Should rape victims' names be protected by the press?

[eyesroll]

A couple of articles got me thinking about this. One is the Salon cover piece today, which discusses the decision of Globe editor Bonnie Fuller to put Kobe's alleged victim's name and picture (from her prom, showing off a garter under her dress) on the cover:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/10/31/kobe/index.html

FWIW, I think the decision to put that picture and name on the cover, with "Did She Really Say No?" as a headline, is extremely boneheaded. Distasteful. Prom pictures are irrelevant. They were trying to sell papers by making her look like "she asked for it." (I realize we're talking about the Globe, not exactly the pinnacle of journalistic integrity. But still.)

Another was from the Daily Herald, the paper from where I grew up. A 56-year-old woman (no name given) was raped. Her alleged rapist was named (he had been charged, but not yet tried or convicted).
http://www.dailyherald.com/news_story.asp?intid=37925114

And I understand the Daily Herald, like most publications, chose to protect the confidentiality of a rape victim.

But why? They publish the names of victims of all sorts of heinous crimes -- attempted murder, assaults, kidnappings. They also print the names of people charged with such crimes, including rape -- and mind you, they print names of those accused before they've been found guilty or innocent.

Many papers won't print the name of a juvenile victim under any circumstances, and I guess I understand that. But why is an adult rape victim more entitled to privacy than, say, someone who got beaten or shot?

I've heard the idea that there's a certain stigma or embarrassment that comes from being raped that isn't there in a non-sexual crime. Or that rape victims need more protection -- people who get shot or whatever don't receive threats from supporters of the accused, or get smeared for "not saying no" as is suggested in the Globe headline.

I'll admit I really can't relate to that -- I've never been the victim of such a crime. I can't begin to imagine what a rape victim or survivor would be thinking if faced by a press interview. My own instinct says I'd prefer to be named in the press, if I was in that situation, so I can at least speak up for myself. But, like I said -- I don't know. I hope I'm never in a position to know.

I guess what I'm asking -- Does keeping a victim anonymous help protect the victim, or does it (however unwittingly) contribute to that stigma it's trying to prevent? Any thoughts?