EXPLAINER: Why is Nick Sharpe’s name in the news when no charges have been filed?

The Detroit News reported Friday that Michigan State offensive lineman Nick Sharpe is under investigation following an allegation of sexual assault stemming from a July incident.

There is an important fact readers should understand immediately: Sharpe has not been charged with a crime.

Police are investigating. Evidence has been collected. Sharpe has spoken with investigators and denied the allegation, according to the police report obtained by The News. The two people involved have provided significantly different accounts of what occurred.

That raises a question readers understandably may have.

If prosecutors have not charged someone with a crime, how can a news organization ethically publish that person’s name and report the allegations against him?

The answer involves one of journalism's most difficult balancing acts.

An investigation can itself be news

Journalists do not have to wait for a criminal conviction – or even a criminal charge – before reporting something.

Police departments are public institutions. Their actions can be matters of legitimate public interest, and police reports are frequently public records. Investigations involving prominent individuals, public institutions, government officials, athletes, coaches, or others in positions of public interest can therefore become news before prosecutors decide whether criminal charges are warranted.

In Sharpe's case, there are additional reasons a newsroom could conclude the investigation is newsworthy.

He is a Michigan State football player who is expected to play a significant role for the Spartans. Police have conducted an investigation, collected physical and digital evidence, interviewed Sharpe, and an evidence kit collected at a Dallas hospital was shipped to Michigan for testing. The investigation has continued for more than a month.

There is therefore a legitimate journalistic argument for informing the public that the investigation exists.

The much harder question is whether identifying the person being investigated is necessary to accomplish that.

Legal and ethical are two different questions

A news organization obtaining information legally does not automatically mean publishing every detail is the ethically appropriate decision.

The Society of Professional Journalists makes that distinction explicitly in its Code of Ethics.

Under its principle of minimizing harm, SPJ instructs journalists to balance the public's need for information against the potential harm caused by publication. It also specifically says that journalists should recognize that having legal access to information is different from having an ethical justification to publish it.

And the code addresses almost exactly the situation presented here.

Journalists are urged to consider the consequences of identifying criminal suspects before they have been charged and to consider the long-term effects created by the reach and permanence of publication.

A police report answers one question: What has been reported to police, and what are investigators doing about it?

It does not necessarily answer another: Did a crime occur?

That is what the investigation is attempting to determine.

The accusation is only part of the information

One important element of The Detroit News' reporting is that Sharpe's account is included extensively.

According to the police report, the woman alleges that Sharpe continued sexual contact after she told him to stop.

Sharpe disputes that account. He told police that the sexual activity was consensual and described a substantially different sequence of events. He also gave police an explanation for why he slept on the couch that night and disputed aspects of the woman's account regarding the sexual activity and recording.

Those differences are significant because the investigation remains unresolved.

The article therefore is not reporting that Sharpe committed sexual assault. It is reporting that an allegation was made, that police are investigating it, and that Sharpe denies the allegation. Perhaps the headline - while accurate - could have been reworded to make that more clear.

Those distinctions need to be unmistakable whenever something this serious is reported.

The consequences of identification are enormous

There is another ethical consideration that has become even more important in the internet era.

A criminal case has a process.

An Internet search does not.

Once a person's name appears underneath a headline containing the words "sexual assault investigation," that association can remain online indefinitely.

Search engines index it. Social media accounts distribute it. Screenshots preserve it. Other websites aggregate it.

Even if prosecutors ultimately decide not to charge the person, the original allegation may receive substantially more attention than the eventual resolution.

That does not mean serious allegations should be hidden. It means news organizations should think carefully about whether identifying someone at a particular stage serves enough public interest to justify those consequences.

SPJ specifically instructs journalists to consider both the implications of identifying suspects before charges and the long-term permanence of what they publish.

Those are especially important considerations in a sexual assault investigation, where the allegations themselves can permanently alter the public's perception of everyone involved.

Public figure does not mean no privacy

Sharpe is also not an entirely private individual.

He chose to play major-college football and represents Michigan State in one of the most visible athletic programs in the state. His status makes information concerning his availability, conduct, and relationship with the university more newsworthy than the same information might be regarding someone with no public profile.

While that weighs in favor of disclosure, it does not eliminate the need for restraint.

Being a college football player does not mean every allegation involving that person automatically deserves publication before authorities have determined whether charges are warranted.

The ethical question remains whether identifying the individual adds enough important information for the reader to outweigh the possible damage created by doing so.

Reasonable journalists can reach different conclusions.

Why two responsible newsrooms might make different decisions

One newsroom could look at this case and conclude that the investigation is sufficiently developed to justify identifying Sharpe.

Police have interviewed both sides. Evidence has been collected. Multiple devices were seized. DNA evidence has been submitted for testing. The investigation has continued for weeks, and Sharpe is a prominent athlete at a public university.

Another publication could examine exactly the same facts and make a different decision, as Spartans Illustrated has.

It could report that a Michigan State football player is under investigation while withholding his identity until an arrest, criminal charge, significant university action, or another development establishes a stronger public-interest reason for identifying him.

Neither approach inherently means that a newsroom is protecting someone or attempting to convict someone.

It is an editorial judgment.

The SPJ Code of Ethics itself is not a list of legally enforceable rules. SPJ describes it as a guide intended to help journalists take responsibility for the information they publish.

That means ethical journalism sometimes involves difficult decisions on which responsible people disagree.

The standard should be higher than “we have the document”

Perhaps the easiest standard would be this: if information appears in a public record, publish it. Responsible journalism requires more thought than that, though.

Editors should ask what readers genuinely need to know, why they need to know it now, whether identifying someone advances the public's understanding of the story, how well the allegations have been independently examined, whether the person accused has received a meaningful opportunity to respond, and what irreversible damage publication could cause if the allegation ultimately does not result in charges.

Those questions become even more important before the criminal justice system has reached its first major threshold – a prosecutor's decision that sufficient evidence exists to file charges.

That does not create a blanket rule against reporting investigations.

There will be circumstances in which an investigation before charges is overwhelmingly newsworthy. Public safety may be involved. An official may remain in a position of substantial authority. Multiple accusations may exist. A university or employer may take action. Police may publicly seek additional victims or witnesses. The investigation itself may expose something the public has a compelling interest in knowing immediately.

Each case has to be evaluated individually.

What readers should remember about this case

The most important thing is also the simplest. Here are the facts:

• Nick Sharpe has been accused of sexual assault.

• He denies that allegation.

• Police are investigating.

• He has not been charged with a crime.

Those four facts can coexist.

Journalism has an obligation to report significant information accurately and fairly. It also has an obligation to minimize unnecessary harm and recognize that publication itself has consequences.

The difficult part is deciding where those responsibilities meet.

In cases such as this one, there may never be a universally accepted answer.

But there should always be a serious conversation before someone's name becomes permanently attached to an accusation that the criminal justice system has not yet determined warrants a charge.