Last Updated: May 26, 1999
Printer-friendly version
Editors hear the roar of the Food Lion
case
Angus McEachran, Editor & President, The Commerical Appeal, Memphis,
Tenn.
We don’t let reporters wear hidden cameras in their wiglets or their
toupees, either, to be socially, politically and EEOC correct.
We don’t allow tiny microphones in reporters’ bras; although, we’ve
never searched. We would prefer our male reporters not to even wear bras,
but to tell you the truth, there’s nothing in the dress code that expressly
forbids it.
Most of our investigative reporting is pretty unglamorous — sifting
through records, sometimes computer-assisted, oftentimes not. Making phone
calls. Making more phone calls.
On occasion, we have seen fit to go undercover, but I can’t recall any
recent need to do so.
Years ago, when open housing was a big issue in the South, I used a
salt and pepper team — a white reporter and a black reporter — to check
out the openness and availability of apartments in Memphis.
The disparity in treatment of the reporters was wide, although both
were about the same age, female, attractive, well-groomed.
The white reporter was usually asked to sign a lease and told that she
could move in right away. A short time later the black reporter would be
told of a waiting list — or be shown undesirable locations (such as a basement
apartment with a view of the Dumpster) or three-bedroom units when she
requested only one. This was rolled into a major takeout, which resulted
in a Justice Department suit and a huge class-action settlement.
Once we had a reporter pretend to be drunk — which in his case was perfect
typecasting — and with the help of a cooperative cop (these were the good
old days) had him "arrest" and taken to the city’s detox center where we
had heard complaints that drunks were routinely being rolled.
Five hours and $145 lighter, the reporter was released ... just in time
for the Sunday editions. The result was three arrests and reform in how
money at the center was handled.
There is a valid role for such investigations, provided there is no
other way to get the information, that you don’t falsify documents and
the information is of compelling public interest. In my examples, there
was deception only by omission: The reporters certainly didn’t reveal their
profession, but used correct names and addresses.
This was not what the ABC/Food Lion case was about. It was about pinto
bean journalism — fraud, deceit and, the jury believed, a distorted story
as evidenced in the 45 hours of hidden-camera outtakes Food Lion obtained
in pursuit of its case.
Food Lion claimed ABC faked portions of the tape and staged others to
"fabricate a story to deceive the public." Included were outtakes of reporters
trying to entice store employees to sell old meat and other out-of-date
products. Clearly, as one juror said, that was "outside the boundaries."
Having smugly said that, the punitive damages in case trouble me, though
it was not about libel. I have been in more than one courtroom in which
lawyers told the jury, in effect, "Maybe you can’t kill the messenger,
but you can seriously wound him by hitting him hard in the pocketbook.
It will make him think twice and be more careful in the future."
The problem with that is the public — hence a jury — doesn’t distinguish
between us and broadcasting, much less between news reporting and TV magazine
or entertainment shows.
They know only that it is the "news media," not which particular dog
breath is breathing on them.
Halitosis is halitosis.
