One of the liveliest discussion topics in ethics workshops we’ve led over the last few months has been whether it’s appropriate for journalists to provide material help to sources with whom they’re working. Helping someone in need is an entirely understandable instinct, but we believe journalism is usually best served when you establish — and explain, if appropriate – clear boundaries between your job as a reporter or editor and your urge to act as a friend or advocate.
It’s obviously unethical to pay sources for information. But if you’re working with a source in need – the survivor of a crime or a natural disaster, for example, or a person who has lost their job – it can be tempting to offer a helping hand. Reporting during a meal that you pay for – something we’ll often do with corporate sources – is generally fine because the meal plays a part in your work. Paying for a source’s food outside this context or offering a warm coat or even providing just a link to your source’s GoFundMe page might similarly seem like a trivial exchange for the time your source has given you. But even such small gestures can compromise both your actual reporting and the public perception that your story is fair. Moreover, your help can create unrealistic expectations in your source about the nature of your role and what you might do to assist them further.
Your job is to be open-minded but also skeptical about all of the information you gather as you report a story. Even small gestures of support for a source can disrupt that balance. A source who has received material support might be incentivized to tell you what he or she thinks you want to hear to keep the support coming.. You, on the other hand, might be more inclined to put aside your usual skepticism about a source’s information once you have decided to assist them and thus, essentially, taken their side.
Though complex in many ways, at its best, the exchange between a source and a journalist is pretty clear-cut. The source provides information in exchange for the possibility that you will transmit that information, honestly and fairly, to your audience. You must, of course, abide by any promises you’ve made about protecting your source and handling their information. But when material support becomes part of the transaction, we believe you’ve stepped over the appropriate line between a source and a reporter.
We should note that not every journalist agrees. Some reporters, particularly if they are working with a source on a book or long-term story, believe it’s okay to provide food, rides or other support to sources who have devoted a lot of their time to the reporting process. Many news organizations prohibit any material contributions, so check your newsroom’s rules regardless of your own beliefs.
A tougher call is whether you can give information, such as the name of an attorney or an activist group, to a source with whom you’re working. Again, it may seem harmless – and an act of human decency – to provide such help, especially when you already have the information your source is requesting. But we believe there are potential pitfalls from providing a source with individualized information.
Referring a source to a lawyer or social services group raises the same objectivity concerns as offering material support. But you’ve also involved a third party, adding to the complexity of the situation. If it turns out, for instance, that your source is not credible, you’ve compromised your relationship with the lawyer or advocacy group you referred the source to. Conversely, if you have inadvertently sent your source to an unreliable lawyer or advocacy group, you’ve damaged your relationship with the source. Either way, you’ve put your own trustworthiness at risk.
We believe a better practice is for your news organization to post a page with well-vetted, publicly available resources. We’ve written about Documented’s resource page, explaining why the news site believes that providing links to public resources is service journalism, not activism or advocacy.
Even if your newsroom does not post such resources, it may be worth collaborating with colleagues to develop a list of publicly available resources, such as legal, food or housing assistance groups, for sources in need.
We’re aware, of course, that these guidelines may seem harsh, especially at a time when so many people are suffering and in need. And we understand that reporters may choose to make exceptions when a source’s situation is especially dire. But we think the principle still stands – that we do the most good when we concentrate on our core function: to communicate accurate information to the public as a whole.