Last Updated: May 26, 1999
Printer-friendly version
What would you do?
When can a reporter not identify herself?
By Kathy Silverberg
Here’s the problem
A reporter calls a questionable business she is investigating. She pretends
to be a prospective customer asking questions and does not identify herself
as a reporter. In addition, she fails to inform her editors but when the
story is submitted, concerns about the way the information was obtained
are raised. It’s a good story, Do you run it? What other action, if any,
do you take?
Reporters are charged with getting to the bottom of important stories,
of exposing fraudulent activities or practices that threaten the public
health, of revealing pertinent facts that others would rather keep secret.
How reporters manage to get that information has been the subject of heated
debate in recent years. Is there ever a compelling reason for a reporter,
in pursuit of a story, to pretend to be someone else?
We asked Cecil Bentley, executive editor of The Macon (Ga.) Telegraph;
Len R. Small, Small Newspapers, Moline, Ill.; and Tom Wright, executive
editor, The Decatur (Ala.) Daily.
Cecil Bentley
Reporters routinely investigate questionable behavior by individuals
or institutions. And although they should identify themselves, some situations
allow for a bit of delay as to when that’s done.
Without knowing more about the questionable business in this scenario,
I wouldn’t rule out a reporter’s inquiry as an ordinary citizen. Up-front
identification as a member of the media spooks even the dumbest of deceivers,
so why not call as a prospective customer to see what’s up?
The lack of planning and communication here is a major concern. Reporters
should consult with an assigning editor before launching an investigation.
It’s important to develop a strategy, and in this case, decide how far
to go before identifying yourself to the business in question. To best
use your time and news hole and properly define how big a deal this might
be, wear out the words "what if" during the discovery phase, not at the
end of the editing process.
A final point: Make sure the business has adequate opportunity to respond
to what we find to be unusual, unique, unfair, unethical or illegal. I
wouldn’t run the story in question unless the company has been contacted.
And make sure your story provides readers a proper perspective to draw
their own conclusions.
Len Small
This case recalls the Mirage Tavern, set up some years back by the Chicago
Sun-Times. It was staffed by journalists to see if city inspectors were
soliciting bribes. They were. I was a Pulitzer juror that year and we felt
it deserved the award for investigating reporting. The judges overruled
us on moral grounds. I believe their analogy was to entrapment.
I agree that entrapment offers a good framework to help journalists
draw an ethical line. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, entrapment is
"the act of officers... in inducing a person to commit a crime not contemplated
by him for the purpose of instituting a criminal prosecution ... (however)
the mere act of an officer in furnishing an opportunity to commit the crime,
where the criminal intent was already present in the accused’s mind, is
not ordinarily entrapment."
In Chicago, it was clear the city officials were predisposed to solicit
bribes. I still feel the Pulitzer judges were wrong.
In the problem at hand, I feel if the editors and reporters had worked
together from the start, I would find a way to run the story. Unlike the
Food Lion-ABC case, there is no trespass or disloyalty, merely the presentation
of the reporter as a consumer, which is to be balanced against the public’s
interest in getting the truth.
Tom Wright
Reporters don’t often get the opportunity to check information by being
a participant. Posing as a potential customer to write about a questionable
practice at a business can be an effective way to present a story if all
bases are covered.
In this case, however, the reporter is guilty of weak reporting and
unethical behavior.
More than likely, the reporter was alerted to the business practice
by someone who complained. I see nothing wrong with the reporter picking
up the telephone and calling to see if she gets the same sales pitch. But
if the conversation is to be a part of the story, she would be obligated,
at some point, to identify herself and ask questions of the business owners
based on the conversation.
She couldn’t have called the first time, identified herself and gotten
an illegal version of the sales pitch.
In addition to having an ethics problem, the story has a big hole. The
reporter identifying herself after hearing the sales pitch and asking more
questions should yield additional information and complete the story. With
that accomplished, I would run the story if it were a good one.
The writer should have planned strategy with her editor before making
the call. The Maestro concept works.
Silverberg is executive editor of the TimesDaily, Florence, Ala.
Mail your quandary to P.O. Box 797, Florence, AL 35631 or e-mail timesdly@
hiwaay.net.
