A necessary anonymity in the public spotlight

Quick. Can you name the person who went on a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech? The man who killed five students at Northern Illinois University? The men who terrorized the East Coast a few years ago with a monthslong random killing spree? I hope not.

There may be a certain value in putting a face on evil, identifying by picture and name the people who commit or are accused of committing heinous acts of violence. And, to be sure, we make it a policy in most crime stories to show the faces of the people accused or being sought. People have a natural interest in the identities and appearance of those in their community who commit crimes, and including their identities helps the community track them through the justice system.

But there is something different about the kind of crime that makes an entire nation shudder. No matter how artfully or sensitively the story is told, it can — and statistics show, often does — infect susceptible minds and unwittingly encourage people so selfishly desperate for attention that they will try to use a similar evil to shift the spotlight onto themselves.

That poses a dilemma. It's our duty, our very reason for being, to inform; but, informing, even by the standards of our usual everyday reporting, can perpetuate the evil.

The Daily Herald responds with a policy that, in general, limits us to naming individuals in such cases only once in a story. In the immediate time frame of a case like the Tucson shootings, that can be challenging. The high public interest, the stunned clamor to know who could do such a thing and why, raises questions that rightly demand answers.

But in that process, and especially after a measure of calm has returned, we can move away from repeatedly identifying a suspect. We can limit the chances he or she will become some sort of folk hero for the deeply disturbed. We can let such people know, in fact, that if you're committing this kind of crime so you can swim in a sea of negative attention, it won't work with us — at least not for long.

And rather than be remembered by name for the commission of your unspeakable act, you are more likely to be known by our readers, at least, as just some anonymous random mental case.

On a different Tucson-related topic, it was disappointing — in the wake of all we've written about civility lately — to hear and read so much so fast trying to pin blame for the shooter's actions, even before anyone had taken the time to learn much about him, on a presumed agenda fomented by the tone of some political commentators.

As we said in an editorial Tuesday, such shallow, reactionary thinking only exacerbates the caustic climate of debate. It's unfortunate, and we don't like it. But — also as I said last week — that doesn't mean we won't allow it.

We're watching our columnists and our letter writers to try to ensure that the commentary we publish from all political perspectives is responsible and productive. But violence against government officials touches a nerve in us all. So, columnists are going to talk about it, as are you and your friends and neighbors.

We won't agree with it all, nor will you. But the public sharing of ideas, sorrow and outrage is part of what inevitably happens in a stable, vibrant democracy, so be prepared to encounter a wide range of thinking. With luck, hard work and mutual cooperation, we may be able to transform some of the ideas that emerge into solutions that will eliminate this sort of tragedy, or, if nothing else, remove its allure for future anonymous random mental cases.

• Jim Slusher is an assistant managing editor at the Daily Herald.