More Ledes: Did You Need The Name?

In your ledes, some of you referred to the car accident victim specifically -- Scott Forsythe -- while others referred to him in the generic -- 22-year-old local man, or something to that effect.

While neither is wrong, I'd say the latter is the best approach. You have no reason to believe Forsythe is someone that would be known by name to your readers. In such cases, the generic identifier would suffice in a first reference, and you can offer the specific name as a secondary detail later in the story.

(Remember, in a real situation you would have the rest of the story to fill in specific details and secondary information!) 

Now, if the victim was Oprah Winfrey, the name would be a good bet for the lede, precisely because she is someone many people would instantly recognize by name.

Rescue: Why Would A Few People ...

. . . leave out the name of the site owner? Isn't who owns the lot important to the story, especially since angry neighbors claim their pleas to fence in the area went unheeded?

Plus, some people left out the name of the victim. It is a very rare circumstance when the names of victims -- or anyone, for that matter -- are left out of stories. 

In American journalism, those exceptions are pretty limited to rape victims, and some juvenile criminal suspects (but the latter is hardly universal; the places I worked at pretty much usually named 'em. If they're old enough to commit a crime that's worth running in the newspaper, they're old enough to have their name in the paper, too, I suppose).

So, unless we had a truly compelling reason, we should have run the victim's name.

Names are important to stories. Names let the audience see we're dealing with real people. Names humanize what happens, shifting a story to one of statistics (two dead, etc.) to ones of actual human impact. Names matter. Let's include the, in all but the rarest of circumstances.

911: Identification

Probably the hardest thing about this exercise for you was identification. We had competing interests at work here.

First, you should have been operating under the general journalistic premise that we do NOT name rape victims in almost all cases.

And on this point, some of us DID name the victim by name.

Earlier in this semester, we discussed when and when not to name victims in stories. In most cases we DO name victims, but a notable exception in American journalism regarded the names of rape victims.

In general, the current rule of thumb is that in weighing the benefit to society in knowing who exactly was victimized versus the harm that would come in terms of stigma to the victim, we do not name rape victims expect in rare circumstances, like a victim wanting to intentionally put a name and face to a victim to promote greater societal understanding, or a rape victim whose alleged attacker wasn't convicted in criminal court but who is facing a lawsuit for money in civil court.

This wasn't one of those times.

Then, there is the concern of making a virtual identification; that is, giving so much other information that it is easy for anybody to identify the victim.

Some of us named the victim's daughter. A daughter only has one mother, right? So that would be real easy to narrow down who the victim was if we gave the girl's name.

Also, some of us listed the exact home address where the crime took place. Only one family lives in a home, right? Again, we took a huge step in virtually identifying the victim.

Even though an exact address would expose the victim, don't readers still deserve to know where a crime took place? I mean, a story is much more relevant if it happened on your street or in your neighborhood than if it didn't. Some location is necessary to establish relevance.

A couple of us handled it in a smart way: you simply said the incident happened on Wilson Avenue. No street address included. That gave readers enough information to better set proximity, without giving away the victim's home and creating a virtual identification.

Now, what about the suspect's name? I think only under the rarest of cases would you not name the suspect. He's central to the story. As a society we need to know who among us is considered dangerous, and who among us is being locked up like a zoo animal by our authorities.

The only time in my whole journalism career when I didn't name a suspect was in a case around 1992 -- really early in my professional career -- where I was covering the trial of a teen accused of raping his own mother.

My editors went back-and-forth on how to handle it before deciding they wouldn't name the victim or the suspect, because naming the latter would identify the former. And there was a big ol' editor's note added ahead of my lede to explain their reasoning.

So exceptions are rare. Either the circumstances are amazingly twisted and unique or the suspects are juveniles and a particular media organization has rules about naming kids.

Again, this ain't one of 'em.

I also thought important to the story was noting that Caspinwall was a neighbor of the victim. Readers need to know if this crime was totally random or if there was some sort of link between the victim and attacker. Readers have more reason to worry if someone is willy-nilly breaking into random homes, as opposed to attacking a neighbor, right?

But only a few of us you noted the link.

Note I say Caspinwall was a neighbor, not her direct neighbor. A neighbor -- or even better, a nearby neighbor -- could be somebody next door or down the street, right? So using neighbor in the generic doesn't necessarily narrow the possible victim pool to a single house or two.

Next, is the suspect's home address needed? I think some identification of where he lives is noteworthy. Wouldn't readers really want to know if an alleged rapist and home invader lived by them? Wouldn't you?

Also, there was something else that I think we owed the reader: an explanation of why you weren't naming the girl or listing her exact address. 

Even though you're following journalistic rules, your readers probably don't know those rules and may simply be wondering, why the hell aren't there any names or exact addresses in this story? It wouldn't have hurt to have a simple background sentence somewhere in the story, like this:

The names of the girl and victim and the exact address where the crime occurred is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim.

That way, you are being transparent with readers about why they're not getting the level of information that other non-rape stories would include. A couple of us did do something along those lines.

Admittedly, this was a confusing exercise. We had many different factors tugging at us. It's really a tough situation for a young reporter to find himself or herself in. In a real-world setting, we'd definitely want to bring an editor in the loop to help make the best judgments that give the readers the most information while at the same time minimizing harm to the victim.

But here, I wanted to test your judgment and see how you responded. And I figured you'd appreciate the lesson much more if we did it this way, as opposed to just lecturing about it.

And in all fairness to you, how you handled these circumstances were a smaller-than-usual part of your assignment grade here. I gave you a break because I didn't want you to suffer a penalty on this one, but I did want you to have to think about it before we discussed it now.

Finally, this is how I would have handled it: I WOULD NOT name the victim or the girl. I WOULD name the suspect and even use HIS home address. I'd say the victim lived nearby, but I wouldn't specifically say they were direct neighbors.

That way, readers know who did this (and know exactly where the sicko lived) and the general area where the crime occurred and that it wasn't a random crime, while at the same time limiting the ability to identify who the victim was.

This is the sort of stuff you'll have to think about all the time in deciding what is the best way to tell your story.

Murder: Sufficient Description

Very nice work overall on this assignment. But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:

This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:

Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.

Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. It describes so many people, it doesn't shrink the suspect pool; it broadens it to include all sorts of folks who have nothing to do with it.

Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!

It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:

The robber was between 5-foot, 10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.

This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.

Same thing applies with using race in a description. If you have enough additional details to narrow the suspect pool, then use race. If not, then  it's not really relevant since it would impugn many innocent people as well. It's useless in helping narrow the suspect field, and narrowing the suspect pool is the whole point of providing a description.

Robbery: Did You Need ...

. . . to use the clerk's full name of Michael Ernest Layoux?

It's not wrong to use middle names or middle initials, but here's a good rule of thumb: if you feel the name is so common where a middle name is needed to distinguish a person from others with a similar name, then you may want to use a middle name or initial. Like with former MSU football coach John L. Smith.

But if you feel the name is fairly unique, it's less necessary. Like with Omar Sofradzija.

BTW, you may have noticed serial killers or mass murderers or criminals of the highest profile are often referred to with a middle name included (like John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, ect.). That's because with a crime so heinous, you want to go the extra mile to make sure you're identifying the right guy.

For a guide, please look under AP Style under middle names.

One more BTW ... did you need to use Layoux's name in the lede, or would it be sufficient to identify him in the generic as a 22-year-old clerk in the lede and then name him in the nut graf? What did you do, and why did you do it?

More Ledes: Did You Need The Name?

In your ledes, some of you referred to the car accident victim specifically -- Scott Forsythe -- while others referred to him in the generic -- 22-year-old local man, or something to that effect.

While neither is wrong, I'd say the latter is the best approach. You have no reason to believe Forsythe is someone that would be known by name to your readers. In such cases, the generic identifier would suffice in a first reference, and you can offer the specific name as a secondary detail later in the story.

(Remember, in a real situation you would have the rest of the story to fill in specific details and secondary information!)

Now, if the victim was Oprah Winfrey, the name would be a good bet for the lede, 

Murder: Sufficient Description

Very nice work overall on this assignment. But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:

This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:

Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.

Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. It describes so many people, it doesn't shrink the suspect pool; it broadens it to include all sorts of folks who have nothing to do with it.

Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!

It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:

The robber was between 5-foot, 10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.

This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.

Same thing applies with using race in a description. If you have enough additional details to narrow the suspect pool, then use race. If not, then  it's not really relevant since it would impugn many innocent people as well. It's useless in helping narrow the suspect field, and narrowing the suspect pool is the whole point of providing a description.

Robbery: Did You Need ...

. . . to use the clerk's full name of Michael Ernest Layoux?

It's not wrong to use middle names or middle initials, but here's a good rule of thumb: if you feel the name is so common where a middle name is needed to distinguish a person from others with a similar name, then you may want to use a middle name or initial. Like with former MSU football coach John L. Smith.

But if you feel the name is fairly unique, it's less necessary. Like with Omar Sofradzija.

BTW, you may have noticed serial killers or mass murderers or criminals of the highest profile are often referred to with a middle name included (like John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, ect.). That's because with a crime so heinous, you want to go the extra mile to make sure you're identifying the right guy.

For a guide, please look under AP Style under middle names.

One more BTW ... did you need to use Layoux's name in the lede, or would it be sufficient to identify him in the generic as a 22-year-old clerk in the lede and then name him in the nut graf? What did you do, and why did you do it?

More Ledes: Did You Need The Name?

In your ledes, some of you referred to the car accident victim specifically -- Scott Forsythe -- while others referred to him in the generic -- 22-year-old local man, or something to that effect.

While neither is wrong, I'd say the latter is the best approach. You have no reason to believe Forsythe is someone that would be known by name to your readers. In such cases, the generic identifier would suffice in a first reference, and you can offer the specific name as a secondary detail later in the story.

(Remember, in a real situation you would have the rest of the story to fill in specific details and secondary information!)

Now, if the victim was Oprah Winfrey, the name would be a good bet for the lede, precisely because she is someone many people would instantly recognize by name.

911: Identification

Probably the hardest thing about this exercise for you was identification. We had competing interests at work here.

First, you should have been operating under the general journalistic premise that we do NOT name rape victims in almost all cases.

And on this point, some of us DID name the victim by name.

Earlier in this semester, we discussed when and when not to name victims in stories. In most cases we DO name victims, but a notable exception in American journalism regarded the names of rape victims.

In general, the current rule of thumb is that in weighing the benefit to society in knowing who exactly was victimized versus the harm that would come in terms of stigma to the victim, we do not name rape victims expect in rare circumstances, like a victim wanting to intentionally put a name and face to a victim to promote greater societal understanding, or a rape victim whose alleged attacker wasn't convicted in criminal court but who is facing a lawsuit for money in civil court.

This wasn't one of those times.

Then, there is the concern of making a virtual identification; that is, giving so much other information that it is easy for anybody to identify the victim.

Some of us named the victim's daughter. A daughter only has one mother, right? So that would be real easy to narrow down who the victim was if we gave the girl's name.

Also, some of us listed the exact home address where the crime took place. Only one family lives in a home, right? Again, we took a huge step in virtually identifying the victim.

Even though an exact address would expose the victim, don't readers still deserve to know where a crime took place? I mean, a story is much more relevant if it happened on your street or in your neighborhood than if it didn't. Some location is necessary to establish relevance.

A couple of us handled it in a smart way: you simply said the incident happened on Wilson Avenue. No street address included. That gave readers enough information to better set proximity, without giving away the victim's home and creating a virtual identification.

Now, what about the suspect's name? I think only under the rarest of cases would you not name the suspect. He's central to the story. As a society we need to know who among us is considered dangerous, and who among us is being locked up like a zoo animal by our authorities.

The only time in my whole journalism career when I didn't name a suspect was in a case around 1992 -- really early in my professional career -- where I was covering the trial of a teen accused of raping his own mother.

My editors went back-and-forth on how to handle it before deciding they wouldn't name the victim or the suspect, because naming the latter would identify the former. And there was a big ol' editor's note added ahead of my lede to explain their reasoning.

So exceptions are rare. Either the circumstances are amazingly twisted and unique or the suspects are juveniles and a particular media organization has rules about naming kids.

Again, this ain't one of 'em.

I also thought important to the story was noting that Caspinwall was a neighbor of the victim. Readers need to know if this crime was totally random or if there was some sort of link between the victim and attacker. Readers have more reason to worry if someone is willy-nilly breaking into random homes, as opposed to attacking a neighbor, right?

But only a few of us you noted the link.

Note I say Caspinwall was a neighbor, not her direct neighbor. A neighbor -- or even better, a nearby neighbor -- could be somebody next door or down the street, right? So using neighbor in the generic doesn't necessarily narrow the possible victim pool to a single house or two.

Next, is the suspect's home address needed? I think some identification of where he lives is noteworthy. Wouldn't readers really want to know if an alleged rapist and home invader lived by them? Wouldn't you?

Also, there was something else that I think we owed the reader: an explanation of why you weren't naming the girl or listing her exact address.

Even though you're following journalistic rules, your readers probably don't know those rules and may simply be wondering, why the hell aren't there any names or exact addresses in this story? It wouldn't have hurt to have a simple background sentence somewhere in the story, like this:

The names of the girl and victim and the exact address where the crime occurred is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim.

That way, you are being transparent with readers about why they're not getting the level of information that other non-rape stories would include. A couple of us did do something along those lines.

Admittedly, this was a confusing exercise. We had many different factors tugging at us. It's really a tough situation for a young reporter to find himself or herself in. In a real-world setting, we'd definitely want to bring an editor in the loop to help make the best judgments that give the readers the most information while at the same time minimizing harm to the victim.

But here, I wanted to test your judgment and see how you responded. And I figured you'd appreciate the lesson much more if we did it this way, as opposed to just lecturing about it.

And in all fairness to you, how you handled these circumstances were a smaller-than-usual part of your assignment grade here. I gave you a break because I didn't want you to suffer a penalty on this one, but I did want you to have to think about it before we discussed it now.

Finally, this is how I would have handled it: I WOULD NOT name the victim or the girl. I WOULD name the suspect and even use HIS home address. I'd say the victim lived nearby, but I wouldn't specifically say they were direct neighbors.

That way, readers know who did this (and know exactly where the sicko lived) and the general area where the crime occurred and that it wasn't a random crime, while at the same time limiting the ability to identify who the victim was.

This is the sort of stuff you'll have to think about all the time in deciding what is the best way to tell your story.

Robbery: Did You Need ...

. . . to use the clerk's full name of Michael Ernest Layoux?

It's not wrong to use middle names or middle initials, but here's a good rule of thumb: if you feel the name is so common where a middle name is needed to distinguish a person from others with a similar name, then you may want to use a middle name or initial. Like with former MSU football coach John L. Smith.

But if you feel the name is fairly unique, it's less necessary. Like with Omar Sofradzija.

BTW, you may have noticed serial killers or mass murderers or criminals of the highest profile are often referred to with a middle name included (like John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, ect.). That's because with a crime so heinous, you want to go the extra mile to make sure you're identifying the right guy.

For a guide, please look under AP Style under middle names.

One more BTW ... did you need to use Layoux's name in the lede, or would it be sufficient to identify him in the generic as a 22-year-old clerk in the lede and then name him in the nut graf? What did you do, and why did you do it?

Murder: Sufficient Description

Very nice work overall on this assignment. But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:

This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:

Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.

Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. It describes so many people, it doesn't shrink the suspect pool; it broadens it to include all sorts of folks who have nothing to do with it.

Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!

It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:

The robber was between 5-foot, 10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.

This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.

Same thing applies with using race in a description. If you have enough additional details to narrow the suspect pool, then use race. If not, then  it's not really relevant since it would impugn many innocent people as well. It's useless in helping narrow the suspect field, and narrowing the suspect pool is the whole point of providing a description.

More Ledes: Did You Need The Name?

In your ledes, some of you referred to the car accident victim specifically -- Scott Forsythe -- while others referred to him in the generic -- 22-year-old local man, or something to that effect.

While neither is wrong, I'd say the latter is the best approach. You have no reason to believe Forsythe is someone that would be known by name to your readers. In such cases, the generic identifier would suffice in a first reference, and you can offer the specific name as a secondary detail later in the story.

(Remember, in a real situation you would have the rest of the story to fill in specific details and secondary information!)

Now, if the victim was Oprah Winfrey, the name would be a good bet for the lede, precisely because she is someone many people would instantly recognize by name.

Murder: Sufficient Description

Very nice work overall on this assignment. But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:

This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:

Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.

Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. It describes so many people, it doesn't shrink the suspect pool; it broadens it to include all sorts of folks who have nothing to do with it.

Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!

It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:

The robber was between 5-foot, 10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.

This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.

Same thing applies with using race in a description. If you have enough additional details to narrow the suspect pool, then use race. If not, then  it's not really relevant since it would impugn many innocent people as well. It's useless in helping narrow the suspect field, and narrowing the suspect pool is the whole point of providing a description.

Robbery: Did You Need ...

. . . to use the clerk's full name of Michael Ernest Layoux?

It's not wrong to use middle names or middle initials, but here's a good rule of thumb: if you feel the name is so common where a middle name is needed to distinguish a person from others with a similar name, then you may want to use a middle name or initial. Like with former MSU football coach John L. Smith.

But if you feel the name is fairly unique, it's less necessary. Like with Omar Sofradzija.

BTW, you may have noticed serial killers or mass murderers or criminals of the highest profile are often referred to with a middle name included (like John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, ect.). That's because with a crime so heinous, you want to go the extra mile to make sure you're identifying the right guy.

For a guide, please look under AP Style under middle names.

One more BTW ... did you need to use Layoux's name in the lede, or would it be sufficient to identify him in the generic as a 22-year-old clerk in the lede and then name him in the nut graf? What did you do, and why did you do it?

More Ledes: Did You Need The Name?

In your ledes, some of you referred to the car accident victim specifically -- Scott Forsythe -- while others referred to him in the generic -- 22-year-old local man, or something to that effect.

While neither is wrong, I'd say the latter is the best approach. You have no reason to believe Forsythe is someone that would be known by name to your readers. In such cases, the generic identifier would suffice in a first reference, and you can offer the specific name as a secondary detail later in the story.

(Remember, in a real situation you would have the rest of the story to fill in specific details and secondary information!)

Now, if the victim was Oprah Winfrey, the name would be a good bet for the lede, precisely because she is someone many people would instantly recognize by name.

911: Identification

Probably the hardest thing about this exercise for you was identification. We had competing interests at work here.

First, you should have been operating under the general journalistic premise that we do NOT name rape victims in almost all cases.

And on this point, some of us DID name the victim by name.

Earlier in this semester, we discussed when and when not to name victims in stories. In most cases we DO name victims, but a notable exception in American journalism regarded the names of rape victims.

In general, the current rule of thumb is that in weighing the benefit to society in knowing who exactly was victimized versus the harm that would come in terms of stigma to the victim, we do not name rape victims expect in rare circumstances, like a victim wanting to intentionally put a name and face to a victim to promote greater societal understanding, or a rape victim whose alleged attacker wasn't convicted in criminal court but who is facing a lawsuit for money in civil court.

This wasn't one of those times.

Then, there is the concern of making a virtual identification; that is, giving so much other information that it is easy for anybody to identify the victim.

Some of us named the victim's daughter. A daughter only has one mother, right? So that would be real easy to narrow down who the victim was if we gave the girl's name.

Also, some of us listed the exact home address where the crime took place. Only one family lives in a home, right? Again, we took a huge step in virtually identifying the victim.

Even though an exact address would expose the victim, don't readers still deserve to know where a crime took place? I mean, a story is much more relevant if it happened on your street or in your neighborhood than if it didn't. Some location is necessary to establish relevance.

A couple of us handled it in a smart way: you simply said the incident happened on Wilson Avenue. No street address included. That gave readers enough information to better set proximity, without giving away the victim's home and creating a virtual identification.

Now, what about the suspect's name? I think only under the rarest of cases would you not name the suspect. He's central to the story. As a society we need to know who among us is considered dangerous, and who among us is being locked up like a zoo animal by our authorities.

The only time in my whole journalism career when I didn't name a suspect was in a case around 1992 -- really early in my professional career -- where I was covering the trial of a teen accused of raping his own mother.

My editors went back-and-forth on how to handle it before deciding they wouldn't name the victim or the suspect, because naming the latter would identify the former. And there was a big ol' editor's note added ahead of my lede to explain their reasoning.

So exceptions are rare. Either the circumstances are amazingly twisted and unique or the suspects are juveniles and a particular media organization has rules about naming kids.

Again, this ain't one of 'em.

I also thought important to the story was noting that Caspinwall was a neighbor of the victim. Readers need to know if this crime was totally random or if there was some sort of link between the victim and attacker. Readers have more reason to worry if someone is willy-nilly breaking into random homes, as opposed to attacking a neighbor, right?

But only a few of us you noted the link.

Note I say Caspinwall was a neighbor, not her direct neighbor. A neighbor -- or even better, a nearby neighbor -- could be somebody next door or down the street, right? So using neighbor in the generic doesn't necessarily narrow the possible victim pool to a single house or two.

Next, is the suspect's home address needed? I think some identification of where he lives is noteworthy. Wouldn't readers really want to know if an alleged rapist and home invader lived by them? Wouldn't you?

Also, there was something else that I think we owed the reader: an explanation of why you weren't naming the girl or listing her exact address.

Even though you're following journalistic rules, your readers probably don't know those rules and may simply be wondering, why the hell aren't there any names or exact addresses in this story? It wouldn't have hurt to have a simple background sentence somewhere in the story, like this:

The names of the girl and victim and the exact address where the crime occurred is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim.

That way, you are being transparent with readers about why they're not getting the level of information that other non-rape stories would include. A couple of us did do something along those lines.

Admittedly, this was a confusing exercise. We had many different factors tugging at us. It's really a tough situation for a young reporter to find himself or herself in. In a real-world setting, we'd definitely want to bring an editor in the loop to help make the best judgments that give the readers the most information while at the same time minimizing harm to the victim.

But here, I wanted to test your judgment and see how you responded. And I figured you'd appreciate the lesson much more if we did it this way, as opposed to just lecturing about it.

And in all fairness to you, how you handled these circumstances were a smaller-than-usual part of your assignment grade here. I gave you a break because I didn't want you to suffer a penalty on this one, but I did want you to have to think about it before we discussed it now.

Finally, this is how I would have handled it: I WOULD NOT name the victim or the girl. I WOULD name the suspect and even use HIS home address. I'd say the victim lived nearby, but I wouldn't specifically say they were direct neighbors.

That way, readers know who did this (and know exactly where the sicko lived) and the general area where the crime occurred and that it wasn't a random crime, while at the same time limiting the ability to identify who the victim was.

This is the sort of stuff you'll have to think about all the time in deciding what is the best way to tell your story.

Murder: Sufficient Description

Very nice work overall on this assignment. But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:

This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:

Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.

Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. It describes so many people, it doesn't shrink the suspect pool; it broadens it to include all sorts of folks who have nothing to do with it.

Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!

It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:

The robber was between 5-foot, 10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.

This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.

Same thing applies with using race in a description. If you have enough additional details to narrow the suspect pool, then use race. If not, then  it's not really relevant since it would impugn many innocent people as well. It's useless in helping narrow the suspect field, and narrowing the suspect pool is the whole point of providing a description.

Robbery: Did You Need ...

. . . to use the clerk's full name of Michael Ernest Layoux?

It's not wrong to use middle names or middle initials, but here's a good rule of thumb: if you feel the name is so common where a middle name is needed to distinguish a person from others with a similar name, then you may want to use a middle name or initial. Like with former MSU football coach John L. Smith.

But if you feel the name is fairly unique, it's less necessary. Like with Omar Sofradzija.

BTW, you may have noticed serial killers or mass murderers or criminals of the highest profile are often referred to with a middle name included (like John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, ect.). That's because with a crime so heinous, you want to go the extra mile to make sure you're identifying the right guy.

For a guide, please look under AP Style under middle names.

One more BTW ... did you need to use Layoux's name in the lede, or would it be sufficient to identify him in the generic as a 22-year-old clerk in the lede and then name him in the nut graf? What did you do, and why did you do it?

More Ledes: Did You Need The Name?

In your ledes, some of you referred to the car accident victim specifically -- Scott Forsythe -- while others referred to him in the generic -- 22-year-old local man, or something to that effect.

While neither is wrong, I'd say the latter is the best approach. You have no reason to believe Forsythe is someone that would be known by name to your readers. In such cases, the generic identifier would suffice in a first reference, and you can offer the specific name as a secondary detail later in the story.

(Remember, in a real situation you would have the rest of the story to fill in specific details and secondary information!)

Now, if the victim was Oprah Winfrey, the name would be a good bet for the lede, precisely because she is someone many people would instantly recognize by name.