Why the Times Identified and Photographed Teenagers in a Sex Abuse Article

By Margaret Sullivan
New York Times
August 28, 2014

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/why-the-times-identified-and-photographed-teenagers-in-a-sex-abuse-article/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

Several readers wrote to me concerned about a Times article earlier this week that told the stories of some Dominican teenagers who described sexual abuse by a former priest and Vatican official. They told me they were surprised and dismayed to see the young people identified by name with their photographs used in an accompanying gallery.

One reader, Julio Cesar Diaz, who said he read the article with particular interest because he is Dominican, said in an email:

I can’t help but feel a little sickened by the fact that several child sexual abuse victims are named in the article. Their photographs also appear in the gallery accompanying the article. I don’t think it’s ethical to do this. I think sexual abuse victims’ identities should be protected, especially if the victims are still children, as is the case of Darwin Quervedo, who is 14 right now, according to the article, or Francis Aquino Aneury, who is 17. Or do these protections apply only if the victims are Americans?

And Dan Hortsch of Portland, a former ombudsman for The Oregonian, wrote, in part:

Were the boys named as victims in the story given the opportunity to not have their names reported and their faces photographed for use with the story? Presumably they knew that they were being photographed, but did The New York Times explain that they could remain anonymous? If not, the matter is definitely disturbing.

Presumably, too, that is the practice with other victims of sexual abuse unless the victims approve use of their names and photos. And then the articles normally would explain that they were willing to be named and photographed.

I understand the need for credible sources, but these victims of sexual abuse are no different from anyone in this country. The fact that one boy, 14, is described as speaking “haltingly, with eyes downcast” about his experience makes clear the embarrassment.

These readers raise important concerns. I asked the article’s author, Laurie Goodstein, who covers religion for The Times, to explain how the teenagers were approached on this subject.

She responded:

The teenagers identified in the story as abuse victims not only gave us permission for us to use their names and take their photographs, but wanted their stories to be told. There is no double standard here. I have found that some victims of sexual abuse feel that by going public, they may help prevent other people from being victimized by their abusers, and in this they find some purpose in their suffering. In the case of these specific children, they wanted to give their testimony to someone because they had not been interviewed by the authorities. We interviewed them on multiple occasions, made it clear that their names and pictures would be published in a newspaper and on the Internet, and they were sure that they wanted to proceed.

Ms. Goodstein told me that the article was scrupulously edited and also read by a Times lawyer, and that all involved were attentive to the issue of identification. She added that, in general she takes great care with not identifying abuse victims who do not wish to be identified, and that she has never broken the confidence of one who asked to remain unidentified.

“We don’t identify abuse victims when they want to remain anonymous, or it there’s any question about it. We preserve their anonymity. But in cases where victims want to speak out, and they sometimes do, we honor that too.”

Speaking generally, she said that parental consent is a more difficult matter, often impossible in the case of indigent children, some of whom live on the street.

I’m satisfied that the matter of identifying and photographing these teenagers was handled properly, and I hope that readers will be reassured as well. My only quibble here is that a sentence or two that described the knowledge and consent of the teenagers would have been a welcome and useful piece of transparency with Times readers.