Part 1: Situation Definition
Washington Post writer and Pulitzer Prize winner Carol Leonnig had a lot to share this past week with Penn State students. Her investigative reporting on the Secret Services brought up lots of ethical considerations. For starters, what jumps out to me is how she went about her reporting – who did she talk to? Why did they reveal these illegal things that were going on within the government? Obtaining such private information was most certainly a challenge for Leonnig.
Another ethical concern about her Secret Service story was how she obtained documents. She spoke part of the lecture about how many of the documents that contributed to her story came to her second handedly, meaning she received them from someone who received them prior. Where those documents not meant to be seen by her if they were not given to her first? These facts bring up uneasy ethical worries for this story.
Part 2: Analysis
Faced with such a hard investigative reporting case, I’m sure it was difficult for Leonnig to reach out to sources, and verify those sources. When faced with a similar challenge, I would not trust just one source, no matter their reputation. If a leading agent in the FBI told me one thing about the Secret Service, I would be sure to confirm that information to be true with several other agents. With a case like such, which deals with withholding the truth from the public, a reporter can only question whether their sources wish to withhold the truth as well.
According to a Washington Post article written by Paul Farhi, in April of 2015, Leonnig spent months gaining trust of normally reserved Secret Service agents to produce a serious of stories. In the wake of her reporting, President Obama replaced more than half of the services’ senior leadership, including its director. (Farhi 2015)
It’s refreshing to hear about an investigative reporting case like such, and research about it to see that Leonnig invested so much into this case. Ethical concerns about the directions in her reporting were definitely confirmed. She spent months on this story, making sure all of her sources were reliable, and told the truth so she could share her reporting with the public. The impact her story made on the government made a different in the security for the White House.
As far as documents she used for her reporting, it’s definitely hard to critique. As an investigative reporter, I’m sure it wasn’t the easiest to obtain facts for this story. After all, the acts were illegal, and the illegal actions were in the hands of the government – a tough story to work on. If placed in a similar situation, I would probably use the legal documents as a part of my research. One can’t expect Leonnig to receive government documents first handedly. I think she went about her reporting the right way.
Part 3: Conclusion
I thought this year’s speaker for the Foster Foreman conference was enlightening. Carol Leonnig is an inspiration to all journalists, and her enthusiasm to be a great reporter and journalist is what I strive for. She’s persistant in her tactics, and her investment in time is what made this story such a success.
What I enjoyed the most about this week’s conference was how Leonnig didn’t spend much time talking about her story, and her winnings for the story. She was more concerned on the fate of aspiring journalism students, and wanted to provide us with the most insight she could. Leonnig described her journalism career as “being late to the game.” It took her time to achieve such success, and that’s refreshing to hear about such a competitive business. Leonnig is passionate about journalism,
Part 4: References
Farhi, P. (2015). Pulitzer for Secret Service reporting. Washingtonpost.com. Retrieved October 29, 2015.
Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig wins Pulitzer Prize for reporting on Secret Service lapses. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2015