Naming Names

Today, a 16-year-old boy was arrested in connection with the murder of Pamela Vitale, the 52-year-old wife of a well known defense attorney named Daniel Horowitz. So far most media outlets have refused to name the boy, but at least one prominent newspaper, and one wire service, did name him. Soon after, an email was sent to CBS News employees imploring them not to follow suit, because the sheriff's public information officer had declined to identify the boy, and "we do not identify juveniles."

It can be difficult for media outlets to resist the urge to identify suspected criminals, particularly when it comes to a high profile case like this one. But it can also come back to haunt them, most notably in the case of Richard Jewell, who was identified as the likely culprit in the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park during the Olympic games in Atlanta in 1996. Jewell was eventually shown to be innocent, of course, but not before his character was besmirched and his name dragged through the mud. He sued a number of media outlets, including CNN and NBC, which settled with Jewell for $500,000.

I asked Linda Mason, CBS News Senior Vice President, Standards and Special Projects, to clarify CBS' policy on identifying suspects.

"Adults we do sometimes identify, but juveniles – we protect them, especially when law enforcement says they're not going to use their name," she says. "The issue is not that they did or did not do it. The issue is that they're kids," she adds. "Just as there are juvenile courts, we make a distinction with kids under 18."

Mason also points out that CBS will not identify a rape victim, even though the person involved is an adult.

I think there's no question that a child suspected of a crime or a rape victim should not be identified by the media. But I have trouble with the notion that when someone turns 18, it suddenly becomes acceptable to identify them as a suspect in a crime they may not have committed. After all, once someone has been identified as a suspect, they will always be guilty in some people's minds – even if they are never arrested, or are ultimately found to be innocent.

To some degree, of course, such identification is inevitable, thanks to our bottom line-oriented media environment: competing media outlets have clear incentives to identify a suspect in order to give more details about a case, keep the interest of news consumers, and raise ratings or readership. Nancy Grace wouldn't have much to talk about, after all, if she couldn't speculate about who is guilty and who is innocent. But that doesn't make it morally acceptable. What do you think: Should the public know the names and backgrounds of people arrested or suspected in high profile crimes? Or do media outlets have a responsibility to withhold such information until the courts have rendered a judgment? Is there line drawn between kids and adults arbitrary, or is it legitimate?