News IS what it is. No matter what story you do, you have a responsibility to be as accurate as you can, and that responsibility does NOT include bowing to public sentiment.
I says this, as I note that there are several news organizations who have determined that the suspects in a mass-shooting, ( as opposed to, say, a sexual assault,) are such heinous criminals that they should not be named. The logic, such that it is, is that these terrible people should not gain fame from their horrible crimes.
I won't pretend that I don't understand the "logic," I do. There is tremendous, if misguided, pressure, from listeners and viewers who believe that if we don't say their names, it will take away the incentive of others to try to "make a name," for themselves by doing the same thing.
My main quibble with this, is called The Google. Anyone, at any time, can load up a query in Google, and get every detail of a horrible event laid bare before them. From videos of people running, to videos of a mass shooter causing panic. We can get every fact, and quite a bit of supposition by doing a basic search. AND, we can get every available conspiracy theory attached to the event, too.
It is ALL there. At our fingertips. So, if you think that by not saying a name on TV or the radio, that the name will magically die in obscurity, you are either hitting the weed store too often, or you are delusional. I sincerely hope you are high.
When a news organization proudly announces that it is bowing to public pressure to redact ACTUAL, PERTINENT, information, I get a chill down my spine. The only thing I find more morally repugnant than censorship, is self-censorship. Tell me, now that you are barreling proudly down that slippery slope, what is the NEXT terrible thing you will obscure from the delicate and outraged?
You know what? Don't answer that. I am going to be over here, with unvarnished, uncomfortable, facts...including that of, (S)he who must not be named. Listeners and viewers can decide which they prefer.