Faking one’s ID is not investigative journalism
January 29th, 2010 at 01:48pm Linda Grist Cunningham
James O’Keefe could use a couple of Statement of Principles workshops. O’Keefe is the so-called “investigative reporter” who posed as a pimp in order to out funding abuses at ACORN. O’Keefe was celebrated far and loud by hard-core conservatives.
“We need more of those kinds of journalists” was the message. O’Keefe took the adulation seriously and this week was arrested on federal charges in Louisiana. I’ll give you the link to the Fox News version of the story. Not even Fox, which helped make O’Keefe a hero, can bring itself to fully exonerate his latest escapade though they try.
In a nutshell, O’Keefe and three buddies posed as telephone technicians and played around with the phones in Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office. O’Keefe, who apparently did the videotaping with his cell phone, explains they weren’t wiretapping or bugging, but, instead were trying to determine why some constituents were having trouble reaching the senator’s office by phone.
Pretending to be someone else is unethical. O’Keefe and others who believe lying about one’s identity is good journalism are cutting it too close to the line on credibility.
Think of it this way: Do you want Register Star reporters pretending to be teachers in order to get into a classroom? Would you feel comfortable if you knew that a Register Star reporter might gain entrance to your office by pretending to be the cable guy, or a sympathetic businessman? How about a reporter who pretends to be just a regular gal at the after-work watering hole, gets you to tell all, and then reports it?
O’Keefe and club think those tactics are OK. Indeed, I have been in the business long enough to remember when “undercover reporters” were praised. No more. We hold journalists to significantly higher, more transparent, standards these days. We expect our staff to identify themselves by name and title. We don’t trespass. We don’t pretend to be someone we are not.
We don’t do our journalism in a culture that the ends justify the means.
That makes it harder to tell stories. After all, if you won’t let me into your office if I am a reporter, but you will let me in if I am the cable guy, why not just pretend to be the cable guy? I’d get the information I wanted, and I could nail you. Just like O’Keefe.
Was it good that O’Keefe’s pretend-to-be-a-pimp exposed the problems within ACORN? It was good the problems were exposed, but there’s no indication that those problems could not have been exposed without resorting to unethical practices.
Might have taken longer to get the story and the facts documented. Wouldn’t have been as glamorous. Might not have gotten him celebrity status. But, it would have gotten the job done the right way and without the taint of entrapment.
Are there times when undercover is the only way? Maybe, and only as a last resort. The catch is, with the O’Keefes of the world, the adrenaline rush of pretense is addictive, and pretty soon, it’s the shortcut of choice.
We’re doing our annual Statement of Principles workshops on Feb. 18 here in the News Tower. Maybe I should invite O’Keefe.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
5 Comments Add your own
1. Paul J. | January 29th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
“Was it good that O’Keefe’s pretend-to-be-a-pimp exposed the problems within ACORN? It was good the problems were exposed, but there’s no indication that those problems could not have been exposed without resorting to unethical practices.”
I disagree and feel there are many indications that the ACORN problem would never have been exposed. The main stream press, including the RRS completely ignored any accusation directed at ACORN since the Obama campaign first surfaced.
I do agree that there, “Are there times when undercover is the only way? Maybe, and only as a last resort.”
2. Illinoistom | January 29th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Welcome to the Brave New World of post-journalists. While I don’t approve of O’keefe’s method in the telephone episode, there seemed to be no rush to do any real reporting on ACORN by the “legitimate” news organizations. The was plenty of smoke, but no one saw the fire until O’keefe. I am glad that you hold journalists to a higher standard, but why don’t we hold politicians, corporations, and groups that get our tax dollars to a higher ethical standard. To me, attacking O’keefe for his on the edge methods is a bit like shooting the messenger. I, for one, would love to see him come to Illinois and shed some light on the corruption in our state.
3. Samal | January 29th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Yea, thank goodness Chris Hansen doesn’t lie to those child predators on Dateline NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” series — that would be unethi… um, wait, he does do that to get those nice men just wanting to share cookies and milk with young girls while he explains to them the dangers of the internet!
Or is that one of those times when it is necessary? Who gets to decide? As Illinoistorm pointed out no one in the “statement of principles” media had any intention of conducting an investigation into a Democrat sacred cow.
How about the undercover videos of the left favored Planned Parenthood that show a reporter claiming to be an underage victim of statutory rape (claim 13 y/o with 31 y/o boyfriend) illegally getting advice on how to skirt the law to avoid prosecution of the S rapist? Many “statement of principles” media didn’t even cover any of the offices exposed (multiple) nor did they investigate that sacred cow themselves.
Is it only the “statement of principals” media who get to decide what causes or organizations they go after (see ABC and their attempts to send Gay men or Muslims to NASCAR to illicit a perceived liberal stereotypical belief in the homophobia/Islamophobia of all southern NASCAR fans — they didn’t actually get the reaction they hopped BTW, to the network’s dismay).
Thing is, Americans are becoming more and more aware of the “statement of principles” medias failure to cover stories they deem not newsworthy or of the, “statement of principles” media’s constant need to highlight things like oral sex terms on the front page of their web site as a pejorative against those they disagree with.
(BTW, teab###er appears multiple times a day on the homepage of the rrstar — that is offensive and keeps me from having the rrstar as my browser homepage in case my granddaughter should see it, — where is the editorial oversight or are all sex terms okay now at the rrstar? Or is it only oral sex terms, is c/s next?)
If they did something illegal then they deserve to be prosecuted but the slippery slope argument you use (”The catch is, with the O’Keefes of the world, the adrenaline rush of pretense is addictive, and pretty soon, it’s the shortcut of choice.”) is frankly a weak argument for any point of debate, a form of non sequitur logical fallacy.
More free press, like more free speech is a good thing, as a matter of fact your writing this post is a good thing.
Oh, BTW, I don’t think anyone would object to a reporter of the RRStar posing as a teacher to test the verification/background checking system and exposing any flaws. That would be a public benefit. As a matter of fact, if you can get into a class posing as a teacher I think we all need to know how exposed our children are!
Now that I think of it, why don’t you do that story — I think we all need to know if there is a dangerous flaw in the system/security of our children!
4. miltonwaddams | February 5th, 2010 at 10:57 am
I hope that the irony of the Register Star criticizing a lack of “investigative journalism” on the part of someone else is not lost on you, Linda. An organization that seemingly does none, shouldn’t be throwing stones.
5. Moby Homemaker | February 13th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Love it or hate–”investigative journalism” has been around forever. Depending on your point of view–sometimes you may agree or disagree with the means to the end.
Truthfully, I wish the RR Star would do more of it…there is plenty that stinks around here and needs to be uncovered.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed