The debate over whether the media should identify rape victims continues. There should be no debate, however, about one group of sexual assault victims. We should not identify, through words or pictures, children who havebeen sexually exploited, and we should interview them only under carefully controlled conditions, if at all.

Why? Children cannot give informed consent to being photographed for thesame reason they are incapable of giving informed consent to having sex with an adult: they cannot assess the potential consequences. Furthermore, in many cases their parents are equally ignorant of the stigma their children may suffer if they are identified. So even with the parents' consent I don't think we should identify child victims or project their images, as HBO did in its powerful documentary Child of Rage.

Interviews may be conducted without revealing children's identities, of course. The rewards and dangers of such interviews are best illustrated by a generally excellent article in Tropic, The Miami Herald's Sunday magazine. "Haunted Houses," by Madeleine Blais (March 22, 1987), explored the aftermath of a notorious Florida day-care case. The dramatic lead had Blais riding in a car with a six-year-old victim and her mother. The child resisted answering questions until her mother said, "Tell her how Frank [the molester] chased you with the knife. . . ." The child "reluctantly" provided details, then stopped talking and began "humming ferociously." Finally, Blais wrote, "the child's head lolls to the side, and her eyes are closed. She pretends to be asleep or drugged. At the same time, she lifts her skirt and starts to pull down her underpants."

Blais did not identify this child, or another whom she quoted later. The passages in which they appear are undeniably poignant and powerful. Even so, the interviews on which they were based were, in my opinion, inappropriate. There's no way to predict how a child will react to interviews of this kind or to know what further psyhic damage may result from them. Investigators, therapists, and lawyers need to ask probing questions to help the child and to see that justice is done, but why must reporters? And if one reporter interviews a child, will the parents say no to the competition?

Moreover, in this instance, it could be argued, the interviews are unnecessary. Blais's article contained a wealth of information provided by victims' parents, including quotes from their children. When I questioned Blais about this matter, she told me the parents had invited her to talk to their children and had, in fact, asked most of the questions themselves. It never occurred to her not to interview the children partly because the parents felt strongly that this was the only way the enormity of the crime could be shown, she said.

"Every concern you raise is legitimate," she said, adding that she supports "any way we can protect children. But when they've been violated," she added, "is it a further violation not to pay attention to them, not to talk to them? I have no easy answers."

Is interviewing a sexually abused child ever justified? I, too, have no easy answers. But, at a minimum, we should not interview children reflexively. In most instances, other sources -- which may include transcripts, videotapes, and adults in whom children have confided -- will suffice. If there's something important that only the child can add, and the child and the guardians are amenable, perhaps an interview is appropriate. The reporter should make it clear, however, that the child is not obliged to answer -- and should be sensitive enough to stop if it is apparent the child is suffering. Interviews should be conducted with a therapist, lawyer, or guardian present.

It boils down to this: child victims are uniquely vulnerable. When we respect ethical lines that may shield them from further damage, we demonstrate not passivity but sensitivity -- a quality too seldom associated with journalists.

cjr  |  archive  |  resources  |  contact  |  search  |  subscribe