 |
| "La table surréaliste" by Alberto Giacometti (Pompidou Center) |
I'm fortunate to work in a business where ethics are important. I'd have a hard time keeping my job otherwise. Yes, newspapers try to make money, like everybody else. But most have parameters. We have our limits. Notwithstanding what the GOP imagines, we don't just make up what we think will get the most clicks. Our stories reflect matters that can be verified or disproven. Looking at Fox News, I can understand that having values might be a handicap. As porn stars and scam artists know, immorality sells.
That said, ethical problems can still be vexing. I had one in April that bears recalling. I wrote a story looking back at Chicago history — how the paper covered disasters over 75 years — and sent a photographer to take a portrait of a person quoted in the story. Sometimes I'd show up for one of these sessions, to hang around and mother hen. But this time I didn't, mainly because the story was already done and too long as it was.
The photo got taken. The next day the photographer called, and said, in essence: there was something troubling about that photo shoot. We took it in the subject's basement, and the man had a Nazi flag hanging on the wall.
Did you ask him why it was there? I wondered. Maybe it was a souvenir. Maybe his uncle took the flag from Berchtesgaden when he was with Patton's 3rd Army.
No, she said. She didn't ask. She was by herself. She didn't feel comfortable raising the question. I can't say I blamed her.
To me, there were two immediate priorities. First, we needed to decide if the Nazi flag meant we shouldn't use the quotes and/or the photo. And second, I had to make sure this photographer's concerns were given full consideration. That she felt seen.
"What do you think we should do?" I asked. She said she didn't know, except that we should be aware of it. I told her I'd discuss this with my editor and get back to her.
I was tempted to call the source back and ask, "What's with the Nazi flag?" Either it was a relic, displayed from a lack of sensitivity — though you could debate whether you need to be sensitive with displays in your own home. Maybe we were wrong to notice or care.
Or it could be a display of personal conviction. But if that were the case, could you really expect an honest answer? "I'm glad you asked that, Neil, I put the flag up because I think Hitler is a great guy." I didn't make the call. Shutting up is an art form.
The photo got taken. The next day the photographer called, and said, in essence: there was something troubling about that photo shoot. We took it in the subject's basement, and the man had a Nazi flag hanging on the wall.
Did you ask him why it was there? I wondered. Maybe it was a souvenir. Maybe his uncle took the flag from Berchtesgaden when he was with Patton's 3rd Army.
No, she said. She didn't ask. She was by herself. She didn't feel comfortable raising the question. I can't say I blamed her.
To me, there were two immediate priorities. First, we needed to decide if the Nazi flag meant we shouldn't use the quotes and/or the photo. And second, I had to make sure this photographer's concerns were given full consideration. That she felt seen.
"What do you think we should do?" I asked. She said she didn't know, except that we should be aware of it. I told her I'd discuss this with my editor and get back to her.
I was tempted to call the source back and ask, "What's with the Nazi flag?" Either it was a relic, displayed from a lack of sensitivity — though you could debate whether you need to be sensitive with displays in your own home. Maybe we were wrong to notice or care.
Or it could be a display of personal conviction. But if that were the case, could you really expect an honest answer? "I'm glad you asked that, Neil, I put the flag up because I think Hitler is a great guy." I didn't make the call. Shutting up is an art form.
And should a source be barred from adding to a story because of loathsome, unrelated views? That seemed the famous cancellation we hear about.
The editor circled back to the photographer and I did too. Are you okay? I'm sorry my assignment put you in this awkward position. We used the quotes and the photo. I didn't see why we shouldn't.
Through an amazing coincidence, a week later another story caused me to phone the same source. While he was on the line, I asked about the flag. He said it was the size of a dish towel — the photographer had made it seem full size — and framed with a front page announcing the end of the war. A historical display. That was a relief.
This sort of issue is rare, but does come up from time to time. I just had a magazine editor flag a quote from a subject I spoke to at an awareness march. Did I realize that ten years ago he had been dismissed from a teaching job for exchanging inappropriate emails with a student? No, I did not. It's right there in Mr. Google. The editor cut his remarks out of the story and suggested that, were I on the ball, they never would have been in the story in the first place.
At first I pushed back. Is this how we do things now? The main subject of the story could have cheated on her taxes in 1997. I didn't try to find out. I almost said, "You know who's writing this, yes? I come with baggage of my own." But rather I said, No, if I'm confident a person is who they purport to be, I don't deep dive into their personal background.
But times change, and we change with them. I admitted that Google-searching every proper name in the story and checking for dirt seems like "sound practice." And it might be, if it leads to finding out that the people you're quoting in some benign context are in fact bad people.
But it's more likely, in my estimation, to create ludicrous situations: "'I think chocolate ice cream tastes good,' said Todd Blandersnoot, who was charged with shoplifting in South Dakota in 2005."
The editor circled back to the photographer and I did too. Are you okay? I'm sorry my assignment put you in this awkward position. We used the quotes and the photo. I didn't see why we shouldn't.
Through an amazing coincidence, a week later another story caused me to phone the same source. While he was on the line, I asked about the flag. He said it was the size of a dish towel — the photographer had made it seem full size — and framed with a front page announcing the end of the war. A historical display. That was a relief.
This sort of issue is rare, but does come up from time to time. I just had a magazine editor flag a quote from a subject I spoke to at an awareness march. Did I realize that ten years ago he had been dismissed from a teaching job for exchanging inappropriate emails with a student? No, I did not. It's right there in Mr. Google. The editor cut his remarks out of the story and suggested that, were I on the ball, they never would have been in the story in the first place.
At first I pushed back. Is this how we do things now? The main subject of the story could have cheated on her taxes in 1997. I didn't try to find out. I almost said, "You know who's writing this, yes? I come with baggage of my own." But rather I said, No, if I'm confident a person is who they purport to be, I don't deep dive into their personal background.
But times change, and we change with them. I admitted that Google-searching every proper name in the story and checking for dirt seems like "sound practice." And it might be, if it leads to finding out that the people you're quoting in some benign context are in fact bad people.
But it's more likely, in my estimation, to create ludicrous situations: "'I think chocolate ice cream tastes good,' said Todd Blandersnoot, who was charged with shoplifting in South Dakota in 2005."
What do you think?
Cancelling a source could be overreach, slandering a source with having been arresting (we are innocent until proven guilty) is a poor idea.
ReplyDeleteI'm a property manager. I google every applicant looking to let a flat. Its illegal to use most information you find to discriminate against a potential tenant at least in chicago. Bankruptcy, eviction and certain criminal behavior, being the exceptions.
ReplyDeleteId say yes google people, although there's a lot of inaccurate info out there
I get eviction information and other information as far as law suits and taxes in Lake County. There are well over 1100 eviction cases already. I wonder how careful landlords or actually check records at the court house . Many people are in the system multiple times
DeleteThinking a certain flavor of ice cream tastes good is more an opinion than fact. If the alleged shoplifter, Mr. Blandersnoot said something like, “The election was stolen.” I would question his veracity.
ReplyDeleteIt’s increasingly more difficult to find the truth. Ultimately you have to trust your source.
Trustworthy sources are becoming more scarce.
I submit one of Groucho Marx’s famous quotes…”I would never join a club who would have me as a member!”
ReplyDeleteWhen does something you did in an earlier life stop following you around? Lots of questions Google can’t answer. Was it a youthful indiscretion? Has the person changed? Would Google know that? What’s the whole story of that past? Are we who we were or who we are? Who knows?
ReplyDeleteThat was my question, too. Is there a statute of limitations on such things...legally, morally, and ethically? Someone who stole or shoplifted or had many speeding tickets is not the same as a serial rapist. And of course, there's no statute of limitations if you caused someone's death.
DeleteBut the things you did can follow you around forever. The joke about your "permanent record" is not so funny anymore. Thanks to cyberspace, it really exists. It's much hider these days lie, cheat, hide out, skip town, or simply brush earlier transgressions under the rug of time. My wife was not allowed to rent a car because of speeding tickets that had been issued many years earlier. When does that shit finally end? Even "expungement" does not always work. The delete button doesn't always delete.
Oops...make that harder to lie. And cheat. And step on people's feet.
DeleteI agree with the implication of your last paragraph: context is important. Crucial, really.
ReplyDeleteFinding Todd Blandersnoot from South Dakota would be far easier than locating John Smith from California.
ReplyDeleteTrue dat. Even though I'm of the Hebrew persuasion, both my first and last names are far more common than I thought, until I did a search. My uncle had the same last name, but the common first name of "David", so there seemed to be hundreds of "him", especially in the Northeast , just as there were many of "me." On the other hoof, my wife has a common first name, but had an unusual German last name before she married me. She's the only one in America with that combination.
DeleteAsk the man who knows. I was a skip tracer for years. Mostly before the days of social media, databases, and search engines, so the job was far more difficult, stressful, and frustrating than it is now. A skip tracer finds those who have disappeared, or skipped, usually to avoid paying their debts. My employers were mostly law firms, whose clients were primarily major insurance companies.
My fathers last name is fairly common here, and No. 1 in County Waterford. My given name, John, was so popular in the 50s, that a lot of us go by initials. My mothers maiden name is so rare I have only encountered one person with it that might not be a relative. That's because she has no knowledge at all and my searches show several of her ancestors with given names in common with my Alsatian ancestors.
DeleteI agree with Jon. "context is important. Crucial, really." If the guy in your first example is an avid Nazi, and he's giving his opinion of George Soros, that's one thing. If he's got a historical display and is commenting on the Cubs' chances, that's another. (Though I don't really think a Nazi flag is an appropriate part of such a display, unless -- context! -- it was indeed a kind of trophy brought back after WWII by a relative or friend.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me the amount of research going into the background of a source is totally dependent on the significance of the story and the nature of the source's contribution to it. It will always be a judgment call.
Personally, I think every story about Supreme Court decisions should start with a statement that Brett Kavanaugh occupies a seat stolen from Obama, thus making the Court, as currently constituted, illegitimate. That may be a bit off-topic! ; )
I wonder how many subjects/sources would reconsider their willingness to be interviewed if they knew it involved unrestricted personal investigation. Most people expect fact-checking, but I naively presumed this would be in relation to the story. Have the times changed merely because deep-dives are now possible? Is that a good enough reason? I don't think so! Jill A
ReplyDeleteI don't know if "Googling" everybody makes sense....but...asking the source why he has a Nazi flag displayed is what every reader would want to know.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if "Googling" everybody makes sense...but asking the source why he displays a Nazi flag is what every reader would want to know.
ReplyDelete"While he was on the line, I asked about the flag. He said it was the size of a dish towel — the photographer had made it seem full size — and framed with a front page announcing the end of the war. A historical display. That was a relief."
ReplyDeleteThat was more than a relief: it changes the entire situation. I don't know if the photographer herself failed to mention that it was simply "dish towel" size and was framed with a front page announcing Germany's loss, but a display in that style, to me, barely needs any additional explanation. (I went through that entire published article, but the specific photo we're discussing here does not appear; it looks like an upstairs photo of the man was used instead.)
If it was a full-size Nazi flag stuck to the basement paneling with thumbtacks and surrounded with framed portraits of Hitler, I would take that very differently. Context is indeed everything, and I don't think that in this case, the presence or absence of a background war-souvenir Nazi flag framed with a V-E Day newspaper page would have affected the main point of the article in any way.