So far, though, no one has come forward to say they were wrongly identified. And, given that the tweeters were attacking a vulnerable 13-year-old victim—who unlike them, hadn’t chosen to make her claims public—some journalists in neighboring communities have applauded the paper’s choice. “While some might choose to criticize The Register Citizen for not blurring out the Twitter handles and the profile pictures in printing the screen shots, let me say ‘Bravo!’ to those in charge for putting it in our face and forcing us to have the argument,” columnist Jeff Jacobs wrote in Friday’s Hartford Courant. “It’s not a pretty thing to reprint tweets by those under 18, but it’s one-100th as ugly as the re-victimization that takes place” when victims are shamed and humiliated on Twitter.
It’s hard to argue with that logic.
Correction: The initial version of this post incorrectly stated that editors “urged Glenza to cross-reference the criminal blotter with varsity football rosters.” In fact, it was the statewide pending criminal docket that Glenza cross-referenced with football rosters. The relevant sentence has been corrected. CJR regrets the error.
Follow @USProjectCJR for more posts from this author and the rest of the United States Project team.