forever on whether pedophiles using publications to prey on children is a reasonable concern. My point is that in cases such as this where publications aren't offering readers anything of value, deferring to the opinion of someone in law enforcement over a message board poster, myself included, would seem prudent.

 

Of course, you have no idea if there is such a request in place for this particular article.

 

Agreed. If there's an actual request to withhold the information, I'd go ahead and do it if nothing else to be polite. Not because I think there's any validity to the fear.

 

If you can't take pictures of kids because of fears that pedophiles might track them down, 99 percent of newspapers would have to cut their pages in half.