Last Updated: May 20, 1999
Printer-friendly version
What would you do?
Here’s the problem: A high school teacher is accused of killing her
husband and two children. Infidelity is an issue at her murder trial; she
reportedly had affairs with two teachers. The trial is being televised
and two of the three teachers testifying have opted to conceal their identities.
You know their names and have the right to publish them. Should you?
The rules of law as they affect, or don’t affect, freedom of the press
are fairly clear. Sometimes journalists find themselves having to defend
their rights in court. More often, however, the question is not whether
we have the right to publish but whether we should publish.
That’s the question here. The names of these witnesses are part of the
public record. Liability is not an issue. Instead, the question is one
of propriety and fairness. These teachers have not asked to become public
figures or to have what would normally be private matters made public.
Yet, isn’t it the newspaper’s responsibility to tell the whole story?
We asked three editors to comment: Susan Deans, editor of The Sun News
in Myrtle Beach, S.C.; Susan Patterson, editor of The Union-Recorder in
Milledgeville, Ga.; and Bob Stiff, editor of The Dispatch in Lexington,
N.C.
Susan Deans
As in many ethical dilemmas, the correct answer is, "It depends." An
argument in favor of naming them is their testimony may be pivotal in determining
the accused murderer’s motive and state of mind and deserves to be attributed
to those testifying. It also seems unfair to identify one and not all three.
On the other hand, from the facts given, it is not clear whether any
of the three teachers testifying are the ones with whom she is accused
of having affairs.
If they are and are testifying about their own sexual involvement with
her, an argument could be made against using the names. Their conduct was
not criminal or directly related to the crime, and disclosure of the sexual
involvement could endanger their jobs.
Bottom line: I would use the names. The community interest in such a
horrible crime and the fairness issue of allowing unnamed accusers to determine
the teacher’s fate would outweigh other reservations.
Susan Patterson
Run the names. It’s hard to see, based on the information provided,
why you wouldn’t. The trial’s public. The judge apparently hasn’t prohibited
it. Other than the embarrassment to the families involved, there seems
little damage would be done. In a town our size (about 17,000), there’s
another factor to consider: Everyone probably already knows the names anyway.
Bob Stiff
Absolutely, the names should be published. I don’t see it as a close
call at all. Because our business is the printing of information, I always
start with the thought that information we know should also be known by
our readers; that’s what they pay us to do. But then I question if it is
necessary for readers to learn this information if it will bring great
harm, embarrassment or danger to anyone. That’s why, for example, we don’t
print the name, age or address of the clerk at the convenience store that
was held up.
I fail to see how two high school teachers involved in an affair with
a female teacher accused of killing her husband and her two children have
any right to privacy at all. The potential penalties of such actions include
getting caught and the affair becoming exposed publicly.
The most important reason for identifying the two teachers is so all
the other male teachers at the high school are not under any suspicion.
They and their families have a right for everyone to know they were not
involved with the teacher accused of the murders.
Silverberg is executive editor of the TimesDaily, Florence, Ala.
Mail your quandary to P.O. Box 797, Florence, AL 35631 or e-mail silverk@
nytimes.com
