The case generated as much attention and controversy as it did primarily because of the children’s young age. Although it was legal for The Times to publish the children’s names it still should not have been done. The story, once picked up by news outlets and the media, was further proliferated to the point where the children are now immediately associated with the incident. They will not be able to easily escape the taint of this association and the psychological effect this could have on them at such a young and critical stage of life is a cause for concern.
The Times justified its publication with the responsibility to “provide information” but they seemed to rush in reporting the story and made several factual errors. There is always the need and incentive for news outlets to be the first to report a story but many times it seems that achieving this comes at the expense of both journalistic accuracy and judgment. Publishing the children’s names only served to place them under even more scrutiny and it remains to be seen how they will live with this mark of deviance.