Great police work..

Usually a news story like this would include a brief sentence making it clear that this man has no relation to Robert F. Kennedy, JFK, or Teddy Kennedy. But it is probably intentionally vague to get more web hits, and/or leave readers thinking negatively about the Kennedy brothers who gave their lives to serving America. Not very nice, patch...

This is obviously a small-town or county newspaper, and one could forgive Bryan Littel for not explaining who this Kennedy is. But, whoever put this up on Yahoo or the AP should be investigated for slander. It's clear that the only reason we're seeing this is the Kennedy name, and most people would automatically assume that it is one of the 'famous' Kennedies. Without some disclaimer or explanation, Yahoo could legitimately be questioned for untrue allegations about the Kennedy clan.

Given there are a couple thousand Robert Kennedys in the United States, and we identified this one by age and hometown, there shouldn't be any confusion. If another news organization is implying something else, that's on them.

I completely agree with the readers. Petty crimes committed by unknown individuals never have their names in the headlines, because the story isn't about them, it's the crime they allegedly committed. Sorry, Brian, you're wrong on this one, as were your editors. Dave, slander relates to the spoken word, the closest this relates to is libel, I don't think we have here anyway. Just poor journalism, which i've come to expect from Patch bureaus across the US

And one more thing Bryan (sorry for the mispelling in my previous post), you don't need to have someone's name in a headline to find them in Google or Bing or wherever else...and i'm sure you know that.

I've worked in journalism for 25 years -- online since the mid-'90s -- and I know as well as I presume you do how this works. If you truly don't understand how your "Robert J. Kennedy" headline graduated to CNN.com, you might want to read up on clickbait.

(Do you have anyone with the surname "Romney" or "Obama" in West Deptford? You could do an exclusive interview -- and a killer headline! Maybe get Walter Romney and Fred Obama to debate. Or have a fistfight.)

Lauren: No, thanks; I'm all set on the SEO tips, although I appreciate the offer!

Here's where I see a special problem: The wife of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (of the famous Kennedy family) committed suicide last month. It was a story that continues to lead national press as journalists scramble for new angles on erratic behavior.

Now you publish a story on Robert J. Kennedy Jr. (no relation of the famous Kennedy family) robbing pharmacies. I don't see a "vast journalism conspiracy," but I do think an editor would reasonably add the disclaimer that Robert J. Kennedy Jr. was no relation of the political.

If you'd taken this simple step, I know I'd be less skeptical about the headline, and of claims that it was other news organizations' lack of diligence that spread the story. Yes, they neglected to make this lack of relationship clear -- but so did you.

("political dynasty")

You can argue back and forth all day long whether or not the "Kennedy" connection was intentional however as someone who click on the story for one reason and one reason alone "A Kennedy robbed a CVS, WHAT?" I can tell you I was disappointed to see the ploy. I'm happy that it's NOT another sad Kennedy Family story however I'm feeling duped. Just sayin!

The transparent clickbait is one thing. Understandable, if rather bush league.

But the vigorous *defense* of it in the story comments, both from the writer as well as his regional editor? Shameful. You both come across as defensive kids. This kind of nonsense is embarrassing for the entire news industry. It is the exact sort of thing that keeps reporters so poorly ranked when it comes to respected professions, and is exactly the sort of thing that prompted me to leave the business after 15 years as an editor.

And there you go - the difference between traditional journalism and online 'journalism': We now write for SEO instead of for your reader. Using a name in a headline implies said person is a household name - thus the confusion over the nonexistent Kennedy connection. It's not journalistic conspiracy or libel, it's a crappy headline and poor judgment. But that's online 'jounalism' for ya.

Matthew, you are correct in your criticism. A credible news organization would at the very least have clarified in the story that this person has no relation to the Kennedy clan, and would have done so almost immediately after the first mention of his name. As Amanda rightly points out, the implication is clear, but Bryan and Lauren don't really care as long as they generate a lot of traffic.

They *should* care. Anyone who cares about good journalism would. The fact that they are staunchly defending their choice, however, shows where their priorities lie.

The whole "if other news organizations pick it up, that's on them" defense is laughable on its face and insulting to the readers, suggesting that the folks who created and approved this piece are just innocent bystanders in the ensuing confusion.

Your readers are not that naive, Bryan.

Deplorable stance by Patch editor.

This dissembling by Bryan and Lauren is exactly what I expect watchdog media (including Patch) to cut through, not dispense. Your SEO methods may bring clicks today, but it will water down the already diluted credibility and reputation of Patch as a news source.

My 2 cents: the failure to disclaim any relation to the politically-famous Kennedy family was either shoddy journalism or intentional deception. Not much to be proud of either way.

I don't care what they say about you Bryan, You do a good job. <g>

This is on Patch, which I believe pays people for the number of clicks their articles receive. Clearly this author isn't above deception and quasi-libelous behavior to boost his numbers. For shame.

No doubt in my mind that the headline was intentionally vague or even misleading. The first sentence should have told us, the readers, that this person was in no known way related to the nationally known Kennedy family. As a matter of fact I don't recall any time a full name is mentioned in the headline unless it is a well known public figue or for dramatic effect.

CLICKBAIT! Duped. Never again Patch.

Anyone who claims that leading with a name like "Robert J. Kennedy, Jr" isn't being just a bit deceitful doesn't think very highly of the readers...I'm waiting for Franklin D. Lincoln or George W. Reagan to turn up as heads of an international drug ring. ;)

Sleezy and unethical attempt Bryan, but successful. You generated a lot of comments and hits but sacrificed your credibility as a journalist to do so. You sold your soul for a few extra hits, it speaks volumes about you. Your attempt to spin it and justify your actions only make it worse. Sleep well tonight

Shameless and Pitiful
BREAKING NEWS: Bryan Little and Lauren Burgooh NABBED red handed in CLICKBAIT SCAM... Local "journalists" show no remorse in attempts to mislead readers....

I hate to get you closer to your 1,000/month comment goal but here I am. The fact that you're sticking by your crappy journalism speaks volumes and only helps fuel the Patch hate. You've just made it even harder for Patch editors to be taken seriously. I'm glad your real name is attached to this, Brian, so your lack of ethics will be apparent in your own personal SEO. And since you and your RE are so keen to dole out SEO advice here's a tip: what you're doing can get you banned from Google results, and people have reported this for violating its rules.