It doesn't pass any kind of sniff test to use the photos and mock outrage one day to help generate retail sales and the next to pretend there's some ethical issue at stake. There WAS an ethical issue at stake - and the Gazette failed the test long before the cops came calling.

Of course a newspaper shouldn't turn its files over to the cops. That's high-school journalism class stuff that sixteen year old kids understand. But so is not making yourself a part of the story.

Mob psychology relies a lot on anonymity. For the media to aid in this anonymity for idealogical reasons is irresponsible. If a potential rioter knows he/she may be caught on tape and punished, it will make them less likely to engage in this activity, which is surely a good thing. I agree there are many instances where the confidentiality of a criminal source is essential. The police themselves do this all the time. It's purpose, however, is to prevent more crime. The anonymity needs to serve the greater good in some way. If anything, allowing rioters to remain anonymous does just the opposite. It encourages more rioting.

Freedom of the press has limits. If the media has information that can help solve a crime than they should do the responsible thing and come forward with it, unless they have a compelling reason not to. They can't just say "we will never provide information to the police under any circumstances". Imagine what would happen if the average citizen took this attitude. It should be a case by case basis. In this case, there is no compelling reason that the rioters should remain anonymous.

Journalists often encounter situations where they need to use criminals of all types as sources. And if they know that their words/materials might then go right to the police, they'll be less likely to talk to journalists.

The argument would be that it's a slippery slope down to there that starts with something like handing over tapes of the riot.

What if someone is seriously injured or murdered in a riot that is filmed. Would the media take the same stand on the issue? And if not, would that not mean that media would be deciding which crimes warranted turning over evidence, and which ones didn't. Sorry, but I'd rather that the justice system make that determination instead of the media.

What fundamental right is the media trying to protect? The right to film people committing criminal acts, while allowing those same people to remain anonymous? Are they afraid that potential rioters will be too afraid to riot the next time out for fear being caught and punished? Ridiculous!