Presenting difficult facts not done lightly or with malice

Today’s edition of the Frontiersman contains a story about a court hearing held Thursday in Palmer in relation to the apparent murder of two people in Meadow Lakes. When the story appeared online Friday, it generated a large amount of criticism from readers who believe we crossed a line by identifying the juvenile who has been taken into custody for the shootings by their initials. These readers say we acted unprofessionally or unethically because these initials quite obviously identify who police think committed the killings.

While we don’t always respond publicly to criticism, we feel such a reply is warranted in this case. Readers who disagree with us have every right to their opinions, and we strongly encourage anyone who wants to offer an opposing viewpoint to please send a letter to the editor.

The decision to write the story the way we did was not an easy one. The shocking murders of a mother and her son have left this community with some extremely raw feelings, and we’re sensitive to the concerns of those who think too much information could harm the surviving members of the family by further publicizing the incident. We do not take pleasure in illuminating the horrifying facts of this story, and we certainly do not do so out of a desire to sensationalize the story or — as at least one person suggested — sell more newspapers.

Our job as journalists is to seek out and tell the whole story. In this case, where such a terrible thing has happened, the community has a right to know about it.

Although state agencies are bound by privacy laws when they arrest and charge juvenile offenders, we in the press are not. And in this particular case, we thought it would do more harm than good to obscure some of the basic facts of the case — including who police think shot and killed Renee and Dean Millard.

Since the case is in the juvenile justice system, it’s likely no further information will be released to the public. If we were to ignore the obvious, it’s likely this incident would disappear from the headlines and quite possibly never see the light of day again. But that would leave the public only more confused and ill-informed.

Already rumors and wild stories have been spreading about what happened that terrible morning in Meadow Lakes. By failing to disclose the facts that we know, we would only be feeding into these rumors.

There are still numerous issues around this case, issues that the public cannot properly debate without as much information as possible. The local district attorney, for example, must still decide if adult charges are warranted. Without even knowing the age of the alleged killer or the suspect’s relationship to the victims, how can the public know if an appropriate decision has been made? Further, how can the public know if justice is being done if they’re not even sure who has been implicated in the crime? How can the community come to understand this tragedy if it only has hints and whispers to rely on?

It has been pointed out that other media outlets have not gone as far as we have when it comes to “connecting the dots” in this case. That’s not our concern. Other media outlets in Alaska may be fine with taking the easy route and going along with the charade of obfuscation, but we are not. Frankly, we think our friends in the media should reconsider their position.

Our job is to tell the truth as best we can. We do not tell this story with relish, but with a desire to help further a well-informed dialogue in this community. And we refuse to pretend these murders were simply a bad dream that can easily be forgotten.

This is one nightmare that needs to be seen in the light of day.

TO READ MORE:

The journalism website Editor and Publisher has addressed the issue of naming child murder defendants in a piece by William B. Ketter. To read Ketter’s explanation of the history and ethics behind such disclosures, visit www.editorandpublisher.com/columns/why-child-murder-defendants-are-named-by-the-press/