Watchdog ConferenceSusan Kelleher teamed up with an experienced reporter,Kim Christensen, to try to document informationfrom sources regarding unethical practices by infertilitydoctors. The doctors were placing eggs from one infertilewoman into another, thereby setting women, unknowingly,on a course to give birth to children who were notbiologically their own.“I first got the tip [about this story] from a senior administratorat the hospital who called me sort of out of the blueto talk about some financial shenanigans that were going onthere…. It was a pain in the neck to report. A lot of things shewas saying weren’t really checking out paperwork-wise. ButI did notice that the <strong>University</strong> of California, Irvine had areally hostile response to my initial inquiries, which waspretty interesting since the health beat is usually a fairly noncontroversialbeat and they had been very cooperative. Somy alarm bells sort of went off…. Then at the end of onemeeting with this source, this woman says to me, ‘Would yoube interested if there was a case where the woman got thewrong eggs? They were taken.’ I was like, ‘absolutely.’”Kelleher began talking with people from the clinic “at sortof strange times and in strange places.” She explained topotential sources how she worked. “I can’t go with the storyjust with what people tell me,” she told them. “I’m going toneed records.” [See section on “Verifying What Sources Say”for more on Kelleher’s reporting.] She taped all of herinterviews and gave a copy of the tape to the person whomshe had talked with to allay their fears of being misquoted:“You’ll have a record of what you say and I’ll have a recordof what you say,” she would say. “And if there are questions,I can call you.” Also, bringing the copy of the tape to sourcesshe had interviewed—and with whom she wanted to stay intouch—gave her an excuse to go back to their homes.Tracking down clinic workers was difficult, as was persuadingthem to talk. “It was really slow trying to find people.It took about five weeks, trying to find people and going backand getting rejected again and again and again. I hate beingrejected. It bugs me. And I hate bothering people at theirhouse, but I would go there and say, ‘Oh, sorry,’ and I thinkafter a while they just saw me as this really pathetic personwho was just not going to be going away.”In time, their reporting reached a point “where we hadpretty much confirmed that this had happened.” But theydecided to keep working on the story “until we found all thepatients this had happened to.” But the <strong>University</strong> was awareof their work on this story and filed a lawsuit [against thedoctors] that, in Kelleher’s mind, “made it look like theywere doing their job in just trying to ferret out this informationand that the doctors were just so uncooperative.”Once a lawsuit was filed, and due to competition with theLos Angeles Times, the reporters decided to “move aheadwith what we’ve got.” They wrote the story the next day andfigured “we would go and contact the patients.” Instead, thereporters assigned to this story were called into their editor’soffice and told that they were going to contact an ethicist totalk about whether the story should be published.The ethicist helped the reporters to set up ground rulesfor how to approach those people who didn’t yet know whatthese doctors had done with their and others’ eggs. The ruleswere as follows:• “We’re going to always go with two people.”• “We’re going to make sure there’s somebody else at homewith the patient.”• “We’re going to find out as much about the patient [as wecan] to see if they have a health condition that might freakthem out because basically what we’re telling them is, ‘Hi,you have a child.’ We had records that showed some ofthese illegal transfers or these egg thefts had resulted inchildren for other women. And it would be upsetting topeople to see that reporters had their medical records.”With the first patient they went to interview—a womannamed Barbara Moore—Kelleher explained that “there wouldbe no article unless she told us whether she had consentedor not to this transfer…we basically outlined everything, andthey [the couple] just freaked out. We knew that they didn’tconsent, but we couldn’t write a story at that point. And wemet with them about two days later, and they told us that, infact, they did not consent to the donation. So we had a bigstory in that and they had written a letter to the child basicallysaying, ‘We love you even though we’ve never met you.’ Itwas incredibly heartbreaking.“Our next step was to go to the recipient’s house, thepeople who were raising the child. And to this day, thisremains the spookiest thing I’ve ever done because thepeople were very nice people. They lived maybe about 10miles away and, as I’m interviewing the father, there is thisthree-year-old boy playing in the background who lookedexactly like the woman I had just interviewed the day before.“They didn’t believe it and they banished me from thehouse; they said these people were out to get money fromthe doctors. I was very respectful of that and left.“What happened is it wasn’t a story about the egg theft atall; this really was a story about a family, and until we hadsomebody on the record, with a face, that story was not goingto take off. So the families really became the hardest sourcesto deal with because after a while you get fatigued. Youwould call people up and listen to their emotional reactionsto things—time and time again you would talk to 20, 25, 30people and tell them this happened, explain the records,and then hear their stories about family and what this meantto them. These weren’t some little eggs in a dish. These weretheir hopes and dreams for the future.”David Barstow: “What we attempted to do is to penetratethis story through the use of sources, but to do so in a waythat wouldn’t make us beholden to those sources or susceptibleto their kind of spin. What we did, essentially, was an alloutassault on every single person that we could possiblyfind that was connected to this entity. It involved a hell of alot of knocking on doors and calling people cold and justgetting on the ground. Finding the ex-secretaries [of the<strong>Nieman</strong> Reports / Fall 1999 19
Watchdog ConferenceNational Baptist Convention]. Finding the ex-deacons. Findingthe guy who ran for president of the organization andlost a couple of years ago. Understanding the politics of thisorganization. Exploiting the political differences within theorganization.”Byron Acohido: “We have these hard drives where youcan stack six years’ worth of work, or more. Divide up yourfiles and log all the stories that everybody published chronologically,or whatever system works for you, so that you getthis feel of what is out there. If you are not aware ofsomething, then it’s like quicksand. The corporate forcesand different agendas take over again. It’s amazing how thepress will repeat spin…. If reporters would just track what’sbeing written, go into other Web sites where they can getinformation that helps them piece together what the truth ismore likely to be, then we would better serve readers andpreserve our credibility.” ■Verifying What Sources SayAs helpful or reliable as sources might seem to be, no reporter should accept their version of events withoutfinding documentation to back up what they say. None of the investigative reporters at the conference couldhave published their stories without searching for records to support what their sources had said.Susan Kelleher: “People [sources] would always ask,‘Are you going to have to tell anybody that I gave you theserecords?’ And I would say, ‘Yeah, if we get sued and I base thestory on these records, then yeah, I’m going to have todisclose where they came from. However, if they come to meanonymously in the mail in an unmarked envelope, which Ihave a habit of throwing away, then it’s up to me to validatethem, and I will have no idea where they came from becauseI really don’t know.’” [Document below is an example of oneKelleher used in herstory.]Kelleher used anotherreporting technique ingathering documentationfor her story fromreluctant sources. “I’dtell people where I washaving lunch, and I had areally distinct car at thetime, a blue Toyota Tercelwith cow-covered carseats and I’d tell them Ihad a really bad habit ofleaving the truck open.That really paid off becauseI got a mother lodeof documents one timethat way. I did have to eatat Sizzler, though.”Loretta Tofani:“Check your source’s information;find out if thestatement is true. But youalso have to preserveyour initial gut feeling of, but this is wrong, it shouldn’t beroutine, rather than accept the source’s more cavalier viewof ‘This is what happens in life.’”Doug Frantz: “I’ve been an investigative reporter foralmost 20 years, and I couldn’t have done my job duringthose years without relying on sources, on people who tookrisks to themselves, who risked going to jail. People on theScientology story risked something worse than jail, which isthe wrath of Scientology.But, also, I could not havedone my job if I had onlyrelied on those sources. Itis essential that you use asource, particularly whenyou are dealing with a nonprofit,as a point of origin;it’s the beginning place, becausethey are most likelyto be disgruntled formertrue believers, whether theyare ex-members of the RedCross or formerScientologists. And you’llfind no person in the worldmore zealous than a formerScientologist, believe me….You have to take what theysay only as a starting point.You cannot rely on a singleword of a single sentencewithout checking it outyourself.” ■Image courtesy of The Orange County [CA] Register.20 <strong>Nieman</strong> Reports / Fall 1999