ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, February 9, 1997 TAG: 9702070028
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: the back pew
SOURCE: CODY LOWE
We journalists didn't need a verdict in the case of Food Lion vs. ABC to know that some people don't think much of the way we conduct our business.
We hear it in our neighborhoods. We read it in letters to the editor. We hear it in phone calls from readers.
Some think we are arrogant. Some think we are unprincipled. Some think we are irresponsible.
But the Food Lion case made the issue of public trust in us tangible to us in a way that, perhaps, it has never been done before.
After finding the ABC reporting team guilty of fraud, jurors in the case had decided, in essence, that the media had just gone too far and had to be restrained in their methods - even if the reporting had been accurate and had provided a public service.
It boiled down to a question, I think, of whether the jury believed it was ethical to engage in "undercover" reporting.
I would guess that most of us in this business were at least a bit surprised by the verdict.
After all, Food Lion never challenged the veracity of the report, which showed the company's employees engaged in their own acts of defrauding the public by tampering with meat to sell it past the date at which it was considered fresh and safe for human consumption.
Interestingly, no customer filed a lawsuit for fraud against the company, however.
In any event, it was the method of "undercover" reporting that was on trial - not Food Lion's practices, nor the veracity of the report.
Surprising as it may seem, considering that the practice of undercover reporting has a long and storied history in journalism, such reporting apparently has never been addressed this way in court before.
Lou Hodges, professor of ethics at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, has spent years examining the issues of journalistic ethics.
He served as an expert witness for ABC in the Food Lion case, testifying on the history of undercover journalism.
Hodges points out that because "undercover journalism always involves deception there is always an ethical problem" when that method is used.
But, he contends, that "problem" may be offset if three standards are met:
First, the story "must be a matter of overriding public importance," not something "trivial."
Second, there must be "no reasonable alternative way of getting the information with a reliable degree of accuracy." For instance, the meat wrappers at Food Lion almost certainly would not have continued to redate meat, or attempt to bleach it, if they knew a reporter was observing them.
Third, the "journalist must never pose in a role he or she cannot, in fact, perform, or that would put another person in danger." Hodges' example is that it would be unethical for a journalist to pose as a firefighter, for instance, because an inability to perform the duties of a firefighter might put another person at risk of injury or death.
"If all three of these standards are met," Hodges contends - and many journalists would agree - "the method is morally warranted."
The question is, would most readers, viewers or listeners agree?
Obviously, the men and women on the Food Lion jury did not.
From Hodges' point of view, if that verdict is upheld on appeal, "the public is going to suffer."
"Journalists are merely our [the public's] servants," Hodges said. "I think the stakes are really high for the public."
There are numerous stories that Hodges and others point out that never would have been exposed without the use of undercover reporters.
They include accounts of abuses in diverse situations ranging from mental institutions to meat-packing facilities to auto-repair shops.
There are some journalists and academics who disagree with Hodges and believe that such undercover methods are never - or almost never - justifiable.
They see deception as the antithesis of the journalist's mission to provide readers - or viewers or listeners - with "the truth." And they believe that the journalists' audience see those tactics as a violation of a trust they expect.
But when that mission - and it is a sacred trust for many of us - to present the facts and the "truth" can be fulfilled in no other way, then journalists must make the tough choice between deceiving a source of information or deceiving their audiences with silence and failing to expose a wrong.
Could the Food Lion story have been discovered and reported with any other methods? Possibly. A bona fide employee might have come forward to report that story with his or her own evidence. Was the potential risk to public health worth waiting for that possible source of information? I think not.
Everyone faces a time when he or she must decide between apparently conflicting ethical choices. While we journalists may need to do a better job of defending the practice of undercover reporting, let us hope that the courts will ultimately decide that - given that we meet a set of criteria similar to those Hodges' listed - journalists may continue to use what has been a rare but invaluable tool to serve the public good.
LENGTH: Medium: 93 linesby CNB