Top

news

Stories

 

Pioneer Press splashes suspect's HIV status and mugshot across front page

Unapologetic editor says HIV is not a mark of shame

Last Friday's Pioneer Press features the banner headline: "HIV—one more on-the-job risk cops face daily." Directly underneath is the name and mug shot of an 18-year-old suspect who is HIV-positive.

The story uses the tale of the suspect, who was bit by a police dog last week, to suggest that infection from disease is as much a job risk for cops as are bullets.

But was the suspect's medical privacy violated in the process?

It would be one thing if the suspect had cut himself and was actively trying to infect officers, but in this case, the guy was bleeding because the police dog had bitten him. Basically, the police created the threat to their health.

It also must be said that the officers were at very low risk, especially if they took basic precautions like wearing rubber gloves. Indeed, as staff writer Maricella Miranda concedes in the story, "no workers in Minnesota reportedly have contracted HIV on the job since the state Health Department began collecting information in 1982 on the human immunodeficiency virus...." (Miranda did not return a call requesting comment.)

There's also the suspect's age to consider: At 18 years old, he's just barely an adult, and now his HIV status has been revealed, both in print and online, where it will forever live in Google.

And what did the kid do to deserve being put at the top of the front page? Murder? Rape?

No, he was a suspect in a property crime: "a home burglary and an aggravated robbery." That, and the poor decision to flee from the cops.

Did the punishment fit the crime?

Kelly McBride, the ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, reviewed the story and the front-page treatment at our request.

"The one question that I have is, how do they know he's HIV-positive, because they didn't cite a source," McBride says. "I'm assuming it's the cops that told them, and then the question becomes: What are cops doing releasing that information?"

Good question. Next we called Paul Schnell, the St. Paul Police Department spokesman prominently quoted throughout the Pioneer Press story. Schnell said he was surprised when the Pioneer Press called and asked about the suspect's HIV status.

"We didn't even know it until the criminal complaint came out and the Pioneer Press called me about it," Schell says. "When I was contacted, I kind of wondered where the idea had come from, and then I was told it came from the complaint."

Pioneer Press editor Thom Fladung says the police report was found during the routine process of checking arrest records, and it was precisely the HIV angle that was of interest to him and the newsroom.

"It was interesting that it was coming up. It almost felt like something from the mid-'80s," Fladung says. "At the time, this was quite an issue, and there were a lot of lot of gloves being handed out."

Fladung makes no apologies for the decision to feature the suspect's HIV status along with his name and mug shot.

"I don't assume having HIV is a mark of shame, any more than having cancer or any other illness," Fladung says. "The second thing is, newspapers name names. So I approach it from that perspective. We name crime suspects all the time. Why shouldn't we name this one?"

McBride says newspapers no longer shy away from revealing HIV status when it's crucial for a story. But in this case, she wonders whether the suspect's name and photograph really needed to be given prominent display.

"The question is: Is there an alternative to identifying the guy?" McBride asks. "The fact that this particular burglar is HIV-positive is not as crucial to the story so much as the fact that they arrested a burglar, he was bit by a dog, and bled all over the cops. It's not the name that's important in this case." 

 
  • Ben 10/06/2009 3:25:00 AM

    The article make a fair point that the Pioneer Press shouldn't have published the person's name and face with his HIV status, so it's particularly alarming that the City Pages would republish this information in the form of a photo of the article. The face and name are pretty clear in the photo in the newsstand version. I think this deserves an explanation.

  • Molly 10/05/2009 4:45:00 AM

    I do NOT like the belittling of the seriousness of "property crimes" especially BURGLARY. This means this guy was in someone's house by force without their permission and they may well have been seriously endangered by his HIV positive status if the burglary went bad and turned to rape or another for of physical attack. Yes, it is also serious if this information was a medical records leak and it is good this issue is being raised as well. However, it is outrageous that property crimes are pooh-poohed as not dangerous to safety.

  • Hamil Griffin-Cassidy 10/04/2009 11:50:00 PM

    What a topsy-turvey world! Pioneer Press is writing dumb articles and the City Pages is writing good ones. What is going on with the death throes of print journalism? Seriously, Mr. Hoffman, excellent article regarding the ethics and choices of print journalism, I wish there were more like it. Be careful though, I don't know how much longer thoughtful writers like yourself, that bother investigating anything other than *style* will stay employed. best, Hamil Griffin-Cassidy

  • Philip 10/03/2009 1:40:00 AM

    Thanks for writing this article. It's appalling to me that the Pioneer Press felt it was appropriate to publish details of this criminal that had little to do with his crimes. The next time someone drives drunk and gets in an accident perhaps the paper should investigate all their communicable diseases as well. The risk of infection is a concern, but sensationalizing and divulging personal medical information is exactly the issue here. This man is a criminal - but his crime isn't having HIV.

  • Peter 10/02/2009 1:49:00 AM

    While you may be right in questioning whether the Pi Press should run this HIV story, your take on the police response is extremely naive and very poorly reasoned. First you say that the officer's created the situation? Hardly: this is a robbery suspect, driving 100 mph, hitting police cars. To blame them for using a dog to apprehend him is ridiculous. Second, aggravated robbery is not a property crime -- it means he used violent force, perhaps a weapon, on another human being. Third, you state the officers had "very low risk." How could you possibly know that? Wear rubber gloves? The officers were attempting to apprehend a violent suspect -- they don't have time to put on rubber gloves (that will tear in a scuffle anyway). Did you read the part where one officer had an open wound and did 28 days of medicine due to potential exposure? Based on this article, it's apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about regarding this subject. Please stop writing about it.

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy