Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Watchdog ConferenceReporters’ Relationships With SourcesNo topic consumed as much of the conversation at theWatchdog conference as that of reporters’ relationshipswith sources. How are these relationships established? Howcan and should they be maintained during the course ofreporting a story? Where should reporters draw the line interms of their interactions with sources? Can reporters get“too close” to their sources? How can a story not be compromisedby a source’s own agenda? These and many otherrelated questions were interwoven into each of the day’sfour panel discussions.Doug Frantz set forth three rules that he abides by in hisrelationship with sources.1. “I never socialize with sources. I worked for fiveyears in Washington and I never went to a party withsources…. Particularly for the five years I spent in Washingtonfor the Los Angeles Times, it was vital to my independencethat I not be on a first-name basis with my sources, thatI not go to parties with them. That was important.”2. “Transparency. We have to tell our readers wherethese sources are coming from. Even if you use their names,I think you need to provide some background.”3. “Don’t give advice to sources. People often call upand ask you, ‘What do I do now? Should I talk to thegovernment? Should I talk to the prosecutor? Should I blowthe whistle to the IRS?’ I just have a flat rule not to tell themanything…. You can’t be pure enough on that point.”Loretta Tofani: “In the end this relationship I had withthe rapists came back to haunt me because there was animplicit understanding. I told them I am a reporter. It’s okayto talk with me, and they believed me. They talked. Theyadmitted their crimes. So it was very chilling some monthslater when, after the series came out, the rapists wereindicted for the rapes and I was given a subpoena to testifyagainst them…. Maryland has a shield law, and reporterswere protected from speaking against their sources only ifthe source was unnamed. But I had named them all, so I hadto testify.”“I really had to think a lot about what was my relationshipwith them [the sources who were rapists]. I knew this much:I was not going to testify against them. There was no way. Ifelt I could not continue doing work as a reporter, or at leastthe kind of work I found meaningful as a reporter, if I wereto testify against my sources. For me it was really a matter ofconscience…. I had an implicit understanding with thesesources, the rapists, that I was not acting as an arm of thegovernment. It would hurt the view of myself as a reporterto start testifying for the government against people I interview.I’m not sure how I could keep going on being areporter doing that. It’s a role I don’t envision myself havingas a reporter. I feel like my job is, you get the story, you putit in the newspaper, and then the chips fall where they may.But then you don’t keep sticking it to them. It didn’t matterto me whether the victims were men or women. I wouldn’thave testified.”“People at the newspaper felt differently: Ben Bradlee[the Post’s Editor], surprisingly, was one of them. He felt Ireally should testify. At that time, he said reporters had goodcitizen responsibilities. We argued about it, but it was clearhis mind was made up…. Bradlee was forceful, and he hadother editors in the newsroom calling me and telling me Ireally should go along with it. But in the end, I didn’t testify.I stuck to my guns, and the paper really was forced to backme up…. So I ended up explaining in court why I wouldn’ttestify, and then I was cited for contempt of court. The jailrapists were all indicted, and I’m sure they feel quite badlyabout me today. But I still feel I have some sense of honorbecause I didn’t testify against them.”William Rashbaum: “The relationship between reporterand source is a delicate one…. The same can certainly be saidfor the relationships between management and ownershipof the newspaper in the subjects of the stories that appear or,sometimes more importantly, don’t appear in their publications.While many people argue that reporters have insufficientindependent oversight, some might say there’s lessscrutiny of owners and publishers….”“New York City is a tough, incestuous town when it comesto reporting on police departments and law enforcement ingeneral, and the beat reporters who write about the policedepartment usually cover both crime in the city and thedepartment as an agency. So one day you can be writingabout management failures that preceded the recent[Amadou] Diallo shooting, corruption, or the Police Commissionertaking a freebie junket to the Oscars. The next dayyou are chasing desperately sought after details of a highprofilecrime that’s captivated your editors, if not the city.“Some could argue you’re not biting the hand that feedsbut cannibalizing it. This is a town where one reporter at amajor daily writes for the police union newsletter and sellsT-shirts for a group that benefits the families of slain cops.Another was called ‘Bratton’s Boswell’ in print because acolumnist felt that his relationship with the former policecommissioner was too close. Another columnist deftly killeda young reporter’s story about a top police official’s drugaddicteddaughter. She was a regular in Lower East Sideshooting galleries and roamed around there in his departmentcar, complete with police radios, phones and lightsand sirens. The columnist and the official, needless to say,were good friends. At the other end of the spectrum is a man10 Nieman Reports / Fall 1999