PressEthic

Relatives think that a 4-year old girl “is a virtual prisoner in her own home,” because of the media surrounding her. So what does the New York Times do to fix that? The paper just decided to run the story on the Front Page of its Metro section.

More than 3 weeks ago, Valery Belén Saavedra Lozada was found alone in a street of the Queens, New York, abandoned by her parents. In order to learn her identity, she was put on television. Immediately, relatives recognized the girl. Thanks to the video, the police also arrested a man accused of having killed the girl’s mother.

“But now, those caring for the girl, Valery Belén Saavedra Lozada, say coverage by the news media has become a curse. She is trapped inside her relatives' home on Long Island, they say, unable to play outside or ride the new bicycle she received as a gift,” the New York Times explains.

The article continues inside the paper. It details how the media coverage is now hurting the young girl. There is also a picture of her, with this caption: “those caring for Valery Belén Saavedra Lozada, who is staying with relatives, say the unrelenting media attention is violating the girl's privacy.” Maybe a clearer caption would have been â€œthose publishing pictures of the girl are violating her privacy.”

Isn’t it contradictory? This is like if I wrote: “I do not want people to know I think this article is just nonsense and a very hypocritical way to do what it pretends to be denouncing.”

For the New York Times, another good example of this nonsense would be to run this headline “X does not want courageous newspapers to reveal he is the one who leaked the name of a CIA agent.”