Situation Definition:
Ken Dilanian, an NBC News correspondent who covers national security, shared his insights into investigative reporting on October 24th. Dilanian brought up his time reporting on-air, on the Epstein case, and on various cases in Washington D.C.
He covered many prevalent journalistic ethical issues such as remaining unbiased and allowing source anonymity. Future investigative reporters and general reporters must navigate their bias and sources properly because disaster will result if these matters are handled without care.
Analysis:
Bias often presents itself in modern journalism because a variety of news sources like Buzzfeed cater to an audience that prefers the news they want to hear. However, journalists like Dilanian advise against adding opinion to vital information that could sway an audience to believe Washington, D.C. officials are good or bad; readers or viewers should retain the right to decide how they feel about an issue on their own.
The American Press Institute acknowledged bias in a peculiar way. This source indicated that some bias adds “lifeblood” to a story contrary to what Dilanian said about removing all bias from articles. “Thus, the job of journalists is not to stamp out bias. Rather, the journalist should learn how to manage it” (American Press Institute, 2019). No journalist should present an opinion piece as fact, but they may present an angled investigative piece with facts to corroborate the main points.
Similar ethical decision-making standards apply to source anonymity. Dilanian often protects his sources because many national intelligence officials face prosecution when they speak to journalists. He weighs the importance of the information gained to gauge whether his anonymous source is worth inserting into an article.
Dilanian did not release the names of any known victims in the Epstein sex trafficking case; it is common practice to keep the identities of sexual assault victims private unless they want their names to be known. Covering a crime of such magnitude on air would cause unrest in the victims’ private life, and Dilanian would not make such a mistake despite blanking on air before.
Allowing sources to remain anonymous is a hot topic for debate among journalists because the practice is often overused. “Boeyink offers specific instructions that call for reporters to ethically justify the use of unnamed sourcing, explain why anonymity is granted, offer detail about the identity of the unnamed source and independently verify all information from anonymous sources” (Duffy and Freeman, 2011). Reporters should follow these guidelines, and they should refrain from using anonymous sources unless the sources would be in harm’s way if their names were used. This rule seems ambiguous without the additional fact that source anonymity does not apply to criminals or individuals whose names are already well-known. Grey areas regarding source anonymity are best navigated with moral decision making.
Conclusion:
Dilanian’s conference taught me that investigative reporting is more complicated than I originally thought. However, I still want to pursue experimentation in the investigative journalism field. I feel confident that I can navigate source anonymity and bias to create a well-informed piece of my choosing.
Biases and anonymous sources will always be a hot topic because not everyone agrees on the guidelines for ethical decision making in these cases. Learned and moral decision making are the only ways to truly navigate these dilemmas. Providing facts to back up these decisions is the best way to stay out of the hot seat when it comes to public scrutiny over the use of bias or anonymous sources.
References:
Understanding bias. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/understanding-bias/.
Duffy, M. J., & Freeman, C. P. (2011). Unnamed Sources: A Utilitarian Exploration of their Justification and Guidelines for Limited Use. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 26(4), 297–315.