|
When Journalists Are Part of the Story
February 18, 2004
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio
Can journalists ever report fairly on a story in which they are personally involved? Traditionally, the answer from crusty editors has been an emphatic "NO." Two recent journalistic events have caused some questioning of the traditional role of the reporter as neutral observer.
One happened at The New York Times. The other happened here at NPR.
The issue was first raised by Dick Gordon, host of WBUR's The Connection and heard on many public radio stations.
As Dick prepped for an interview with Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times, he lobbed this question at me:
I don't know if you saw the piece that Nick Kristof did in the NYT about his own decision to rescue young prostitutes in Cambodia. He bought their freedom, and returned them to their home villages, and wrote about it in a serialized column. We're talking to him tomorrow.
Frankly, the whole thing's pretty weird to me. My gut reaction is -- I hate the precedent. I hate the manufactured nature of the "I am my own news story" and the subsequent blurring of the line between reporter and aid worker. Nick says quite correctly that this is the line between the columnist and the correspondent, but I'm not sure readers see it that way. He's quite graciously agreed to talk about this on The Connection with us tomorrow... but I want to confront these questions with him. Have you any other, better, broader and more thoughtful ways to tackle this kind of reporting?
It's an important question, not only because it goes to the heart of what we do and how we do it. It also raises the issue of the reporter-as-actor, and not in the sense of theatricality, but in the sense of the reporter as moral being who must act, intrude or even change the story's outcome in order to tell the events in the most effective, human and compelling way.
"Don't Get Involved"
A few years ago, the answer would have been much simpler: You just don't get involved.
As a journalist, the obligation is simply to bear honest witness to events. If the reader or listener or viewer feels so moved by the reporting, that's a legitimate consequence, but not necessarily a deliberate goal of the journalism.
Journalists are frequently accused of deception and manipulation by the subtle insertion of their personal feelings to color the reporting. Journalists just as frequently object to those accusations, saying that they are only engaging in accurate and compelling reporting.
But reality, unlike both the accusation and the answer, is more complicated.
Is The Reporter Always a "Blank Slate?"
We all bring our previous experiences, our approaches and our biases into our work. That's unavoidable. What is avoidable is making sure the subjective elements don't intrude on the effective and responsible reporting of the story.
But what if the story causes our sense of morality to trump our journalistic obligations?
Critics of the reporter-as-observer option say that journalistic neutrality is just not an option in a world where moral choices are made all the time.
Traditional journalists say that so-called "personal journalism" is a contradiction in terms. It is self-absorption and worse, it is inherently political. It will cause the readers, listeners and viewers to doubt the reporter's ability to tell any story in a fully contextual way.
There are also legal implications. In a previous column (Oct. 10, 2002), I have noted the dangers for journalists when international tribunals start asking reporters to testify in war-crimes cases.
Journalistic Voyeurism
Some ex-journalists have quit the business because of the moral neutrality that is demanded of them. This seems to be especially risky for foreign correspondents, who sometimes find reporting war, famine and disasters to be akin to journalistic voyeurism. They leave journalism often dispirited and frustrated by the limits of journalism. Often they go to work for relief organizations. Sarah Chayes, who reported for NPR in Afghanistan, is one such example, and there are many others.
With the Times' Kristof, it is again more complicated.
Kristof is a columnist and the rules of engagement for columnists tend to be different or at least less rigid in the rules that define the usual restraints on the rest of journalism.
A columnist (even this one) can often express a personal opinion. It is supposed to be a thoughtful, considered opinion. But it is an opinion all the same.
A reporter is there to observe the news. His/her job is not to draw conclusions. But a fair job of journalism will inevitably lead to some sort of conclusion. It is almost impossible to be entirely neutral, especially when there are powerful and emotional issues at play.
In the case of Kristof, what else could he have done? Should he have freed these prostitutes and not mentioned it in his column? The reporter's confessional instinct seems to have been a factor in this case.
"My Name Is Iran"
The role of the reporter was also at issue in a recent series on Morning Edition. It happened in a three-part series called "My Name Is Iran" by reporter/producer Davar Ardalan. In the series, produced with American Radio Works, Ardalan traced her personal journey and Iran's struggle for a lawful society, 25 years after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The documentary also reports on the changing role of women in Iran.
The series was, in my opinion, made more compelling by the personal story Ardalan wove throughout. She spoke of her grandfather who wrote Iran's first modern legal code in the 1920s. Ardalan spoke of her childhood in America, of her Iranian-American background and her move to Tehran as a teenager. In the series she told about being caught up in the anti-Shah revolution, and an arranged marriage to a man she knew for only a month.
Ardalan's documentary also speaks of her break with tradition, the end of the marriage and her return to America.
This was an example of journalism where the story could only be told in the first person. A more straightforward documentary about the changing role of Iranian women might not have been quite so original nor so poignant. If the documentary had a flaw, in my opinion, it was that it was not personal enough.
In the series, Ardalan alludes to, but never explains how she became involved in the 1979 revolution. How did the arranged marriage happen? How did she, as someone raised in America, feel about this marriage? Why did the marriage end? Under what circumstances did she return to America? Why does she say that she can't return to Iran? Those questions were not addressed in the Morning Edition series.
As a listener, I felt that there was more to this story. Perhaps it will be in the final documentary from American Radio Works scheduled for many public radio stations later this month.
"Point-of-View" Journalism?
But getting back to Dick Gordon's question, here is how I answered him:
This is a recurrent theme: When do our humanistic impulses trump
our journalistic obligations? The answer is utterly subjective, imo.
Everyone makes their own call.
Kristof has every right to do this, but it means that while he has
gained something about being able to act in the world at an
existential level, he has also caused his journalistic impartiality to
come under scrutiny.
I think it's fine if he feels that he must act. But it also makes him
vulnerable to questions from his peers: Will he intervene in other
circumstances? Are there any other circumstances in which he must
shed his journalistic skin in order to assume another role? Will his editor
say, "We can't send Nick cause he'll get all wobbly on us?"
Morning Edition is running a series by an Iranian-American producer
on the legal changes in her native country (actually she was born here,
but lived in Tehran for years). She keeps referring to her own
feelings about this (very complex), and the editor in me is saying I
wish she wouldn't insert herself in the story. On the other hand, you
can't stop thinking about it. I think that Kristof's personalizing the
story makes his columns much more interesting and compelling. But
it's not arm's length journalism as we know it...
I am very envious of Kristof and a little afraid that if I were in his
position, I would do the same thing...
You can hear Gordon's interview with Kristof here.
Journalistic organizations like NPR owe it to their listeners and their journalists to find a way of keeping the reporting and the reporters engaged without becoming overtly or politically engagé. Listeners need more stories like Ardalan's and Kristof's. But editors should be vigilant to make sure that not every story gets the personal treatment.
Listeners can contact me at 202-513-3245 or by e-mail at ombudsman@npr.org.
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
|
