Thirty-six years ago, in a memorable New Yorker essay called ”The Journalist and the Murderer,” author Janet Malcolm described journalism as “morally indefensible,” likening a reporter to “a confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”
In the years since, spurred at least in part by Malcolm’s widely discussed indictment of media practices, many reporters have rethought their relationships with sources. Unlike Malcolm’s archetype of the exploitative journalist, entrants in the inaugural Collier Award for Ethics in Journalism hewed to strict processes aimed at protecting the privacy, dignity and, in some instances, identity of their sources.
Many of our entrants relied on people who shared intimate and sometimes painful accounts of their lives. Our applicants worked commendably — often over the course of weeks or months — to win the trust of sources whose stories were indispensable to their reporting.
Journalists told us they were keenly aware of the trust sources had placed in them and were determined not to betray it. Our student applicants, in particular, highlighted the importance of empathy and compassion in their reporting and writing.
Reporters described how they took pains to be sure their sources understood the risks of speaking on the record, even if those conversations endangered their stories. We heard about journalists’ heightened sensitivity when they talked to kids, medical patients and survivors of gun violence, sexual assault and natural disasters.
Several of the submitted stories depicted people caught in dire circumstances, including grief over a child’s death or the sudden loss of a home. Reporters told us of their efforts to avoid exploiting such circumstances, from simple decisions to omit lurid but unnecessary details to the wholesale reframing of stories to emphasize broad issues instead of individual tragedies. Some of the strongest Collier entrants described how reporters worked closely with sources to avoid doing harm while still telling powerful stories.
There is, of course, a flip side to this wholly well-intended resolution to protect sources. Reporters may be too quick to grant anonymity, to leave out sensitive but relevant information or to shy away from uncomfortable stories altogether.
Journalism, after all, is supposed to serve and inform an audience of readers, listeners or viewers. That audience is best served when readers, listeners and viewers have enough information to be sure the story is true and meaningful. Broadly speaking, a named source is more believable than an anonymous source. Painful specifics are more meaningful than generalities.
The essence of ethical journalism — as exemplified by many of this year’s Collier Award entrants — is sensitively balancing the obligation to treat sources with empathy and dignity and fulfilling our fundamental duty to inform readers, listeners and viewers.
Have additional thoughts? Think we’re missing something? Email us to keep the conversation going.