Where have you gone Daniel Shorr?

Just days after the passing of Daniel Shorr, one of journalism's greatest sons, I am reminded what we will miss without Shorr as part of our daily news ritual: Standards. Empathy. Honor.

Okay. I'll admit, these are not just missing since the death of Mr. Shorr. These elements, the elements that made the journalist's profession worth aspiring to, have been waning for some time. It is also unfair to place this burden on the memory of Mr. Shorr. He could not have saved the profession on his own. But his work served as an example to those who listened to and watched him; every story a reminder that caring about your subject matter and reporting those stories with the courage of your convictions were acts of honor.

Last weekend a house fire took the lives of two women - mothers, sisters, friends. Police and fire officials ruled the fire suspicious and the names of the victims were withheld from local media until positive identifications could be made and next of kin contacted.

Most local media outlets conducted interviews with neighbors, police and, in some cases, friends of the families. Most local media continued to withhold the names of the victims. This practice protects the family who may not yet know about the loss of their loved ones and it preserves the integrity of police and fire department investigations. It is one of the last acts of courtesy extended by an increasingly vicious news media.

One young reporter, eager to get the scoop, violated this trust. He reported the story and then delivered the names of the victims to the viewing audience. His source: a Facebook page established as a memorial to the victims.

The reporter did two things wrong here. First, he shared the identity of the victims before public officials permitted him to do so. The reasons for withholding the names are listed above and his violation of this practice is clear.

His second mistake is somewhat less clear to the casual viewer. He sited Facebook as the source of his information. This citation was somewhat disingenuous because in all probability, the reporter already had the name of the victims, either from a source at the police or fire department or from his discussions with victims' neighbors and friends near the scene of the fire.

In the fast-paced world of modern journalism, it is easy to allow oneself to take shortcuts. Its easy to blur an ethical line to break a story, to get ahead, to be the first. But in this instance there was nothing gained by the reporters misdeed. The story was not contingent on the identity of these women. It was easier left unsaid.