It might not be quite as egregious as some others, because the man has some notoriety due to having been pardoned on a murder conviction, but there’s still the McClatchy Company’s policy on mugshots:

Publishing mugshots of arrestees has been shown to have lasting effects on both the people photographed and marginalized communities. The permanence of the internet can mean those arrested but not convicted of a crime have the photograph attached to their names forever. Beyond the personal impact, inappropriate publication of mugshots disproportionately harms people of color and those with mental illness. In fact, some police departments have started moving away from taking/releasing mugshots as a routine part of their procedures.

To address these concerns, McClatchy will not publish crime mugshots — online, or in print, from any newsroom or content-producing team — unless approved by an editor. To be clear, this means that in addition to photos accompanying text stories, McClatchy will not publish “Most wanted” or “Mugshot galleries” in slide-show, video or print.

Any exception to this policy must be approved by an editor. Editors considering an exception should ask:

• Is there an urgent threat to the community?
• Is this person a public official or the suspect in a hate crime?
• Is this a serial killer suspect or a high-profile crime?

If an exception is made, editors will need to take an additional step with the Pub Center to confirm publication by making a note in the ‘package notes‘ field in Sluglife.

As I have previously stated, despite several Google searches, using various permutations, I have not been able to find this policy in written form. I found this tweet:

"Editors considering an exception should ask:
Is there an urgent threat to the community?
Is this person a public official or the suspect in a hate crime?
Is this a serial killer suspect or a high-profile crime?"

— David Neal (@DavidJNeal) August 26, 2020

and a photograph I have previously used from another tweet, along with the Sacramento Bee’s precursor article.

So, here’s the story:

Kentucky man pardoned by Matt Bevin for 2014 homicide is back in jail, held for Feds

By John Cheves | May 31, 2021 | 12:33 PM | Updated 1:30 PM EDT

Patrick Baker, left, who was pardoned by Gov. Matt Bevin in 2019 after a reckless homicide conviction, was back in jail on Monday on an unspecified federal charge. Photo by Marcus Dorsey, Lexington Herald-Leader. Click to enlarge.

Federal authorities have jailed a Kentucky man who received one of former Gov. Matt Bevin’s controversial pardons in December 2019.

Patrick Brian Baker, 43, was convicted of reckless homicide in the death of Donald Mills during a Knox County home invasion in 2014. However, Baker maintained his innocence and blamed law enforcement for overlooking an alternative suspect in the case. In his pardon, Bevin described the evidence against Baker as “sketchy at best.”

Baker had served two years of a 19-year sentence when Bevin set him free.

Baker’s brother and sister-in-law held a political fundraiser in 2018 that raised $21,500 for Bevin, according to the Kentucky Registry for Election Finance. The couple donated $4,000 to Bevin.

Baker, who now has a Frankfort address, was held in the Laurel County Detention Center on Monday as a federal prisoner, according to the jail’s website. Jail officials would not identify the criminal charge that Baker faced; they referred media calls to the U.S. Marshal’s office. But federal offices were closed Monday for Memorial Day.

There’s more at the original, but Mr Baker, having been pardoned by former Governor Bevin, is not a convicted criminal. He is in jail right now, which means that he is not an “urgent threat to the community, nor is he a public official, nor the suspect in a hate crime, nor a suspected serial killer, nor the suspect in a high-profile crime.

So, why did the Herald-Leader choose to publish his photograph?

Remember: under the McClatchy policy, the article reporter does not have the discretion to publish a ‘mugshot,’ though it could be argued that this particular photo isn’t a police mugshot. Rather, an editor has to give his approval, and that means:

• Peter Baniak, Executive Editor and General Manager;
• Deedra Lawhead, Deputy Editor, Digital;
• Brian Simms, Deputy Editor, Presentation:, or
• John Stamper, Deputy Editor, Accountability

So, who approved the publication, and why? None of the listed reasons editors should consider in taking the decision to publish have been met. The only unusual circumstance is former Governor Bevin’s pardon of Mr Baker, but that isn’t among the criteria specified by McClatchy. Attempting to embarrass Mr Bevin is something that would be high on the list of the newspaper’s priorities, but that isn’t a reason to publish Mr Baker’s photo.

One of us suspects that the photo was published because Mr Baker is white, and that it would not have been published were he not white. Perhaps the Herald-Leader could give us a different reason?