AFTER DEADLINE

By Curtis Murayama
Advertiser Sports Editor

To name or not to name?

That's a question that always comes up in the reporting of sports games, especially in high school.

Should we list the name of the person who committed a crucial error or had a brain lock, or should we "write around it," as journalists say?

I know how the parents, coaches and others feel, simply because reporters hear from them all the time. So do I.

One time, a family member sought out one of our reporters after he wrote that a player had committed three errors in an inning.

Another time, a reporter got calls because he named the player who committed an error that resulted in a loss. It didn't matter that the game was televised statewide and the play came in the final inning.

It seems like readers want us to follow a double standard: Publish the name when the athlete does well. Don't publish when the athlete does poorly.

The standard here is: Be fair, yet sensitive.

We are not trying to humiliate anyone or "ruin someone's life," as we are so often accused.

We're just trying to be as complete and detailed as possible in our reporting. That's what journalism is all about.

Oftentimes, the reporting is dictated by the game. Did the play happen early or late in the game? Was it near midfield, or by the goal line? Did it decide the game or not?

Another deciding factor is the level of play.

Professionals, to me, should never be exempt from being named, because performing before the public is their job.

Collegiate athletes, especially in an area with no professional team, shouldn't seek protection, either, because of their public-figure status. Plus, many are on scholarship, which is worth money.

High school and youth league athletes are judged on the situation.

For instance, if a coach makes disparaging remarks about an opposing player, what good would it do to print them? Why upset both parties? By the time the story sees print, the coach probably would have cooled off and wouldn't be eager to see what he said in the newspaper.

In some circumstances, a team or an athlete elevates itself to be scrutinized on a higher level.

One example would be the Waipi'o team that went to the Little League World Series, which acquired high national and local visibility.

Another obvious one would be Michelle Wie, who, despite being 14, put herself on a professional stage.

OK, now you know my feelings about naming names.

What about running pictures?

Remember those University of Hawai'i football players who were suspended in the aftermath of a brawl between UH and Houston in the Christmas Day Hawai'i Bowl?

I was in favor of running the story on the cover of our paper, but I was against running the pictures.

Why should these guys be pictured on the same page with criminals, fugitives and other miscreants?

Why should they be made an example for hundreds of thousands to see?

Where's the sensitivity?

All they did was get involved in a brawl in which no one got hurt.

One colleague who agreed with me said, "What good would it do?"

Other supervisors disagreed, saying putting a face with a name only helps the reader.

"It's what we do," was the argument.

The players weren't public figures; they were backups. Names were enough, I said.

What about everyone else who is guilty of a misdeed — say, a DUI arrest or something. Why not a picture then?

Another person suggested that running their pictures might be a good lesson for others who engage in such activity, especially on national television.

I lost the argument. But I was glad the issue was debated. The subject wasn't taken lightly. I provided my opinion and heard others. Hearing the other side made me re-evaluate my stance. A decision was made.

Hey, that's what journalism is all about.