Child-porn story sparks ethics debate

Amid his reporting, New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald became involved in the story. He convinced his then-18-year-old source to stop taking drugs and stop posting pornography online. When the source felt threatened by a past molester, Eichenwald and the Times arranged for the source to travel to a distant city. When the source gave the reporter evidence of other children being molested, Eichenwald and the Times took action.

In a reporter's essay, Eichenwald writes:

Editors agreed that The Times needed to review the evidence to verify Justin's story; if it supported what he said, The Times would attempt to persuade him to contact law enforcement. Though the role of journalists is to report news rather than report illegal activity to law enforcement, in this instance The Times decided it was important that authorities learn what Justin knew so that they could take any steps needed to protect the children he said were still at risk.

We flew to California and I examined the hard drives. The review convinced me that Justin's story was true. I connected him with a lawyer - Stephen M. Ryan with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips - who agreed to represent him and who contacted prosecutors. Two weeks later, at Justin's request, I accompanied him to Washington for his first meeting with the government. By then, someone I contacted had offered to give Justin a place to live, and after his interview, he headed to that new location.

The story that Eichenwald produced gives a chilling and riveting glimpse into a "sordid online world" where adult predators pay children for "performing in front of the Webcam - undressing, showering, masturbating and even having sex." In the case of Eichenwald's source, Justin Berry (according to the Times, he agreed to have his name published), the paid performances led to in-person molestation by his predatory "fans."

Writing at the CBS News "Public Eye" blog, Brian Montopoli noted the ethical questions raised by the actions of Eichenwald and the Times but applauded the results:

The strategy undertaken by Eichenwald, who consulted with his editors throughout the process, probably violated some of the standard conventions of the journalist-subject relationship, but I think even the most traditional journalism ethics professor would be hard pressed to make a case against him, in light of the larger picture.

Less forgiving, however, was Slate press critic Jack Shafer, who raised several objections. "While I admire Eichenwald's journalistic enterprise and thoroughness," Shafer writes, "I'm astonished at how he loses control of his 6,500-word investigation when he appears two-thirds through it to serve not as a reporter but as the legal advocate and protector of the now 19-year-old Berry."

Analyzing the ethical case, Shafer applies an absolutist, consequentialist view. He writes:

In other words, Eichenwald helped convince Berry to quit porn and quit drugs. He found him a lawyer. The lawyer, in turn, persuaded federal prosecutors to give Berry immunity for serving as the state's witness.

What extraordinary intervention! The analogies aren't perfect, but imagine a Times reporter encountering an 18-year-old who had been thrust into the illicit drug business at 13 as a consequence of his neglectful family and unscrupulous dealers? Would he help the young man leave the drug trade and find him a lawyer at a Washington firm who is "a former federal prosecutor," as Eichenwald did Berry? Not likely. Would a Times reporter extend similar assistance to an 18-year-old female prostitute? An 18-year-old fence? A seller of illegal guns? No way.

To the argument that Eichenwald deserves our praise for aiding the adult Berry, who has been victimized, I offer this counterargument: Hasn't the Times put the next reporter assigned to the online pornography story into a nasty jam? Will the just-turned-18-years-old subjects expect future reporters to 1) help get them a lawyer who will 2) assist them in becoming witnesses for the prosecution, because Eichenwald helped Berry? Will online pornographers and other allied criminals now regard reporters as agents of the state? Don't be surprised if they start treating reporters as cops.

Absolutist and consequentialist arguments have inherent flaws, however. Humans have a limited ability to predict the future, so arguments about future consequences must necessarily be limited as well. (Should journalists base their current actions on the anticipated future actions of "online pornographers and other allied criminals"?) Slippery-slope arguments rarely take in the full array of variables at play. Also, while hard-and-fast rules and prohibitions are often useful in general terms, extreme situations (such as the one in which Eichenwald found himself) can make such rules and prohibitions woefully inadequate. As Eichenwald himself notes in a response to Shafer, "the whole issue of ethical judgments is context." Following his usual practice, Shafer admirably posts his subsequent correspondence with Eichenwald in full at the bottom of his critical story. Eichenwald ultimately makes a compelling case:

My hope is, if you were in our position, rather than looking at it from the rear view mirror, you would have made the same call. Because there is no telling whether these children would have survived had we gone down the path you are suggesting. And I just simply cannot believe that the ethics of our profession require us to stand by and let children be abused or killed—or for us to risk even causing their deaths, by recklessly endangering them. Could we even be held criminally liable for such a death, since we made the call knowing such an outcome was likely?

However, I am glad you noted my point about there being no good decision. We had none available. Every option had a down side—but, I could not be prouder of the New York Times than in knowing that, when those tough choices had to be made, they came down on the side that meant saving children. Then, knowing that there would be those who would disagree with the tough call we made, they came down on the side of disclosing everything we did, allowing journalistic ethicists who were not in the horrible position of making this decision to criticize us for it.

'Embeds' discuss war, aftermath

Editor & Publisher's Joe Strupp speaks with 16 of the "original" embedded reporters who joined U.S. troops in Iraq in March 2003. The reporters discuss their time in Iraq, their evolving views about the war, and the emotional after-effects of their experiences.

Several of the embeds said that their war-reporting experience changed the way they viewed other reporting assignments. Strupp writes:

Some reporters gained confidence and a stronger stomach for some of the news industry's less attractive stories, while others found themselves spoiled by the excitement and adrenaline of war and less interested in their old beats. Peter Baker of The Washington Post, who covered the White House from 1996 to 1999 and returned to the beat last year after embedding, admits some lack of enthusiasm these days: "There is a lot of crap we write about at the White House which is, frankly, not interesting. It seems a lot less of an authentic experience."

Strupp also spoke to several reporters about the emotional and psychological difficulties they have faced since their war-zone assignments. He notes the tragic story of Norfolk Virginian-Pilot reporter Dennis O'Brien, who committed suicide less than a year after returning from Iraq.

The Clarksville, Tenn., Leaf-Chronicle's Chantal Escoto discusses the emotional effects she suffered after an incident in which she was "pushed, hit, and groped" by a group of Iraqi men.

Sig Christenson, of the San Antonio Express-News, discussed his experience with post-traumatic stress. Strupp writes:

"I think I've had a good deal of it," [Christenson] says, adding that legendary war correspondent Ernie Pyle was one of his influences on the job. "I was some kind of a basket case the last time, and way more nervous. You go through a series of events where your life is in jeopardy and with each one, you get more scared." Christenson, who is president of Military Reporters and Editors, adds that he has sought psychiatric treatment and still finds himself "more intense" than before the war.

Strupp ends the lengthy piece with a quote from the Washington Post's Peter Baker, who says he's concerned that he hasn't experienced a "serious emotional reaction":

"I am worried," he admits, "that it didn't change me more."

Resilience in Thailand

A year after the tsunami, Independent reporter Vaudine England visits Phuket and Khao Lak, Thailand, and finds signs of recovery and resilience. She writes:

A stoic pluckiness pervades conversations with bar owners and hoteliers. Moving stories of survival and loss abound across Phuket, but the aim now to move on but not to forget, said Howard Digby-Johns, the owner of a British-style pub in Phuket, the Green Man. "Everybody there will have been through it at some level, some of them quite intensely," he said. "But we have to make the best of it, as we have been doing all year. We all need closure, which is quite hard, exceptionally emotional."

Reassessing suicide coverage

The decision of whether and how to cover a suicide is a difficult one. Newsrooms are often reluctant to cover suicides unless they occur in a public manner or involve public figures. Such an approach, while erring on the side of sensitivity, can end up minimizing an important public-health problem and also foster misconceptions about suicide and depression.

The Portland Oregonian recently formed a task force to examine their paper's approach to this difficult subject. Oregonian public editor Michael Arrieta-Walden writes:

About five times as many Oregonians have died from suicide as from homicide this year.

You wouldn't get a sense of the more than 380 suicides through early this fall from reading The Oregonian.

Arrieta-Walden also notes that news coverage of suicide has real consequences:

A study of suicide rates and media coverage in six cities reaffirmed past research indicating that coverage can potentially influence other suicides, particularly among younger, vulnerable people.

Dan Romer, director of the Adolescent Risk Communication Institute of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, says the research findings, which are to be published in 2006, also emphasize that the way suicide is covered is critical.

That's why he and other experts do not say don't cover suicide; they argue for covering it with care and in ways that educate people about the causes. He says coverage should avoid glorifying or detailing the act and should not be sensational or prominent. Coverage also should recognize that most suicides involve people who are clinically depressed, and care should be given not to link it to a recent breakup or job loss.

Related: "Covering Suicide"--a Dart Center tip sheet.

Reporter wins unfair dismissal suit

In 2003, long-time war correspondent Richard Gizbert turned down requests by ABC News to cover the war in Iraq. In 2004, Gizbert's freelance contract with the network was terminated.

Last week, a British employment tribunal ruled in Gizbert's favor, agreeing that his dismissal was unfair and rejecting ABC's argument that Gizbert's dismissal and his refusal of war-zone assignment were unrelated. ABC has announced plans to appeal the ruling.

The Associated Press's Beth Gardiner reports:

Gizbert, who began working in ABC's London bureau in 1993, had been a war correspondent for years, covering conflicts in Bosnia, Chechnya and Somalia for ABC. He said he became reluctant to continue such reporting in the late 1990s as his children grew up.

BBC media correspondent Torin Douglas uses the Gizbert case to examine "The difficult game of war reporting":

War correspondents have always been a breed apart, rushing in where most of us fear to tread.

We remember John Simpson marching into Kabul and Max Hastings yomping into Port Stanley, "liberating" Afghanistan and the Falkland Islands and scooping their rivals into the bargain.

But the life of the war correspondent has never been more dangerous, according to the former BBC correspondent Martin Bell. "It is time to close the book on macho journalism", he said this week.

CPJ issues report on jailed journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists has released its annual report on jailed journalists around the world. For the seventh consecutive year, the report finds China to be "the world's leading jailer of journalists, with 32 imprisoned." According to CPJ, the U.S. ranks sixth, "just behind Uzbekistan and tied with Burma."

Read the full report here. Click here for CPJ's full list of imprisoned journalists.

KR raises $640,000 for Biloxi, Miss., staffers

From Editor and Publisher:

Employees from all of Knight Ridder's properties -- and some friends and family -- pulled together $320,000 for their colleagues at The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss., who suffered from Hurricane Katrina. Knight Ridder is matching the money for a total of $640,000.

WHO protests abuses of mentally ill

To commemorate International Human Rights Day (December 10), the World Health Organization has called for an end to human rights violations against people with mental health disorders.

A WHO press release notes:

Misunderstanding and stigma surrounding mental ill health are widespread. Despite the existence of effective treatments for mental disorders, there is a belief that they are untreatable or that people with mental disorders are difficult, not intelligent, or incapable of making decisions. This stigma can lead to abuse, rejection and isolation and exclude people from health care or support. Within the health system, people are too often treated in institutions which resemble human warehouses more than places of healing.

WHO has also released a powerful photo essay titled "Forgotten People." The essay notes that people with mental disorders are commonly "thought to be violent and they often invoke fear despite the fact that they are far more likely to be the victims of violence rather than the perpetrators."

The WHO web site contains a wealth of information, including a world mental health fact sheet. Among the facts cited:

• 450 million people worldwide are affected by mental, neurological or behavioural problems at any time.
• About 873,000 people die by suicide every year.
• Cost-effective treatments exist for most disorders and, if correctly applied, could enable most of those affected to become functioning members of society.

Child's 9-1-1 call sparks debate

Five television newsrooms in Orlando, Fla., were given a 9-1-1 recording in which a 7-year-old girl describes the fatal shooting of her mother. Three stations aired parts of the recording. Two declined to use any of the audio.

In a Sunday column, Orlando Sentinel TV critic Hal Boedeker examined how the five news teams handled the tape and the story, speaking with leaders in each newsroom:

"This tape takes advantage of a distraught 7-year-old girl at the worst moment in her life," says Ed Trauschke, news director at WESH. "We still covered the story. I don't think it [the tape] added anything."

At WOFL, news director Bob Clinkingbeard listened to the tape and consulted colleagues.

"We made the editorial decision that it would have been exploitative of the little girl," he says.

The news teams that aired the tape used a different line of reasoning:

"To us, that was the extraordinary news value: that a 7-year-old was composed and able to call 911," says Skip Valet, news director at WKMG. "She was newsworthy. The killer spared her life."

Robin Smythe, general manager at Central Florida News 13, says her newsroom gave careful consideration to the 911 call.

"The availability of that call tells the story better than any journalist could," she says. "This one is particularly tough to listen to, but we report these stories, and we can't sugarcoat what happened."

At WFTV, anchor Martie Salt had trouble making it through the segment:

"I couldn't read the next story," she says. "I was crying. Bob [Opsahl] took over. He picked up where I left off. I had to get my composure over the next few minutes. He had tears in his eyes too, but he could read."

Boedeker also spoke with Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, and co-author of The Elements of Journalism.

... "if your emotions tell you something is too intimate and invasive and that you can't listen to it, that should be a red flag," Rosenstiel says. "If you're having trouble, imagine how the audience is going to react. They may think the use of this material is exploitative and manipulative."

"There's a balancing test that journalists should engage in: Does the public good of using the tape outweigh any harm to the person on it?" Rosenstiel asks. "Would you traumatize this child? Usually the people on these tapes are innocent bystanders."

Related: The National Child Traumatic Stress Network has resources for the media. The Dart Center has a tipsheet on "Covering Children & Trauma."

Disaster coverage: Tough choices

Using Hurricane Katrina as a case study, AJR's Rachel Smolkin explores the question of whether journalists should remain neutral bystanders while reporting a disaster.

After an in-depth look at the issue, with quotes from a number of journalists who faced this dilemma in the hurricane zone, Smolkin advises:

Follow your conscience. Your humanity – your ability to empathize with pain and suffering, and your desire to prevent it – does not conflict with your professional standards. Those impulses make you a better journalist, more attuned to the stories you are tasked with telling. If you change an outcome through responsible and necessary intervention because there's no one else around to help, so be it. Tell your bosses, and when it's essential to a story, tell your readers and viewers, too.

Remember, though, that your primary – and unique – role as a journalist is to bear witness. If you decide to act, do so quickly, then get out of the way. Leave the rescue work to first responders and relief workers whenever possible.

The journalists covering Katrina showed compassion by offering water, rides and rescue, but their most enduring service was to expose the suffering of citizens trapped in hellish shelters and on sweltering interstates, and to document the inexcusable government response.

Related: "Covering Disasters," a Dart Center tipsheet; and "First Responders," an in-depth guide for journalists covering the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event.

Misusing mental health language

Writing at Poynter, public radio journalist Cindi E Deutschman-Ruiz complains about the media's misuse of mental health terminology in stories that aren't about mental health. She writes:

When we misuse psychiatric terms, we strip them of power, turning mental illness into something almost silly. After all, if movies, books and -- heaven help us -- a bull elk can be schizophrenic, how bad can schizophrenia really be?

She also comments on state of media coverage of mental health and the continued prevalence of stigma:

But in recent years, people with mental illness, their families, their doctors and even governmental agencies have sought to remove the stigma of mental illness -- and media coverage of the issue has begun to change. Indeed, we've devoted whole series to mental-health issues, and directed substantial resources toward mental-health coverage.

But this new approach doesn't appear to reflect true reform. As journalists and as a society, we seem to still be of two minds -- not "schizophrenic" -- about whether mental illness is a medical condition or a character flaw. That's at the root of stigma, I think: the notion that mental illness is a sign of weakness -- the inability to will ourselves well -- rather than a physiological condition affected by environmental factors.