News for a New Generation

Personal ethics are typically thought of as a bonus in most situations. An ethical person does the right thing for the right reasons. He or she can always be counted on to give advice that will lead the wayward soul back on the straight and narrow path. The ethical person is the go-to-guy or gal with the answers to life’s persistent questions.

However, what happens when those ethics get in the way of one’s job. For newspaper people, this can be a real concern. When is it appropriate, if ever, to turn down a story if the ethical implications are such that doing the story in the way an editor wants it done would pose a problem for one’s moral well-being? Can a reporter legitimately detach himself or herself from the ethical problems of a story, and if so, is it right to do so in the first place?

This is the question I raised in a blog post this semester regarding Harry Potter. My problem with the way the story has been covered is that not everyone agrees with the premise that the films and books are a good influence on children. I happen to believe that they are morally reprehensible pieces of pop-culture trash that present a negative example for children and promote an interest in the occult. This is the story that doesn’t get told, and it’s precisely the one I believe needs to be.

I initially drew fire from several bloggers who felt the issue was off-topic. My concern, once again, was that not enough coverage is given to this aspect of the issue. Eventually I won the respect of some of those same individuals, if not their agreement.

Ultimately, I think reporter’s have to make their ethics a very real part of how and when they cover a topic. Otherwise we risk simply becoming an echo chamber for the master narratives everyone else is espousing.

For reporters, sometimes the importance of developing a relationship with sources is clouded by the perceived need for objectivity.  The reality, however, is that the building of trust between journalist and source is of paramount importance in securing good information.  A reporter cannot and should not get into bed with his or her sources, figuratively or literally, but a cordial and even friendly attitude can go a long way toward alleviating a source’s fears, fears that might ultimately prove a poison pill in the interviewing process.

I’ve discovered this axiom through my somewhat limited experience, but I think it will hold true in perpetuity.  My most recent encounter came from my interview with reporter Rick DelVecchio.  Rick works at my newspaper, Catholic San Francisco, and over the past several weeks I have gotten to know him both as a reporter and an individual.  I admire and respect his attitude toward the profession, and enjoy his writing very much.  I have even gone to lunch with him on several occasions, giving us the opportunity to get to know one another in a non-professional setting.

Rick was happy to give me an interview for my ethics essay, and because of our relationship he made time to do so in the middle of an on-going investigation for a story he was working on that day.  Had I not already developed a rapport with Rick, he likely would not have given me this opening.  Busy people tend to make time for those they already know, and not so much for people whom they don’t.

Ultimately, Rick may have given the exact same answers to someone he didn’t know, though I have no way of knowing for sure.  In other situations, people are often more likely to divulge information to someone they trust.  The quality of an interview regularly hinges on nurturing this trust, so I would encourage any reporter to actively and genuinely court sources rather than treat them as tools to be used in the furtherance of an agenda.

Should we be careful to avoid prejudice and bias, the inherent problems of maintaining personal relationships with sources?  Of course we should.  The problem is that by attempting to maintain objectivity and aloofness, the reporter may find himself or herself without a source, or a friend, in the world.