EMBODYING ETHICS
Situation Definition
Julie K. Brown detailed her process behind the two most notable stories of her career during her Foster-Foreman Conference lecture. Her first signature story came about when Darren Rainy, a mentally-ill prisoner in Florida, was locked in a scalding hot shower by a couple of guards. Rainey died due to severe burns, and the story was initially covered up. It later fell into the hands of Brown, though, leading her to dig deeper into the brutal mistreatment of Florida inmates with mental illness. Her second signature story dealt with the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case, which was dropped in 2008, only to be re-opened by Brown a decade later. She got ahold of some of Epstein’s victims and, through their stories, was able to create a series of articles that got Epstein arrested.
Each of these stories evokes intense ethical messages. In the Florida prison story, Brown had to be respectful of Rainey’s family, along with the families of other victims. She had to make them reflect upon the traumatic loss of a loved one, and she needed to portray each of the stories in a courteous fashion. In the Epstein story, Brown needed to be respectful of victims once again, and she needed to be careful in naming the women who were abused by Epstein.
Analysis
Studies have shown that, whether intentional or not, the press has tended to “function increasingly as an ideological arm of the state” (Fraley and Lester-Roushanzamir, 2004, p. 163). Rather than focusing on the values of professional journalism, the press often favors the current economic and political structure of society. In many cases regarding murder by police, the press has stressed order over injustice. Julie K. Brown, on the other hand, had the ethical awareness to understand that these prison guards were far out of line in what they did to Rainey. Morally, she took a stance against the Florida prison system for allowing this to happen, which was very respectful to Rainey’s family. This allowed her to use the family as a vital source of information, even though, as stated by Pulitzer Prize winner Tom Hallman Jr. (2005), interviewing family members of victims can be the “hardest part of reporting” (p. 19). These families may think journalists are just trying to capitalize on a tragic incident, but the Rainey family opened up to Brown because she was courteous and had good intentions.
In regards to naming the victims of the Epstein sex trafficking case, there isn’t one clear ethical decision to be made. Murder victims are almost universally identified, but when it comes to sex crimes, it’s the exact opposite. The victim is alive to deal with a great deal of trauma, and publicly posting their name and story all over the internet may be the worst thing for them to recover. As a journalist debating whether or not to name the victim, you need to be “guided by professional ethics and never simply by a desire to be first with a detail that will increase ratings or circulation” (Grand and Stone, 2013, p. 33). Brown’s motives had nothing to do with commercial success; instead, she sought justice for Epstein’s victims. She was clearly on their side, which allowed her to have an open conversation with the women she interviewed on the subject of naming them in her series.
I think Julie Brown handled each of these situations to perfection. She had a strong moral compass, which helped her reporting and helped the victims. Coming from a disadvantaged childhood, herself, Brown has always fought for those who have been wronged by the system. She seeks justice for these people, and she is relentless in telling their stories. One important aspect of her reporting, though, is that she never goes undercover. She is still able to obtain such crucial information without having to resort to deception. I think it shows that through hard work and a compassion for victims, you can expose wrongdoing as a straight-up reporter. I hope I could follow Julie Brown’s example if I were ever placed in an investigative reporting situation; I would certainly emulate her methods and work ethic.
Conclusion
I learned through Julie Brown’s lecture that if you abide by a code of ethics and have an unwavering morality, then you can spark real change through your reporting. With that being said, I think it’s important to study Julie Brown’s reporting process moving forward. We often highlight examples of people breaking ethical codes, but it’s important that we show positive examples that provide journalists with a framework of how to navigate these sensitive situations.
References
Fraley, T., & Lester-Roushanzamir, E. (2004). Revolutionary Leader or Deviant Thug? A Comparative Analysis of the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Daily Defender’s Reporting on the Death of Fred Hampton. Howard Journal of Communications, 15(3), 147–167. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1080/10646170490479750
Hallman Jr., T. (2005). Interviewing victims often the hardest part of reporting. Quill, 93(8), 19. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=18736526&site=ehost-live&scope=site
GRAND, A., & STONE, S. (2013). Naming Victims of Sex Crimes. Quill, 101(2), 33–36. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=87052132&site=ehost-live&scope=site