Way to not treat someone like a human, news.

[RebootedCorpse]

This is wrong in so many ways and I'm shocked a few people don't feel the same way. The story is NOT that she is a dominatrix. The story is that a deranged man murdered her boyfriend and abducted her before ending his life. That is a pretty sensational story on its own. Printing her real name in my opinion is akin to printing the full name of a rape victim. The media is supposed to use discretion when it comes to victims. They have an obligation to protect the victims since they are precisely that, victims. Anyone who does not understand that needs to take a course in Journalism 101.

Instead of reporting the news they have created their own story. This breaks the journalistic creed that they report the news, not make it. The story is the abduction and murder/suicide. Her profession is not the main thrust of the story. But with newsprint media on its dying legs I guess the Post is not above destroying someone's life in order to raise circulation. This is journalism from the gutters and an affront to anyone that likes to call themselves journalists. They have added to the victimization of this woman.

My heart goes out to her. If anyone on here were the victim of such a crime, the fact you may swing on the weekends, may have experimented in college, smoke pot on your free time, etc. is not relevant. The only part of her lifestyle that relates to the case is that she met him through her line of work. That does not necessitate releasing her real name and sensationalizing her lifestyle over the tragedy that just happened to throw her life into freefall just in time for the holidays. Is the story that she was a dominatrix or that a sick fuck of a human being killed someone she loved, held her captive, before ending his own life? Hasn't she endured enough on that alone without you deciding you are mightier than thou and are free to rummage through the remnants of her shattered life. We all have skeletons in our closets and in a time of tragedy the last thing we need is for every single one of them to be shouted from every street corner for all to hear. So before you say "Right on" sit back and consider how you'd feel if you were in her position. I doubt many of you would be so supportive of their need to sensationalize her life to sell a few more papers.

Rape victims and children are the exception. Crime victims are ALWAYS named.
This woman was not a rape victim and she talked on the record extensively about the ordeal.
There's zero reason not to name her.
Yeah, the story is bullshit sensationalism, but the problems are not with the names being used.

[Albert]

Fuck the New York Post.
They can eat my taint.
If I ever met any asshole who worked there, I'd slap them around with my AP stylebook.

Worst fucking journalists ever. I'm horrified by the idea that thos pricks might one day be my comtemporaries.

I do think it's the responsibility of the media to inform the public about what's going on.
I don't think they should have used the photos though. I fail to see any of the four ethical principles in any of them.

I'm perfectly fine with them using her name, but it should have been her professional name. I can see using her real name though, in order to be more truthful, but the nut graf and lede of that story are completely sensationalized. But they did endorse John McTaint, so what do you expect.

The Post is really shitty.
Journalists are supposed to take a neutral stance, not make judgement values. That's what the editorial page is for. Journalists are supposed to just report the news. The nut graf of the story is that a jealous man murdered one man and kidnapped a woman before taking his own life. They all happen to be connected because of a shared interest. No need to use those pictures. It doesn't serve the public good, no utilitarian principle behind them, not showing the effects of this, and it doesn't give emotional resonance to the story.

Sounds like someone's in J-school!

[Ryudo]

There's nothing wrong with the ABC story.

[Mark4myself]

Rape victims and children are the exception. Crime victims are ALWAYS named.
This woman was not a rape victim and she talked on the record extensively about the ordeal.
There's zero reason not to name her.
Yeah, the story is bullshit sensationalism, but the problems are not with the names being used.

I can rationalize the name being used as long as the sensationalizing of her lifestyle is not done. That is where the problem falls into things with me. A mention that she is a dominatrix and that is what possibly led to this occurring is one thing, but what they did is make the story about her lifestyle and trumpeted her name for all to hear. The problem is not in publishing her name as the victim but in victimizing her on top of that. If you are going to devolve to that then at least show you have something left to your soul and use her professional name and not her real name. That is all I meant by that. They have every right to use her name but I personally feel they overstepped the bounds of common decency in making the story about her lifestyle rather than the sick fuck who traumatized her. In doing that they could have just as easily used her professional name if it was her profession they were more interested in.

[Fake Pat]

I can rationalize the name being used as long as the sensationalizing of her lifestyle is not done. That is where the problem falls into things with me. A mention that she is a dominatrix and that is what possibly led to this occurring is one thing, but what they did is make the story about her lifestyle and trumpeted her name for all to hear. The problem is not in publishing her name as the victim but in victimizing her on top of that. If you are going to devolve to that then at least show you have something left to your soul and use her professional name and not her real name. That is all I meant by that. They have every right to use her name but I personally feel they overstepped the bounds of common decency in making the story about her lifestyle rather than the sick fuck who traumatized her. In doing that they could have just as easily used her professional name if it was her profession they were more interested in.

The coverage only makes her a victim if you assume that being associated with S&M is an inherently negative thing.

If that's the case, then you're the one judging this woman. You're the one making her a victim.

[Marcdachamp]

Ugh. That's really terrible.

She's gorgeous, by the way.

[SgtPepper]

Sounds like someone's in J-school!

Yes I am actually.
Indiana University.
You write for a newspaper, right? What school did you go to?

[SgtPepper]

The coverage only makes her a victim if you assume that being associated with S&M is an inherently negative thing.

If that's the case, then you're the one judging this woman. You're the one making her a victim.

Perhaps he meant that she was literally a victim of crime, rather than being a victim from her association with S&M.

I think we can agree that the ABC story isn't the sensationalized, it's fairly balanced if bland,run-of-the-mill, reporting.

[TRILL, THE CARBON BASED LIFEFORM]

The coverage only makes her a victim if you assume that being associated with S&M is an inherently negative thing.

If that's the case, then you're the one judging this woman. You're the one making her a victim.

We all do things we're not ashamed of, but don't want everyone to know about. Maybe you're a compulsive sharer, I don't know, but be human.

[Fake Pat]

Perhaps he meant that she was literally a victim of crime, rather than being a victim from her association with S&M.

I think we can agree that the ABC story isn't the sensationalized, it's fairly balanced if bland,run-of-the-mill, reporting.

But if that's the case, the coverage does nothing to change that.

That crime happened whether anybody knew about it or not.