Many readers doubtlessly have questions about the nature and ethicality of today’s story by Senior News Reporter Nicholas Wilbur and myself entitled “Party promoting Brown-McLain prompts audit.” I would like to address these issues and explain why we reported the story in this manner to “clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct” in accordance with the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics.
When Emerald staff members first heard rumors about a kegger at which students would be offered a discounted price on cups for beer in exchange for voting in the student government primary election, it immediately caught the editors’ attention. If such an event occurred, it would pose a potentially significant breach in election ethics, if not actual elections rules. To serve our readers during election season, we decided our top priorities were to verify whether such an event occurred, what happened at it and why it was held. Thus we decided to investigate this incident.
Supporters of the Dallas Brown and Emily McLain ticket for ASUO Executive have alleged that the Emerald is biased against the Brown-McLain ticket, as has Brown himself on several occasions. Foremost, in its news the Emerald does not have a bias against any candidate. Even in our editorial on Wednesday after the executive debate, we refrained from endorsing any one candidate in favor of listing pros and cons of several candidates.
Further, the Emerald would have covered a party where people were encouraged to vote no matter who sponsored it or why. A party advertised as a “Big Fat Kegger for Dallas and Emily” on Thursday night, however, was the only party the Emerald heard about, and thus the only party we covered. If anyone has information or evidence that this is a larger campaign trend, please contact [email protected].
Some readers may question how we pursued the story after hearing about the party. Before running the story, the editors debated its merits and what our moral obligations were. To do this, we followed the 10 questions for ethical decision-making used by the Poynter Institute. Below are the questions and a summary of our responses:
1. What do I know? What do I need to know?
We knew there was a rumor that a party, allegedly supporting the Brown-McLain ticket and at which people would be given discounts on beer cups in exchange for voting, would be held Thursday night. We needed to know if this was true, who sponsored the event, why they sponsored the event and if it broke any elections rules or laws.
2. What is my journalistic purpose?
Our journalistic purpose is always to serve readers and further their ability to make informed decisions. According to the SPJ code, “Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.”
Some readers might say college students having a kegger is not a big deal. But because this kegger was advertised in support of Brown and McLain, it clearly represented a potentially significant aspect of the election if the rumor proved true.
3. What are my ethical concerns?
Our ethical concerns were learning the facts and accurately reporting them, as well as making sure the Brown-McLain ticket and its supporters received an ample chance to explain their views on the situation.
4. What organizational policies and professional guidelines should I consider?
The SPJ code lists several key guidelines for journalists to follow. It discourages the use of undercover reporting, as does Emerald policy. Journalists should be up front about their reporting and investigation under all but the most extreme situations. According to the code, journalists should “avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.”
We explained in the story that we sent two former staff members to the party to observe what was taking place and see whether the rumors rang true. This was not an easy decision; we have not used any other reporting that was not completely up front this year. However, we decided that the only way to verify the rumors was with eye-witnesses who were completely trustworthy and unaffiliated with any campaign. To use any other source might cast suspicion on the article as a ploy of another campaign.
Thus we sent two former staff members, one current student and one former student, to the party to observe their surroundings and ask about the price of beer. They used their real first names when introduced to people at the party, and they did not interview anyone. We used them to “test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error,” one facet of the SPJ code.
Another SJP guideline is to “diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.” We did this by interviewing Brown four times throughout the course of the evening. Further, our reporter who interviewed host Alison Becker and other sources at the party first introduced herself as a reporter for the Emerald on assignment before asking any questions.
5. How can I include other people, with different perspectives and diverse ideas, in the decision-making process?
Although I gave final authorization for this report and the methods used to obtain it, I did not make this decision alone. Managing Editor Shadra Beesley and News Editors Jared Paben and Steven Neuman discussed the topic at length with each other and with me to reach consensus on the best methods.
6. Who are the stakeholders – those affected by my decision? What are their motivations? Which are legitimate?
There are several stakeholders, including Brown, McLain and their supporters, the people who hosted the party and student voters.
First, the Brown-McLain ticket might clearly suffer damage to its reputation, even if members of the campaign, as Brown said, were not aware of and did not encourage voting in exchange for beer discounts. The story ran on the last day of primary elections in the ASUO Executive race, and it might influence voters.
The party’s hosts, including Becker, stand to suffer public scrutiny for holding a kegger at which identification was not always checked and at which at least some people paid for beer. This might damage her reputation with her family, friends, co-workers or professors.
Students, the voters in this election, are also stakeholders. According to journalistic principles, they deserve to know the facts about methods used in this campaign. They should know if any wrongdoing occurred, which is why we publish stories about grievances filed during the election.
All of these stakeholders have merit.
7. What if the roles were reversed? How would I feel if I were in the shoes of one of the stakeholders?
If I were in the shoes of the Brown-McLain ticket or in Becker’s shoes, I would be angry and frustrated with the paper for covering the party because it might reflect badly on the campaign. In addition, because many supporters of the ticket attended, and because it was advertised “for Dallas and Emily,” Brown and McLain are implicated even if they had no part in the party and didn’t know about voting taking place there, as Brown said.
8. What are the possible consequences of my actions? Short term? Long term?
The Brown-McLain ticket might be affected on the last day of the election, and its members’ future political careers might be affected. The public may
become more skeptical of Emerald articles because we used nontraditional methods of reporting.
9. What are my alternatives to maximize my truth-telling responsibility and minimize harm?
Upon brainstorming possible courses of action, we identified waiting until after the party to see whether it was busted by police and then reporting about it, and simply going to the party and knocking on the door and asking questions. We ruled both options out. We discounted the first option because police probably would not take notice of any campaign-related action if they visited the party; thus we would be left with insufficient information. We ruled out the second option because our presence at the party might have caused campaign-related action to cease before we verified the facts.
10. Can I clearly and fully justify my thinking and my decision? To my colleagues? To the stakeholders? To the public?
Yes. Although some people may disagree with our decisions, we did not make them in a rash manner. We did not make them as a “hit” on the Brown-McLain ticket. We stand by our decisions.
Some readers may wonder why we did not contact the police at any time during the story. We did not contact the Eugene Police Department because our role is to report what happened there, not to potentially cause any change at the party other than that caused by a reporter’s presence there.
If anyone has evidence that disputes facts gathered during the course of reporting this story, I urge them to contact the me at [email protected]. In the spirit of the SJP value that journalists should “encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media,” we also welcome letters to the editor and guest commentaries at [email protected]. The Emerald remains committed to serving readers and presenting the truth, even when it is not popular.
[email protected]