It was October of 1999 when Doug Chapin was working as an editor on the copy desk of the Tribune Chronical in Warren, Ohio. He was editing a story about a double murder that occurred involving a woman and her 12-year-old daughter found dead in their home. The reporter on duty used the police report as the source and described the scene exactly how it was in the police report. Included in the report stated that the girl was nude from the waist down, and semen was found on her body. Immediately Chapin questioned the nature and explicitness of the description. Chaplin took the issue directly to the city editor, which led to a discussion with the reporter. They decided to leave out the details of her nudity and the semen found on her body. Also, they convinced the editor to leave the explicit details from future stories and warn the audience beforehand. The situation did end the way Chapin wanted it to, and because he knew the final decision would not fall on him it was easy for him to alert his supervisor about the dilemma. Chapin states there was no fallout from the situation and no jobs were lost. …show more content…
It states “Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects (Day 456).” I believe Chapin followed this code when bringing awareness to this situation. If I was in his shoes, I would have handled things exactly the same way. He did a great job brining awareness without throwing the reporter under the bus. I do believe the resolution was acceptable, they did what was best for the readers, maybe if they had more time, more editing could have been done to further improve the