Quotesgram.com image
By Casey Bukro
Ethics Adviceline for Journalists
We’ve been told since second grade to always keep our promises.
We’re reminded right into adulthood of that golden rule, through business and family affiliations, our faith and our friendships.
Journalists, too, are reminded of that in the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, which says pointedly they should: “Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.”
In theory, keeping promises seems like a no-brainer; in practice, it gets complicated. The code’s word of caution is well-placed.
A New Zealand journalist contacted AdviceLine because of her concern about a promise.
The interview
“I conducted an interview with an individual who knew that an audio recording was being made, in addition to my note-taking,” she told AdviceLine. “I wrote up the article and gave him the opportunity to fact-check. He removed several key statements because he said that they could result in him losing his job.
“At no point did he say that I had misquoted him or taken his comments out of context, merely that the statements were controversial. The comments he made on tape are an accurate representation of his actual feelings, but I know for a fact that he tells different things to different people in order to ingratiate himself with them.
Approved version
“Am I required to run his approved version of the article, or can I run my original? Am I permitted to let anyone else listen to the taped conversation? It’s a dilemma which is weighing pretty heavy on my mind, so I’d really appreciate any advice you can offer.”
The AdviceLine adviser, David Ozar, responded by saying: “My first thought is that it does not sound like you and the interviewee had a clear mutual understanding of what was going on. He clearly did not expect you to publish what you heard, but only what he accepted for publication.”
Ozar mentioned the SPJ code’s warnings about keeping promises and called that “relevant.”
Violating the agreement
“If you were to reveal his actual words without informing him, you would almost certainly be violating the unstated agreement he thought you and he were making. So there is an ethical question whether the shortfall in the agreement is yours or his, and my instinct is that it was yours for not making your intentions clearer.
“So I think you need to inform him of the problem and get his OK to publish what he said rather than the redacted version he provided.”
If he disagreed with that and the original version was published anyway, Ozar reasoned that would be similar to undercover or surreptitious reporting, which the SPJ code of ethics discourages unless the information is vital to the public, and that “is a pretty strong criterion.”
The unredacted version
Ozar went on it say that if the original, unredacted version were published, “your report would need to say that you were publishing this against the will of the person being quoted.”
The New Zealand journalist later thanked Ozar for his insights and his references to the SPJ code of ethics, adding that the version approved by the source “went to print. It felt like the morally appropriate thing to do.”
Let’s look at this case in terms of sound journalist practice: Journalists should control the interview process and the integrity of the story. Those are a journalist’s responsibilities.
Fact-checking
Allowing a source to fact-check a story without limits is risky, as this case demonstrates, though a seemingly good idea in theory. A journalist wants the story to be accurate. But, the journalist should not appear to be giving unlimited editing rights to the source. Be clear.
Reading back to the source parts of a story that require fact-checking might be better than allowing the source to read the entire story. Sources sometimes speak informally when answering questions. But when they see what they said in print, they sometimes want changes to make them sound more official, more intelligent.
Vanity, not accuracy
We can sympathize with anyone who decides they could have said something better or differently. But that can result in endless changes and rewriting, sometimes for the sake of vanity, not accuracy. A source can sabotage the interview that way.
At the beginning of every interview, the journalist should make it clear that whatever is being said is on the record. And that the resulting report will accurately reflect what was said and the way it was said. That does not mean that somebody who stumbles or loses his train of thought may not start again, or restate what was said for clarity. A journalist wants the source to express her ideas fully and accurately during the interview.
That’s good journalism.
If a source refuses to be held responsible for his own words, find someone more reliable to interview.
********************************************************
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.
Professional journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.
Visit the Ethics AdviceLine blog for more.