Print names before charges?

The Minnesota Star Tribune has historically refused to run the names of people arrested for high crimes, like murder, until a formal accusation has been released by police. Even as local T.V. stations are spilling out the name of the person arrested, the Strib usually waits to release the names. However, a recent murder case showed that their ethical guidelines might be changing:

The Strib did print [the arrested man's] name — on buzz.mn, which it brands 'Star Tribune Communities.' There, a user named 'mplscrimewatch' posted the complete Minneapolis police media release — with the identity that newsroom professionals had redacted.

Why? Why change policy now? Two reasons...

The web's rampaging information flow [... and] competition.

Not good enough for me and others agree as there are some worries about the change.

[R]eporter Caroline Lowe says she's open to her boss's argument
but, 'My concern is you can never give back a reputation if the person is never
charged. How can we minimize the harm?'

Good question, Caroline. Maybe the Strib's list of exceptions to the old policy holds a few answers.

Assistant Managing Editor Paul Klauda, who heads up the Strib's
review, says his paper's protocol allows four basic exceptions: when there's no
doubt who committed the act, when the suspect puts himself or herself in the
limelight, when the suspect is a public figure, and perhaps the most gaping of
all, when the case has high public interest.

Not good enough for me either. Legally, this all sounds great; ethically, there's something missing. However,news director Scott Libin at WCCO-Channel 4 explains further.

Libin insists a looser policy can have moral grounding: "The
Society of Professional Journalists says [our] primary obligation is to seek the
truth and report it as fully as possible. Not seek the truth and hold it. Second
is journalistic independence, and the third is minimizing harm — but that's
third. To me, that means we don't need a good reason to report what's true, but
a good reason not to."

Brilliant. Duty over compassion - Kant would agree and so do I.