Two incidents that Bill Marimow talked about at the Oweida lecture were an event that occurred in 1973 when he was writing a story on airline pilots being laid off, and another time when he was writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer covering the Rizzo administration. In his story about the airline pilots he wanted to interview a pilot and his family who lived in New Jersey. After interviewing the pilot and his family for a few hours when he asked if he could use photos and the names of the pilot and his family in the paper and they didn’t wish to have their names used. Marimow’s editor told him to write the story because he said that the family knew that he was a reporter and knew he was there for a story. He decided to not follow his editor’s advice and tried to find another pilot and family who would be willing to be interviewed by him and use their photos and his name in a story. He had to rush to find another pilot and family who would be willing to let their story and names be published and he eventually did and was able to complete the story.
This ethical conflict put Marimow in a difficult spot, but he disobeyed the orders of his editor and went with what he felt was right. The conflict here revolves around the idea of public figures vs. private figures and people’s rights to privacy. Marimow’s editor argued that the family he interviewed knew that he was a reporter and should have known that their names and photos would be published but Marimow was hesitant because he felt they may have not had experience with reporters before and didn’t wish for their names to be public. In this case the sources wouldn’t have been in any real danger had he revealed their names but it could have damaged his reputation with those sources and created distrust with them. This is a small example of a larger issue of journalists protecting their sources and the shield laws that protect journalists(2).
The second ethical conflict that Marimow described occurred when he was covering the Mayor of Philadelphia’s administration. The mayor’s administration viewed the Inquirer as out to get them though he had a good source inside the administration who would speak with him. There was a rule of the Inquirer that no staff members could receive gifts or bonuses from those who they cover because of their position as a staff member. The source offered to take him to a baseball game and he was unsure whether he should go because he didn’t want to destroy the relationship between him and the source. He spoke with his editor about the conflict and he told him to go, but to make sure that he outspent the source’s offered baseball ticket. Although he violated the rules he didn’t offend the source and outspent the source’s gift amount, as advised by his editor.
This issue of accepting gifts is a tricky as explained by Marimow. It raises large questions to the readers about conflicts of interest. In this case he didn’t want to seem ungrateful to his source by declining his offering and potentially ruining the line of communication that he had with his source but he also wanted to appear unbiased to his readers so that he maintained his credibility. New York Times Assistant Managing Editor Allan M. Siegal said, “Above all, they should steer clear of any suspicion of concealment.”(1). When speaking about conflicting interests and the possibility of receiving gifts from those journalists may be covering and may cover in the future. By pre-disclosing any history or potential conflict of interest a journalist may have beforehand he or she can avoid losing any credibility.
I learned a lot from this lecture and thinking about these ethical issues. It is important to take each issue on a case by case basis, but also to discuss some of these issues before you come across them that way you have experience with them and when faced with the possibility of making a quick decision you already have practice. One of the most interesting things that Bill Marimow said was if any action however slight makes you hesitate and pause don’t do it, consult a senior editor. If the advice you get makes you uncomfortable ask for a second opinion. I found this interesting because it shows young journalists that the editor is necessarily the end all be all for ethical decisions and the most important thing is to think about your personal ethical compass.
- Reiss, D. (n.d.). Stricter rules have many freelancers walking tight rope. Retrieved February 27, 2013, from Ebscohost (0033-6475).
- Mitchell, K. B. (2005). News Media & the Law. In Ebscohost. Retrieved February 28, 2013, from Ebscohost (0149-0737).