Full Disclosure

The connection between one’s personal and public lives is indirectly proportionate to the number of people who put their trust in them.  The wider that net of trust gets, the closer one’s personal actions touch their public actions.  Don’t believe me, just ask South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford.  He committed what many view as a sin, not a crime.  But his infidelity was front page news.  I’m sure the same thing (without the distance to Argentina) has happened in your own neighborhood - and you’ll never hear about it.  He asked for the public responsibility and when the time came to address the error of his ways, to quote him, he “took his licks.“

The same can be said and expected of journalists.  Granted, we’re not elected to the job.  But we have chosen a career where we are expected, at the very least, to be a voice for the many people who choose to turn to us.  When we tell stories, you need to expect that we’re honest, will work hard and above all else bring you the facts.  Blow that trust and you might as well start shopping for another career.  But, like the governor, we’re also human.

This week, one of our journalists interviewed a woman who was charged and convicted in a case of neglect in the care of her children.  The reason the media and so many of you watched this case unfold from day one was due in large part to the number of children involved and the squalor which video and pictures from the scene indicated.  Child neglect is sadly an every day occurrence and you don’t often hear about those stories.  Christine Long lost custody of her children and was recently sentenced to years of probation, to include alternate weekend stints in jail for a period of time.  Her estranged husband is currently in jail.

So when Paige Tucker announced she would be interviewing Mrs. Long, the general newsroom consensus was that her story was one many would be interested in hearing; especially considering the attention this case drew over the past year.  As expected, Mrs. Long shared her side of the story, expressed remorse and defended her action (or inaction, depending on how you look at it).  Once broadcast, her interview was out there for what’s known as “the court of public opinion.“

Local radio host (and former journalist, for those who don’t know) Austin Rhodes dropped me an email and expressed his concern with the fact that Paige’s interview with Mrs. Long was troubling because Paige is engaged to an attorney, assigned to Long’s divorce proceedings.  I’ve known and respect Austin as a watchdog for this community.  And while we may not agree on everything (who ever does?), I certainly agree the subject - full disclosure - is something worth debating.

So to Austin’s key point, let me be clear.  He is right.  Full disclosure is critical to maintaining a journalist’s credibility.  So to that point, I’ve used this as a learning opportunity for all of our staffers.

Now, if you’ll allow me a little explanation, I’ll think you’ll agree that this particular instance isn’t as egregious as a surface-level examination suggests.  Paige’s fiance, as she explained to me, was assigned a civil part of the case.  The criminal part of the case has already been adjudicated.  Paige pursued this interview for some time.  It was a friend of Mrs. Long who contacted Paige for the interview, according to her.  In essence, the interview could only serve to “benefit” (if that’s possible) Mrs. Long, not the reporter or her fiance.

Now to a deeper, more unspoken element of stories like this.  Journalists build relationships with law enforcement and lawyers because they deal with them so regularly.  A drug bust, for example, makes for “good TV” and that’s why journalists are invited to join along.  Lawyers, law enforcement and even businesses often share “ideas” with the media.  And, let’s face it, they’re not sharing because they like us.  They’re sharing because there’s a benefit to getting that information out there.  Let’s go back to the drug bust.  It is often a success story for cops.  A ribbon cutting is a chance to say to many people at once “hey, we’re open for business.“

Our job is to try and determine if you the viewer/reader/user can benefit from such information.  Not always an easy choice.  In the end, we have to make sure that we do our best due diligence and avoid replacing your voice with a bunch of other ones.

So, back to this week’s interview.  In the end, the story aired for the sole purpose of hearing from a newsmaker for the first time.  Paige’s credibility is strong in our newsroom and community.  It will remain so.  She loves what she does and works hard everyday.  But as I explained to her, you will never get in trouble for disclosing “too much” about your connection to a story.  But miss that opportunity, right or wrong, and face the likelihood that you’ll hear about it.