The Ethical Journalist. Gene Foreman
Читать онлайн книгу.
shows Letson leaping atop the man, arms outstretched, and shouting to attackers to stop. The footage is dramatic: a wiry Black man in a red shirt and dreadlocks spreadeagled on a fallen white man, protecting him from blows.
The man was Keith Campbell, 54, a right-winger known for videotaping left-wingers’ demonstrations. He said he suffered broken ribs and bruises to his kidneys, back and head that day. “I thought, this is it. I’m going to die,” he said later when he was interviewed for a Reveal podcast. In the podcast, Campbell told Letson: “I owe you my life.”
Letson told NPR, “I don’t want to be a part of the story, at all. And I believe in all of those journalistic ethics and all of that – but I also think that, before that, I’m a human being.”
Letson is a multimedia journalist whose work has won Edward R. Murrow and Peabody awards. “Remember,” his Reveal podcast signoff goes, “there’s always more to the story.”
This time, Letson was the story.
NPR and Columbia Journalism Review reported on his actions. So did Tucker Carlson, who told his Fox News audience that Campbell had been rescued from Antifa by “a lefty journalist, really.”
Reveal’s journalists work under strict ethics guidelines. Staffers for the Bay Area-based news outlet can’t take sides, can’t support causes, and can’t hype their videos (“Music should not be used to manipulate the emotions of the viewer”).
“Our editorial policy is clear: we are unbiased observers, not participants,” then-editor in chief Amy Pyle said in Reveal’s own story on the Berkeley incident. “However, in reviewing the video, it is clear that Al did not take sides. Instead, he responded as any of us might if we saw another human in distress.”
Reveal not only reported on the episode but kept reporting afterward on how the assault on Campbell occurred. In a podcast weeks later, Letson interviewed an Antifa activist known as “Dominic” who took credit for targeting Keith Campbell and others on a “Know Your Nazi” list. Dominic told Letson, “The only regret I have is that I didn’t pull you off so we could finish on him.”
On Fox, Campbell told Carlson that Letson “dove in rather than, you know, standing back and doing the journalistic thing. I mean, he saved my life.”
“Well,” Carlson said. “God bless him.”
Sources
“Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Fox News, “Trump supporter recounts beating by Antifa group,” Aug. 30, 2017. Viewed on YouTube on Sept. 25, 2020.
Meg Dalton, “A reporter never wanted to become the story. But a life was in danger,” Columbia Journalism Review, Aug. 30, 2017.
Kelly McEvers, “I Saw His Humanity: ‘Reveal’ Host on Protecting Right-Wing Protester,” NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Aug. 28, 2017.
Reveal/CIR, “Ethics Guide,” https://www.revealnews.org/ethics-guide/
M. Scott Mahaskey, “The rise of Antifa,” Politico, Dec. 26, 2017.
Reveal/CIR, “Reveal host Al Letson shields man from beating at anti-hate rally,” Aug. 27, 2017.
Reveal/CIR, “Street fight: A new wave of political violence,” podcast, Sept. 23, 2017. https://revealnews.org/episodes/street-fight-a-new-wave-of-political-violence
Al Letson, via Skype in a class discussion, University of Delaware, Oct. 3, 2017.
Questions for Class Discussion
What factors should a journalist consider when deciding whether to intervene as Al Letson did? What would you have done in this situation?
Consider how the story might have played out if Letson had not intervened. To what extent did his action change the story? A little? A lot?
Consider Letson’s comment, “I believe in all of those journalistic ethics and all of that – but I also think that, before that, I’m a human being.” Would journalistic ethics really bar him from intervening in this case?
Letson had to make a split-second decision. But by 2020, clashes like the one he covered in 2017 had all but become a regular feature of US street protests. What steps can journalists covering those events take in advance to guide their actions if violence occurs? Make a list.
5 The Public and the Media: Love and Hate
Flood and fire struck downtown Grand Forks, North Dakota, in April 1997.
Photo by Eric Hylden. Reprinted courtesy of Mr. Hylden and the Grand Forks Herald.
Learning Goals
This chapter will help you understand:
• the widespread public hostility to the news media, which has been documented repeatedly in surveys;
• how journalists should respond to criticism; and
• the types of complaints that the public most often makes about the news media, and the lessons that can be learned from these complaints.
WHEN THE RED RIVER OVERFLOWED in the spring of 1997 and flooded Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, North Dakota, the Grand Forks Herald surmounted one obstacle after another to keep the community informed. The Herald’s printing plant was flooded and then destroyed by fire, inspiring the newspaper’s grim headline “Come hell and high water.” Still, the papers kept coming. The newsroom was moved to an elementary school, where the news was transmitted to the Pioneer Press in St. Paul, Minnesota. The papers were printed there and flown to Grand Forks for free distribution to the beleaguered North Dakotans.1
That was public service in journalism’s finest tradition.
But the goodwill soon dissipated in a torrent of criticism. What angered many of the Herald’s readers was its decision to disclose the identity of the donor who had given the towns $15 million and requested anonymity. From that gift, $2,000 was distributed to each of the 7,500 households hardest hit by the flood.
The disclosure was the result of a visit by Joan Kroc, widow of The McDonald’s founder, Ray Kroc. When Herald reporters learned that the donor was being given a tour of the flood area, they drove to the airport and established her identity from the tail markings on her private jet, from fuel receipts, and from interviews with airport employees.2 The story began: “Angel was in town Saturday night. So was Joan Kroc’s jet. This appears to be no coincidence.”3
“You owe the community and state an apology, as well as Mrs. Kroc,” one reader wrote in a letter to the editor. Another wrote, “If she was nice enough to give that much money, her wishes should have been respected.” A man who called in to a radio station’s talk show lamented: “The Herald has been wonderful through this whole thing, keeping the paper printed and distributing it for free. … This has ruined it all.”4 The newspaper’s own poll showed that 85 percent of respondents thought Kroc’s name should not have been published.5
The Herald’s decision to name the Angel is addressed here to illustrate the mercurial nature of the public’s attitudes toward the news media. Whether the Herald was right or wrong can be – and has been – debated in journalism circles. It should be noted, however, that the paper did not pursue the matter until the Angel toured the flood area. At that point, her identity became