When the School of Journalism and Communication presented New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald with a Payne Award for Ethics in Journalism last spring, it commended his transparent and compassionate journalism in a high-profile story. But after revelations recently surfaced that Eichenwald paid a key source, an ethical debate simmered behind closed doors.
At stake is one question, volleyed via e-mail and in the corridors of Allen Hall: Should the Payne judges strip Eichenwald of his award, or at least make the internal debate public?
Eichenwald’s December 2005 coverage of a 13-year-old boy, persuaded by illicit drugs and easy money to spend years in a world of child pornography and abuse, was praised by the Payne judges for its preservation of “editorial integrity.” The story’s transparency of reporting and Eichenwald’s efforts to assist a main source in “escaping the pornography trade and rehabilitating himself,” also made a strong impact on the Payne judges, according to a press statement released spring 2006.
Now, the ethics behind Eichenwald’s ethics award has been called into question by a March 6 Editors’ Note in The New York Times that stated Eichenwald had given Justin Berry, his main source, a $2,000 check.
“Mr. Eichenwald explained in his essay that, at the outset, he did not identify himself to Mr. Berry as a reporter. After they met in person, but before he decided that he wanted to write an article, Mr. Eichenwald said he told the youth that the money would have to be returned. Times policy forbids paying the subjects of articles for information or interviews. A member of Mr. Berry’s family helped repay the $2,000,” according to the note.
The story was picked up by The Associated Press and syndicated across the country.
Condemnations from the journalistic blogosphere came swiftly: Since the clarification was published, Jim Romenesko’s eponymous journalism industry blog has been awash with an array of opinions and letters on the subject, most of them negative.
In a March 7 e-mail to faculty and graduate students, Tim Gleason, dean of the journalism school, addressed the situation that the school and the Payne Awards were facing.
“There have been several critical reports that have questioning (sic) the award or asking if it would be taken away from Eichenwald. I’ve also received a couple of positive comments,” he wrote. “While it does appear that that Eichenwald violated NYT standards by not disclosing the payment and repayment, it is not clear that this one fact undermines the integrity of the story or of his actions.”
Gleason also noted that the Payne Judging Committee would wait until this spring to discuss the issue in greater detail.
Eichenwald said in an extensive interview with the Emerald that he sees a very clear distinction between his actions as a private individual and as a journalist, and that the timeline of events clearly supports this distinction. At first, Eichenwald would only speak off-the-record, fearing it would appear he was attempting to influence a decision in his favor, although he consented after Gleason’s approval.
“There was no checkbook journalism – I was trying to save a kid’s life,” he said.
While pursuing what appeared to be a fraud case, Eichenwald said he stumbled upon Mexicofriends.com, a Web site indexed on archive.org that, while not pornographic, gave an impression of pedophiliac content. At first he tried to dismiss it as an Internet scam, but he felt guilty about turning a blind-eye.
“I had a problem. I had information suggesting that there could be – step one: a kid. Step two: could be a kid caught up in porn. I had seen no porn, I had seen no kid. All I had was that single image and it looked like an image coming out of a school yearbook.”
It didn’t seem like a news story, he said, a child in child pornography is not newsworthy, but he suspected that his after-hours project had uncovered a minor at risk.
“I have to know if it’s true,” he said.
Acting as private citizens, Eichenwald and his wife decided to reach out to the main persona of the Web site they knew only as “Justin.” In an attempt to find Justin’s location, prevent him from undertaking any more online activities and confirm Eichenwald’s suspicions, the couple shipped by FedEx a $2,000 check on June 8, 2005.
“I was not acting as a reporter,” Eichenwald said. “How did I maneuver these unbelievably difficult ethical shoals? By doing the right thing as a person.”
When Eichenwald persuaded Berry to meet him in California on June 30, 2005 it was to persuade him to leave the business, and among the first stipulations made was that Berry would repay the $2,000 with clean money, earned honestly.
When Berry fled his handlers on July 5, Eichenwald notified his editors that he might have a story and wanted to fly the source into Dallas.
Only after that odyssey of helping the now 19-year-old, the abused and drug-addicted Berry extracted himself from years in an underworld, and Eichenwald decided he could turn the experience into a journalistic endeavor that would bring down a system Berry showed him was still preying upon many other minors.
When Berry arrived in Texas on July 8, 2005 both of them decided that Berry’s experience could become part of a story that would bring down the industry, but Eichenwald said the first condition was that the $2,000 debt had to be settled before he would proceed. Berry’s grandmother sent a check and Eichenwald and he considered the matter closed.
“The thing I hate about our profession is the complete inability for people to remove their subsequent knowledge when assessing what people do.”
After collecting the rest of the story, Eichenwald said he had to battle the editorial process of the Times to even get the partial disclosure the was published online. His original concept of a three-part story, with on segment focusing on Berry’s story was edited dozens of times and held repeatedly.
More than a year after he was recognized by the journalism school, the attention to the Times’ editor’s note has brought the Payne Awards to the spotlight. Only two Payne Awards are presented each year, one for individuals and one for organizations, and the national attention has stirred concern.
Professor Jim Upshaw was one of several faculty members who replied to Gleason’s message, and called for a re-deliberation on Eichenwald’s award. Upshaw, who is “semi-retired,” said in the days since the news broke concern about Eichenwald’s Payne Award had gone “a little bit dormant.”
“The next step, in my mind, is a re-examination, the panel of judges should resolve it,” he said.
Gleason said that he was unsure how the Payne Awards Judging Committee would respond, if at all.
“We have no policy in-place for rescinding an award,” he said. “This is not a simple question as some would have it seem.”
The awards were created in 1999 to “honor journalists who encourage public trust in the media by courageously practicing the highest standards of the profession in the face of political or economic pressures,” according to the school’s Web site.
Should the panel decide to discuss Eichenwald’s award this spring when it meets to choose a 2007 winner, Gleason said he doubted that the discussion would be open.
“One of the things that the Payne Awards committee values is a thoughtful deliberation,” he said.
Kelly McBride, Ethics Group Leader at The Poynter Institute, a not-for-profit journalism think-tank, said that a major component of ethical decision-making is asking questions and providing for open debate.
“I think its absolutely appropriate that anyone involved in this process be asking questions,” McBride said. “That’s not to say that asking question implies any wrongdoing.”
Eichenwald said he doesn’t regret writing the story, or giving Berry the $2,000 check, even though, regardless of the truth, his name will always be attached to that action. He said he should have
realized how “an omission” could have been perceived as a “decision.”
“(That’s) a strategic error – not one of ethics,” he said. “All I did was save a kid’s life and shut down something evil.”
Yes, Eichenwald said, he would do it again if it meant saving a life, and Upshaw said he has faith that the Payne judges will make the right choice.
“Whatever that decision is … I have no doubt that it will be made carefully,” Upshaw said.
Note: When Eichenwald came to accept his Payne award last year, he spoke with members of the Emerald staff, including this reporter.
Contact the news editor at [email protected]
Timeline of Events
While pursuing what appeared to be an Interpol fraud case Eichenwald pursues a lead to Mexicofriends.com a Web site indexed on archive.org that, while not pornographic, gives him an impression of pedophiliac content. The fraud case turns out to be a scam, but the possibility that a real child might be at risk pushes Eichenwald to keep investigating.
2005
Eichenwald starts poking around a Yahoo message board dedicated to “fans” of the Web site, but he finds few clear answers. As first attempts to instant message “Justin” prove fruitless, Eichenwald’s wife suggests a new tactic and contact is established. Soon Eichenwald begins to suspect that he is talking to two people, an adult and a teen.
June 8: Eichenwald and his wife decide to send a $2,000 check that will serve several purposes: It will confirm that Justin is a real person, it will provide a location, it will buy them more time to keep investigating and prevent Justin from being sold for more sex acts.
June 30: After talking for more than a month with Justin Berry, Eichenwald decides to meet him in California while he is working on a story. At the airport Eichenwald reveals he is a journalist, not a pedophile, and tries to convince him to get out of the sex trade. He persuades the 19-year-old Berry to quit drugs.
July 1: Eichenwald flies home to Dallas knowing that Berry is not a minor and believing that he may have made a difference. Berry notifies an adult business partner that Eichenwald is not a pedophile, but a reporter.
July 5: Berry decides to abandon the business. He calls Eichenwald and says he wants to come to Dallas. Eichenwald calls his editor at The New York Times to get permission to fly Berry to meet him.
July 8: Berry arrives in Dallas and says he wants to bring down the industry. Eichenwald agrees but requests that Berry repay the money. Berry’s grandmother mails Eichenwald a check and the two begin work on the report.
December 19: The New York Times publishes Eichenwald’s article featuring Berry and exposing an underworld of child pornography.
2006
May 25: Eichenwald receives the School of Journalism and Communications’ Payne Award for Ethics in Journalism.
2007
March 6: The New York Times runs an Editors’ Note disclosing Eichenwald’s $2,000 check, which came to light during a trial in which Berry was testifying.