Blog 15 – Undercover reporting

All reporters go undercover to a degree. When covering certain events, such the local rodeo, the reporter will play the part, so to speak. Wearing a three-piece suit will not be conducive to immediate and helpful interviews, so the reporter puts on blue jeans and aims to fit in with his or her subjects. This isn’t, by any means, going “undercover,” but it suggests that even the most ethically stringent reporter must recognize that some pieces of information simply cannot be gathered without some wiggle room. How much wiggle room is up for debate.

In reference to Bob Steele’s “Beware the Dangers of ‘Testing the System,’” it is not clear how one goes about determining whether the topic in question has “adequate” or “inadequate” ethical justification. What if a reporter had a seemingly solid lead that a certain corporation was torturing human subjects for medical trials, but, once inside, learned there was no such thing occurring. Does it have to end in a scathing exposé for it to be “ethically justified”? Ethical justification might, unfortunately, mean the following question: does the end justify the means?  

I wholeheartedly agree with Greene’s statement below:  

“We must recognize the considerable ethical and legal dangers associated with any form of undercover reporting and deceptive tactics designed to test systems. Any good we might seek can quickly be outweighed by the harm we cause.”

I’m not sure that any editor or reporter can objectively determine whether or not information obtained is “of profound (enough) importance” to justify the use of deception. When all other alternatives for obtaining the same information have been exhausted, it would appear that there is not enough journalistic meat to the story. Furthermore, bringing in examples such as “To Catch a Predator” simply make the practice laughable and subject to the most exaggerated entertainment value.

And the heart of it, for me, really lies in Greene’s pivotal question (from the ABC-Food Lion case):

“Is it ever justifiable for a journalist to violate the principle of honesty to honor the principle upon which journalism is founded, a duty to provide the public with meaningful, accurate and comprehensive information about significant issues?”

Perhaps I am too ethically stringent or simply from the old-school journalism variety, but I have to answer a resounding “no.” Outstanding, society-altering exposés have been done without the journalist going undercover (Watergate comes to mind), and it tarnishes the good name of journalism to gather material under false pretenses. (That being said, I’ll certainly read an undercover story’s revelations, but it will not be my – or hopefully my newspapers’ – conscious on the line.)