Developing a Nose for Honesty

Warning, there be moralizing here.

Earlier today, I wrote for BNET Media an article titled, Why Is the Press So Freakin' Credulous and Dumb? In it I mention a story about the magazine Paris Match being thoroughly hoaxed by two students who staged a photo essay on student poverty just to show how unquestioning the mainstream press is.

“We pushed the clichés to the limit. We thought the whole thing was so hackneyed that it could never win … We wanted to call into question the inner-workings of the attitude of the kind of media which portrays human distress with complacency and voyeurism,” they said.

I also relate a story debunking that I did last year. (Some regular readers may remember it - an article claiming that Thomas Edison had a rival murdered.)

My point was and is that too many writers and editors are so hungry for a "good" story that they're willing to buy into anything. And that is true. Those wanting to avoid being hoaxed might like to review my 16 tips on verifying information. But there is something even more serious at stake. No technique can help if you are essentially determined to get ahead no matter what the cost. Even when you know better, you will make the wrong choice. Look at Bernie Madoff. A friend said to me earlier today, "He could have invested in savings bonds and still done better." And he knew it, only he was too driven by his desire and by his fear of consequences.

Sometimes writers considering some course of action wonder if they are crossing an ethical bound. The most important rule of thumb, far above the 16 aforementioned tips, is that if you find yourself asking whether you're doing something questionable, chances are that the answer is yes. It could be slightly changing someone's sentence to claim as your own, making up something in a story, poaching another writer's ideas or sources, or even giving a glowing review to a book you've never read. Such actions eat away at the soul and are often eventually uncovered, much to the embarrassment of the perpetrator. The ethical path may sometimes not be as financially rewarding, but you do get the benefit of being able to sleep at night and confront your visage in the mirror the next morning. And, similarly, you have to begin trusting your own nose. When someone has the aroma of the ethically challenged, trust your own reaction. At worse you're unnecessarily on guard. At best, you avoid stepping into a mud bath.

Did Maxim Review CD Without Listening?

Apparently Maxim rated a CD without listening to the entire album - and it's not even clear how much, if anything, the reviewer listened to. Here's something on one of my other blogs.

Journalistic Ethics - the Short Version

Someone on Freelance Success pointed out the story of a WMAQ reporter in Chicago who didn't step over the journalistic line - she swam over it. On her day off, she accepted an invitation to take her two sons swimming in the pool of "the estranged husband of a missing Plainfield woman.":

Sources said Jacobson told her bosses that she was on her way to the East Bank Club in River North to go swimming with her sons Friday when she received a call from Craig Stebic's sister, asking her to come to his house to talk about the case.

And then a competing station that had a camera man staked out in a neighboring house caught her on tape. Uh oh. And now she's resigned from her position.

I've seen many freelance reporters ask about what is ethical and not. I know a few who are hyper-vigilent willing to go to extremes to avoid anything that would smack of a conflict, and I know others that often look for ways to get yet another freebie. To stay on the right side of the line doesn't mean memorizing a list of rules, just understanding a few principles:

• Avoid appearance of conflict. It may be that you can actually get close to a source and still write in a reasonably fair and unbiased manner, but it's not just a question about what you can do. The issue is what impression you'd give by doing it. Assume that anything will come to be known by the public. If a third party would be suspicious of your motives, then don't do it. And if you find yourself trying to argue that the person really wouldn't mind, then assume that the person actually would. This is a case where the reporter doth protest too much.


• Avoid freebies. This can be tough, particularly if you review products, performances, or music. You shouldn't be paying for such items unless you're getting reimbursement from the publication. But if the freebie is not necessary to conduct the review, or if the ultimate subject of the review can directly influence and control your experience (as with a restaurant meal), don't take it.


• Don't be beholding. If you find that you want to moderate your story because the company or PR person may not give you the same type of access to people, products, or situations in the future, you shouldn't be writing the piece. Bite the hand that feeds you and watch yourself in the future, because you are displaying the inclination to tilt coverage for personal reasons.


• Don't use friends and acquaintances as sources. It's convenient to interview people that you know, because you have no fear of them and it's likely that you will get cooperation. But unless the person is a real expert in the area and you may not find someone as qualified, keep on moving. You are unlikely to want to present someone in a bad light, which means subconsciously you will probably censor the questions you ask and conclusions you draw. This gets particularly bad - and dangerous - when you use fellow writers as sources, because editors may well recognize the names and decide, rightly or wrongly, that you are slacking. Keep on your toes and find other sources. (And you can check here for some pointers on finding people.)

It comes down to common sense - and applying it when you're in the middle. The biggest tool you have is when you find yourself asking the question, "Is this ethical?" The answer is probably, "No."