| Chapter 6
Journalism
Ethics
By
David Krajicek
Anonymous Sources
Most media ethics guidelines caution against the use of anonymous
sources, and some prohibit the use of an unnamed source who makes
a specific criticism against another individual.
The New York Times ethics guidelines say, "The use
of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the
newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers newsworthy
and reliable. When possible, reporter and editor should discuss
any promise of anonymity before it is made, or before the reporting
begins on a story that may result in such a commitment."
The Times guidelines say that some beats, like criminal
justice or national security, may carry standing authorization for
the reporter to grant anonymity.
But the Times and other news organizations may need a reality
check. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the use of anonymous sources
has burgeoned in the American media in the past 25 years, including
the Times.
Naming Names
After they have been sliced and diced by the media maw, some people
are left asking (to paraphrase Richard Jewell, the falsely accused
Olympic Park bomber in Atlanta), "Where do I go to get my reputation
back"?
In the 1830s, police court reporters for the New York Penny
Press adopted the practice of naming crime suspects in stories.
This proved unpopular with crime suspects. A number of reporters
were assaulted by outraged accused criminals. (Apropos of ethics,
suspects could keep their names out of the papers by bribing reporters
– a common practice.)
In 1834 the New York Transcript defended its policy of naming
crime suspects:
"Fellows who are not ashamed to behave so scandalously
as to be brought before the police are nevertheless apt to be
very scandalized at seeing their names in print, and away they
post to the newspaper offices to swear and storm at the liberties
thus taken. A word with you, gentlemen, if you please. We assure
you it grieves us to the soul to be obliged to speak in disparaging
terms of such "honorable men''; but one thing we advise you,
and that is, if you wish to keep clear of Police reports, to steer
clear also of the Police Office."
The appearance of one's name in a crime or court story is no less
traumatic today – from the agate-type listing of a drunken
driving arrest to a top-of-the-broadcast story about a sexual assault
allegation against a teacher.
Editors say crime blotter fodder leads to more irate phone calls
(and corrections) than any other part of the newspaper. Putting
names in the paper or on TV becomes routine for us. We should keep
in the mind the potential trauma to the people attached to those
names, and we should follow cases through the system after reporting
an arrest, whether they lead to conviction or dismissal.
Equitable Sourcing
In the 1990s, a number of media companies launched initiatives –
under the rubric of diversity or equity – to expand its usual-suspect,
white male sourcing tendencies to better reflect population demographics.
Many view awareness of gender and racing in sourcing as an ethics
issue, including Gannett, which mounted an aggressive campaign to
seek out non-white sources. In practical terms, this initiative
seems best applied when a reporter might have a wide choice of experts
to choose from.
Sexual Assaults
Sex crimes carry a stigma that many other crimes do not and deserve
special consideration, particularly cases of family sexual assaults,
which statistics say are more prevalent than stranger assaults.
Name the accused in your story, but err on the side of caution
in withholding or obscuring details that could identify the victim.
For example, if your state uses the word "incest," consider
using a synonym – felony sexual assault, for example. Descriptions
of the victim can serve as identifiers – the 10-year-old daughter
of the suspect's girlfriend, or even geographical descriptions –
a 40-year-old woman who lives in the 3900 block of Polk Street.
Give the location or neighborhood of the assault, but be careful
to consider the use of other identifying details.
Some victims or sexual assaults have preferred to be named in news
stories, an attempt to destigmatize the crime as violence, not a
sex act.
In the summer of 2002, the daughter of Mike Kelly, a columnist
for the Omaha World-Herald, was attacked at her home in Texas.
The newspaper published several news stories about the attack, and
Kelly twice wrote about it. But he eliminated a detail before writing
an elegant contemplation on naming names in the newspaper. Kelly
wrote:
"Now you don't have to read between the lines and wonder:
My daughter was raped.
Since she was attacked June 21 by a stranger who kicked in
her locked apartment door, World-Herald news stories and two of
my columns have said that she was abducted, robbed, shot and left
for dead.
That's in keeping with this newspaper's long-standing policy
not to name rape victims. It's a good policy, grounded in the
notion that much of society still attaches a stigma to rape victims
and that printing names might discourage victims from going to
the police.
The policy remains, and victims need not fear that their names
will be printed in the paper. They should report a crime that
is believed to be the most underreported of crimes.
My daughter's attack in Texas made news in Omaha because of
its horrible nature - she was shot in the back with 9 mm bullets
- and because she grew up in Omaha. Editors say an additional
factor, and one causing Bridget's name to be published initially,
was that she is the daughter of a longtime columnist.
A grand jury in Bell County, Texas, indicted a man Wednesday
on five counts, including attempted murder and aggravated sexual
assault. Because Bridget's name had already been reported in connection
with the shooting, the sexual-assault charge created a policy
dilemma for editors, who decided - with the concurrence of my
daughter, my wife and me - to make a rare exception and report
it.
In the hospital more than a month ago at Fort Hood, Texas,
unable to speak at first, Bridget wrote that in news coverage
of her case, "It's OK if they say rape."
She says she wasn't speaking for others or suggesting how
they should feel. But she adds: "Why is it more shameful
to be a rape victim than a gunshot victim?"
Surely, it is not. But there is shame in rape, and it rests
squarely with the attacker, not the victim.
Historically, though, society unfairly has made many rape
victims feel either that they contributed to the attacks or that
they are somehow diminished - stigmatized - merely by being victims.
The stigma from this awful crime should be on the predator,
not on the prey.
…Sexual violation is not sex, it's violence. It's not
love, it's hate. It's not so much an act of lust as of power and
control.
Because rape is such a personal and despicable act, it is
natural for victims and their families not to talk. But perhaps,
in the long run, that works to the advantage of the attacker and
to the detriment of the victim."
For a full-text version of Kelly's column, click
here.
Continue to the next
page in "Chapter 6: Journalism Ethics" >>>
<<< Return to the previous
page in "Chapter 6: Journalism Ethics"
|
