Why The Gazette didn't show victim's photo in Cedric Everson sex abuse trial

The issue was not expected last week but there it was: Should we publish in The Gazette a photo of the victim who testified in Cedric Everson III's sex abuse trial in Iowa City?

Ordinarily, the question would not exist. News organizations generally refrain from identifying sex abuse victims and rules for using cameras in the court prohibit recording a victim's testimony, unless the victim does not object to the recording. The reason has been stated often: a stigma gets attached to being a victim for this particular crime. The stigma is so pervasive that it keeps women from reporting the crime when it happens to them, people who assist sexual assault victims learn over and over again.

The woman Everson is accused of assaulting did not object to cameras in the courtroom when she took the stand last week to testify against the former University of Iowa football player in Johnson County District Court. However, she did not want her name to be revealed with the video. Under those circumstances, the judge allowed cameras to record her testimony.

The issue then, in newsrooms, was whether or not to show her face in news coverage. Showing her face would identify her to a certain degree, especially because people following the case know she was a member of the UI swimming team when the incident that led to the criminal charge happened.

Showing her face and not revealing her name, stating instead that she did not want to be identified, would seem odd. At our shop, we wondered whether handling the testimony that way would detract from the dramatic story the woman was telling. News editors for The Gazette, KCRG-TV9, TheGazette.com and kcrg.com huddled during the afternoon and concluded that, while we couldn't be sure, it might.

Even so, the discussion included, Everson has a right to confront his accuser. What if he is acquitted? What about the obligation to report all of the facts and circumstances of this case? And don't we endorse the notion that you should think differently about sexual abuse when you withhold a victim's name, while reporting the names of victims in other criminal accusations?

 The Gazette's decision: we did not run the photo in the newspaper because it only would show her face, without the context her name would provide. We reported what she said, though, which was the news of the day. We quoted her testimony and reported her relationship with this trial. Everson got to confront his accuser in court. We will report if he is acquitted, as his trial still is under way and we do not know its outcome.

Whether or not sexual contact is wanted is a fair question that needs to be asked in court when a defendant's future hangs in the balance. Defendants have rights. But the stigma still exists, regardless of the outcome of these kinds of trials, for people who testify as victims. We chose not to add to the stigma. And to be clear, I have no problem with decisions other media made last week on whether or not to use the photo. Judgments had to be made on what to do.

The prosecution has rested its case in this trial. Everson's defense team will get the chance to tell its side of what happened when court resumes this week.

This case has a high profile and is being followed nationally. I thought you'd be interested in the thought process behind one of those interesting decisions made when we try to weigh how to present the news to you. I have received a couple of e-mails today, Sunday, Jan. 16,  because I wrote about this in my Jan. 16 Gazette column, and both were thoughtful and supportive.

Until social attitudes toward sex abuse victims change we all will have to deal with these kinds of decisions when accusations get made in personally sensitive criminal cases.