IDing Rihanna

For the most part, journalists are godless pinko commies. But most journalists cherish and honor their code of ethics. I have worked for five newspapers and at one I was the crime reporter. There, it was routine for me to do stories about domestic abuse and sexual violence. In every case, I and the newspaper, protected the identity of the reported victim. Newspapers do this because of the stigma attached to victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.

I only bring this up because in all of the Chris Brown stories, none of the news outlets have shied away publicly identifying singer Rihanna as the victim in this case. Do anchors and reporters think that because she is a public figure that allows them to get away from the responsibility of naming her as the alleged victim?

One of the pillars of journalistic ethics is minimizing harm. Are journalists doing that in this case? Though it's probably safe to assume Rihanna is the alleged victim here but how did reporters source this? Did the cops release her name in documents? It's always been my experience that victims of abuse are named Jane or Jon Doe until court proceedings. Apparently in this case, in the police complaint, the alleged victim is identified as Robyn F. Rihanna's real name is Robyn Rihanna Fenty. Still, the media has an obligation to the alleged victim to keep her name from news reports. I'm not worried so much about this case since most of the public familiar with the couple probably correctly assumed who the victim was before the name was released but what if news outlets apply the same rules to private couples and "real" people in "real" communities?

Why don't standard journalism ethics apply when it comes to celebrity coverage?