“My client,
on behalf of herself and their son, wishes to express her extreme outrage at
the invasion of their privacy that has occurred through the publication of
highly confidential and private data obtained regarding them by the press without
their permission or consent,” the statement issued by attorney Kelly C. Dohn
stated. “My client is hurt and outraged
that the press would publish throughout the world pictures of their minor son
and publish statements allegedly made as part of the private and confidential
criminal investigative file.”
The pictures
of her 4-year-old son stirred the rage of a mother. His small body tarnished by a beating should
have remained private. Those pictures
became public because of the man accused of child abuse.
Adrian
Peterson, the superhero like running back of the NFL Minnesota Vikings, has
been charged with causing injury to a child under the age of 14. Peterson is
accused of hitting his son with a wooden spoon.
Numerous media outlets decided to release the photos of the alleged
injuries, and the Minnesota Vikings responded, albeit late, by deactivating
Peterson while the matter is resolved.
The public
outcry, and the response from the NFL and Minnesota Vikings, follows the
repercussion of arguably the greatest sports bungle of all-time – the handling
of Ray Rice. The NFL’s leniency with Rice was followed by the release of a
video that forced the league to alter its position. The long list of player misconduct has the
NFL grappling to repair its reputation as a league sculpted with abusers.
The outcry of
the 4-year-old allegedly abused by Peterson reminds us of the ethics that shape
the way we report on these types of cases.
Our thirst for more information, and pictures to verify our suppositions,
should always be met with hesitancy when the information becomes a violation of
privacy. A mother’s plea for silence should never be minimized by the public
thirst for more.
A mother has
the right to request that pictures of her battered child not be made
public. Raising a child is complicated
enough. Doing so when the identity and nature of injuries are made public muddles
the work of parenting even more. A child shouldn’t have to witness his pictures
circulating through social media.
Parents shouldn’t have to protect a child from viewing their picture on
the news.
The nature of
abuse should be hidden from public view.
These are private matters that require discretion on the part of those
challenged to report the news.
There are
times when ethics forces us to use caution. The common sense call demands that
someone in the newsroom yell, “that’s no one’s damn business!”
Be it the
video of Janay Rice being slugged in an elevator, or the pictures of a
4-year-olds bruised body, some things should be left for those impacted most to
ponder. Both cases present implications beyond the individuals involved, yet
both present the victims in ways that make it more difficult for them to overcome. No woman should be forced to encounter the
public clamor related to those images.
No mother and child should be forced to face the pictures of a minor
thrust on the scene of public exhibition.
It’s none of
your business.
It magnifies
the abuse of those abused.
It places a
private conversation within the context of public debate.
It makes a
private matter about more than the consequences of those involved. It feeds our urge to conjure societal
evils.
So, as much
as we relish connecting the collective dots – the story is not limited to the
NFL. This is a story about the alleged
abuse of a 4-year-old who has a mother seeking to protect her child from
further abuse.
So, back off.
Let mama do what mothers do best.
I have not seen the pictures in question nor read anything but headlines about this case. I think I instinctively side with you very salient point.
ReplyDeleteThat said, while I read your piece, in the background of my thoughts were all the problems with public opinion and therefore of public dialog and ultimately social progress when there is room for doubt in the presentation of the evidence for wrong-doing. It seems it is always the case that incidents involving police abuse (not a private matter I assume we can agree) have missing parts of video or pictures that invite specious "what ifs." It may be that the pictures not seen can be held against us as a public.
No lack of respect for your well-stated argument though, and I agree the public should back off. I just hope that since those pictures are out there, we use them as a society to improve life for all families and not to harm this one.
CK, he is a minor. At best, they should not have published his name or his face! Please tell me they didn't (even though the information is easy enough to track down). What a tragedy! Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteA-