A North East regional daily has stopped covering stories about primary schools on part of its patch after teachers refused to let children be named in photos.
Northern Echo editor Peter Barron made the decision after one of the paper’s photographers turned up at a Middlesbrough primary school for a story on a successful road safety initiative to be told that it was now policy not to give the names of children to newspapers.
The Echo checked with Middlesbrough council which confirmed that primary head teachers, without consulting local media, had made the decision because of fears that paedophiles could use the information to target children.
In a blog post, Peter announced that as a result, the Echo would not be covering primary school events in the borough at least until there is a further discussion about the issue.
Wrote Peter: “The internet can be a scary place and I understand the concerns which lie behind the decision. I also fully appreciate that it is a decision taken because it is genuinely thought to be in the interests of child safety.
“But I also consider it to be a move which is disproportionate, ill-judged and very sad.
“I have come across individual schools which have adopted such a policy but never every school in a borough.
“There is no evidence that paedophiles are using newspapers and their associated websites to groom children. The danger has to be kept in perspective.
“The positives of reporting children’s names in the context of their achievements hugely outweigh the negatives. Publicity gives young people confidence, is a source of pride, and inspires them to aim higher.
“Not so long ago, I was the governor of a primary school and the policy there was to write to parents, asking them to indicate on a form whether they had any objection to their child’s name being published. Very few objections ever came forward.
“There are times – swimming galas being an example – where there is an argument for names not to be published alongside pictures, especially online. But a blanket ban is the wrong way to go.
“The consequence is that The Northern Echo will regrettably not be covering primary school events in Middlesbrough until there is at least a discussion about the issue.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Had a similar problem at my old paper with a few schools. We simply pixellated the faces on the grounds that “paedophiles could be selecting victims” and told readers that the school involved did not want the pupils identifying.The policy was quickly rescinded.
Report this comment
There are schools I know which allow only the first names of children – i.e. the single most useful bit of information for potential grooming.
At least this move might force a discussion about what is sensible and reasonable.
Report this comment
Peter Barron’s spot on. I’ve done school jobs only to be told that I couldn’t have the kids names, despite there being no story without them, and then listened to the indignation of the teachers when the stories get spiked. Most schools operate an ‘opt-out’ policy for photography and few parents exercise that, so if the parents are happy (delighted, usually) to see their kids in the paper, why should teachers be concerned.
Yes, children must be protected but if these people think that a child will be targeted as a result of appearing in a newspaper then they’re living in a paranoid dreamworld.
Report this comment
Good stance from Peter. Ridiculous, reactionary stance from the schools.
Report this comment
Bravo Mr Barron. This is becoming the norm sadly and the paedophile excuse is always trotted out by schools.
Not sure how a name in the paper increases the risk of an attack
Report this comment
OK, I’ll be devil’s advocate here. I’m ex daily journo but also former school governor. The problem isn’t really to do with printing the names in the paper. The problem is online searches now that the papers put everything on the web. And it’s also nothing to do with criminals, as such. At my son’s school, a violent ex-husband – whose former family had moved away to escape from him and were living an anonymous life – were tracked down by him using the child’s name in a search engine and tracing the child to the school from a picture in the paper (website). He then turned up at the gate and there were ugly scenes with him threatening to snatch the child. And of course, their anonymous life was gone.
My view is this … papers tend to revel in ‘we’ve got a right to print so we will’ and to hell with the consequences. Ask yourself this … for 99.99% of the readers, what do they gain by seeing the name of a child? Nothing! It’s meaningless. If they know the child, they’ll know the child anyway from the picture. Yes, it’s nice to have your name in the paper, but if you don’t want your name in the paper, then by definition it’s not a nice experience.
That said, I agree some common sense should prevail re opting out etc but the papers do have an arrogance which means that such arrangements are often abused.
Report this comment
Well done Mr Barron.
The health and safety brigade strike again.
Report this comment
It’s a ridiculous policy, and I say that as someone whose son was a shepherd in his infants school nativity play. We bought extra copies of the Hull Daily Mail and prints of the pix to send to adoring grandparents.
The only risk is probably for families involved in custody disputes where they may not want a violent partner to know where the children live. However, many schools already use opt out forms so those pupils would not be chosen in the first place.
It’s also scaremongering to suggest that schoolchildren will be targeted by paedophiles in this way. Where’s the evidence of that?
Report this comment
ex-hack I can see why you are an ex-hack.
The opt out policy falls on the school to know which children can be photographed and therefore not have them in a position to be photographed.
Simple.
Also if you were living an anonymous life away from an abusive ex partner maybe changing your name (or at least your kids) may be an idea
Report this comment
I regularly produce press releases for the school I am attached to, and six months ago, the headteacher asked me not to put forward the names of children in pictures for the reasons expressed in the above article.
I had a long discussion with her about it and put the journalist’s points across. However, I also had to acknowledge, that as a governor with responsibility for child welfare, I cannot honestly claim that paedophiles don’t search the internet for potential targets. We all know that they do. All staff and governors have had training from CEOP, and evidence suggests that all schools – which have a duty of care to the child – do have to take account of real risks posed by having information about children online.
Naming children in the print version is different, as it’s harder for a paedophile ring in Southampton to trace a child named in print in the Harrogate Advertiser than it is to stalk them when they are identified online, and it is the naming of children online that is making schools very nervous.
Pete Barron’s decision to ban school coverage because of this issue does not reflect well on him. He should understand the position schools are in, and would be better served running investigative stories into the dangers posed by the online environment (they are there and they do exist) rather than having a strop because headteachers are taking their duty of care seriously. And surely he needs the sales generated by schools pictures and stories whether children are named or not?
Report this comment
I attended a teacher training course 30 years ago before I changed course and became a journalist.
I can honestly say that from my time in staff rooms, at different schools, I have rarely come across such groupings of small-minded unworldly wise people concerned with trivia and making petty negative gossip about their colleagues. I came away thinking that if I ever had children, I would not want them within a million miles of these supposed role models.
From my experience, it seems that many teachers have a phobic fear of the press, for no apparent reason other paranoia, yet local newspapers have given sterling service in highlighting schools’ achievements.
Also, when the wheels genuinely do come off at a school and the press pick up on it, I am amazed at the extremes to which teachers race around like ants in a disturbed nest trying to cover their backs, not realising that by declining to answer straightforward basic and harmless questions, they are merely generating bigger headlines and heightening public concern.
Report this comment
I bet they’re on to the papers like lightning for coverage of anything when their Ofsted report is due!
Report this comment
sorry ex hack. kids and their mums DO like to see names in the local paper. Call it vanity but it’s true.
Society had never been more paranoid in peacetime than now.
Years ago I tried to help a local paper fill holes with kids football pictures. was told check with referee, managers, and if any parents had any objections couldnt take them. I gave up.
1-0 to the pervies, even though the pix were not for the web.
Let’s all have a blanket ban. To most journos, even the most parochial hack, this school PR stuff is beyond boring anyway.
Report this comment
Tricky one this, coz on the one hand, names sell papers etc etc
On the other hand, the names mean nothing except to the parents of the kids at the school.
And I’m pretty sure they’d recognise their own child in a pic if they wanted to buy it.
So what real purpose does having the names serve?
Report this comment
I had a probelm with names at one big school. I went to see the Head and agreed we would try an experiment. We took a picture of five kids who were raising money for a charity and made a postcard out of it, including a caption with all the names.
We shared costs with the school and sent the postcard to all 1,200 homes (no confidentiality issues because the school handled the mailing). On the back of the postcard was a joint message promoting the paper and the school, signed by the Head and the Ed, and asking parents about future policy on naming kids in pictures. There was a tick box and if they were opposed to full names they were asked to tick it and return. Not one came back. The school realised then there was no parent support for any kind of stupid ban.
Most paedophiles would never bother to search online for complete strangers to groom. What would be the point? They pick on people they know already.
Report this comment
To House Rules
Hilarious, always the same cliche. The arrogance is astonishing from an industry which has seen about three quarters of its ‘customers’ disappear in recent years. This ‘we know best’ stuff is why people are distrustful. If you had read closely, I said I thought common sense was needed but also that there may be good reason for schools to refuse. (People shouldn’t have to change their identity just because the local paper is fretting over printing little Jimmy’s name)
I do think the newspaper industry needs to stop believing they always know best. Years of joke court coverage have proved that “we treat everyone in court the same” … do me a favour.
Report this comment
To dadhack
I’m not saying names shouldn’t appear. I’m saying that in SOME CASES they shouldn’t appear and it’s not up the the paper to be judge and jury.
Report this comment
In our area most schools operate an opt-out policy, I think the parents just sign a consent form at the beginning of the year and the school keep a record – perfectly sensible and reasonable system.
When children get their pics in the paper, generally speaking the parents, grandparents and other relatives will all want to buy a copy. For that reason alone it seems to be an important part of any local newspaper’s content, so I really hope the Echo and the council can come to some sort of agreement.
Report this comment
Bit of an old chestnut this one, school have had these no names policies for over 10 years now and most papers in my neck of the woods have learnt to get along with it. In most cases parents have given permission for names and photos to be included. Where they have not, then we should respect their – or the school’s decision.If the teacher is unsure then I usually suggest a first names only policy for pics containing less than half a dozen pupils. The parents will know who they are anyway so why should it concern the paper – unless you want to exploit the archive should some future tragedy occur – a bit sick really- like this industry!
Report this comment
Surely the solution is obvious. Tell the newspaper the names must not be used online but are OK for use in the printed paper. Thus the parents can see their kids in the paper, the paper gets any concomitant increased sales but anyone using a search engine online will get nowhere. Changing a specific caption to something more generic is the work of a moment. Like most things, all could be sorted with a bit of common sense.
Report this comment
Well done to Peter. This paedophile hysteria has to be stopped and nonsense from people like Ex hack needs to be challenged. It is the school’s responsibility to ensure any children pictured have permission from their parents or carers and then issues such as those raised by Ex hack will not occur.
I agree newspapers need to be responsible but it is widely understood that paedophiles do not look through newspapers or websites and pick out their victims. It is a shame for the parents and pupils that the Echo has decided to take this action, but hopefully common sense will prevail.
Report this comment
Peter’s qualified ban is a brave move, in that it risks alienating an important section of his readership (Middlesbough mums and dads with kids of primary school age).
The paedophile card is pure scaremongering but Peter is at least drawing attention to it and inviting heads to reconsider the daft decision.
The violent ex-partner argument doesn’t work either as schools know not to include such kids in media photos.
Report this comment
A very petty move from the editor here as this is not a new issue, it’s been around for years.
Most schools in the patch I cover gives the kids first names only, which is fine, but as far as I know most if not all for many years have operated a parental consent policy where those who don’t want their kids in the paper for whatever reason don’t get put forward anyway.
I agree names area basic part of journalism, but in such circumstances are not 100% necessary. And the chances are those families who have children in the paper know about it ayway and they will be the most likely to read the story in the first place.
However, there are too many concerns about the dangers children are exposed to by featuring them in the paper and I seriously doubt many paedophiles will go to the efforts of trawling through the local paper for targets.
Also I wonder how many teachers and council officials who made this ruling put pictures of their own children all over social networking sites therefore exposing them to the similar so-called dangers?
Report this comment
Some ridiculous comments on here.
There is no real reason not to have names of children in newspapers so why pander to ridiculous teachers who claim paedophiles will use the information to select victims.
The school’s are desperate for publicity and invite the papers in to take the pictures in the first place.
If the child has issues it the school’s responsibility to make sure they are not included in photographs.
Our policy is along the same lines as Peter. If the school refuses to give names we refuse to publish the pictures and then infornm the school we will not attend any functions in future.
To not include names because some people won’t be interested in them is akin to not running some stories as they will only appeal to certain sections of the community and not others.
Report this comment
To Big Ed
If you are going to reply, please at least read what I said.
1 This is not to do with sex offenders … it’s to do with people who already know the child, eg estranged parents.
2 It’s easy to be glib when you are not the one who has to deal with the fallout
3 Names of kids, as others have said, do not really add anything of value … this is one of those invented theories by editors.
4 Finally, I said that common sense should prevail and some kind of opt in opt out situation would do the trick. I am not against names in the paper
The issue from me is when papers get all high and mighty, demanding that ‘it’s our right’ etc.
Report this comment
I can remember my deputy editor at a former paper demanding names of people in photos for captions. Often, as a sub, this would keep me at my desk later than it should have done. If such information wasn’t available, the story was often spiked.
The simple fact is, paedophiles aren’t some new phenomena. They’ve been around since the dawn of time. Why is it suddenly assumed they’ll be scouring the local press for potential prey? As a schoolkid, part of the fun of taking part in plays and other school activities was that you’d get your picture and name in the paper. I don’t remember any news savvy perves tracking me down because they’d seen my mug in the local rag. It’s time the hysteria around practically every modern day issue was toned down and a few doses of common sense were brought to the fore!
Report this comment
It’s worse when they only give you their first names.
Report this comment
@Journalist and primary school governor, West Yorkshire
Re your post at 10.27
You write:
“Pete Barron’s decision to ban school coverage because of this issue does not reflect well on him. He should understand the position schools are in, and would be better served running investigative stories into the dangers posed by the online environment (they are there and they do exist) rather than having a strop because headteachers are taking their duty of care seriously.”
You mustn’t live in the North-East as if you did you’d be aware of the superb campaign Mr Barron ran in The Northern Echo recently on exactly this issue – child protection and internet security. The campaign was launched following the murder of a local school child and it resulted in Facebook accepting that it needed to change its privacy policy. Social media networks pose a far greater risk to children than having their photos in local papers.
Report this comment
Allow me to offer the perfect solution: No names in captions. No faces in pictures, Just classroom scenes featuring backs of heads. Don’t laugh. I once worked for a paper where this was the policy!
Report this comment
May I suggest all children pictured hold up outward facing mirrors in front of their faces – the best way to repel evil minds. Also, silver foil hats should be considered, too, just in case alien invaders try to read their minds. I’m testing both out now as I twype…tiiipe…sorry, my silver foil hat just fell over my eyes.
Report this comment
Well done, Peter. When I took over as editor I put together a research document on this and could find no evidence of paedophiles using loal newspapers to seek out victims. The majority of paedophiles are already known to the children.
There are obviously some individual cases where children should not be identified. This is best carried out by schools using an opt-out policy. We work closely with our schools. Some allow names, some don’t.
We use group shots when we have no names. It means many single shots are spiked. Photographers are told no name, no photograph. As a dad and former school governor I was always pleased to see my own children’s names in the local paper. That’s why a lot of parents buy papers.
Report this comment
And to think head teachers like this are responsible for giving children a balanced education …I reckon she’ll have a more damaging influence on children’s thinking than any theoretical paedophile could.
Hopefully, she’ll also order all lessons to be done outside, in case the school buildings collapse … rovided it doesn’t rain (might causes colds) or isn’t sunny (might cause sunburn).
Report this comment
Peter Barron deserves a pat on the back for making a stance against this nonsensical paranoia that has engulfed schools and nurseries over the last few years. As a regional tog myself, I’m often sent into schools to photograph children, then when I ask for their names I get told I can’t have the them as it’s school policy to not give them out. It happened to me only yesterday when I went in to a primary school to photograph a guy from a zoo who had brought in some small animals to show the kids. I did a couple of nice shots then was told I couldn’t have the names of the children in my pictures so I just left. The story and pictures will now get spiked then when the school rings up to ask why it’s not appeared in the paper yet we’ll just tell them it’s because they wouldn’t give us the kid’s names. You know, company policy innit… 😉
Report this comment
Peter Barron is totally right to make this move although I am sure he has done it with deep regret.
This is political correctness gone mad – yet again.
There has not yet been one case linking an attack upon a school child as a result of their picture and name being used in a local paper or online.
We all know that pictures of children with their names in the caption help sell papers – but if we are to be barred from providing this “service” to our readers and the community, what is in it for us? The schools may as well call in a freelance photographer and sell the photos direct.
At least when we publish the photographs, we do it for free.
We faced the same when I was Editor at the Cambridge News when we introduced a hugely popular Youth Scene junior sports section on a Saturday. The Cambridge Colts FA wanted to ban us from printing the names of children in football team line-ups “in the right order”. In other words, we could carry the names as long as we jumbled them up so they didn’t correspond with the child in the photograph left to right, front row, back row etc.
How crazy is that?
Another nail in the coffin of Press freedom – maybe Leveson wants to look into this as well – it has more bearing on the local media than a load of out-of-control telephone hacks stitching up Z-list celebrities.
Report this comment
HOUSE RULES: “Also if you were living an anonymous life away from an abusive ex partner maybe changing your name (or at least your kids) may be an idea”.
An apostrophe in the word “kids” would have made such a difference to the meaning of that sentence.
Report this comment
To Murray Morse
“There has not yet been one case linking an attack upon a school child as a result of their picture and name being used in a local paper or online.
We all know that pictures of children with their names in the caption help sell papers.”
On point one, do you know that as a fact or is that just a guess because you’ve never heard of it happening. If one of your reporters made that statement, you’d ask him to stand it up. I fact, there have been cases of violent dads who have been banned by the courts turning up as a result of tracing their kids through newspaper websites.
On point 2, do you know that for a fact or is this just another ‘hunch’ gut feeling’ or otherwise unscientific bit of editor’s guesswork?
I wouldn’t mind it so much but we just hear these cliches presented as facts.
“This sells papers, that sells papers” Take a look at the circulation figures.
Report this comment
I seem to remember the late Tony Dumphy saying ‘PPP – pictures of people sell papers’. No detail in captions confuses – ‘isn’t that so and so… but it doesn’t say…,’ etc. Peter is bang on with his stance.
Report this comment
We had the same problem as Peter some years ago, sat down with the heads of the schools in question and AGREED an opt-out policy. I think we had two parens wanting their child to remain anonymous. We also had investigators coming round to check sports photos and captions for blokes who were claiming invalidity benefit!!
Report this comment
It’s only about selling papers chaps. It’s also about taking a stand on more nonsensical reasons not to report facts.
We just refuse to publish any pictures without full name. The school soon changes its mind once they realise they won’t be getting free publicity.
Report this comment