ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, February 22, 1997 TAG: 9702240013
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: LOUIS W. HODGES
ON FEB. 9, you published Cody Lowe's column (``Undercover methods can serve the public'') about undercover reporting, with special reference to the recently decided Food Lion/ABC case. Because I think this issue needs a thoroughly public hearing, I offer the following rationale.
The issue in this case isn't the mere spectacle of two corporate giants arguing over money, nor is it the petty wrangling over false applications by ABC personnel for jobs at Food Lion. The issue is the public's need to know, and the duty of journalists to tell, about dangerous practices that threaten public health and safety. The issue is the need we have for journalists who discover for us where the dangers in life lie.
During and following the trial, the press covered the facts of the Food Lion/ABC lawsuit relatively well. What the press hasn't done is put this case in a public perspective - the perspective of what Americans stand to lose or gain from the final outcome.
What I fear is that this case may end up making bad law - law that will help the corrupt hide their corruption even more effectively than they have in the past. If the people cannot send their own investigators behind the scenes to find out accurately what is really going on in some retail food outlets, all of us are at risk.
To send our representatives, journalists, behind the scenes, it's sometimes necessary for those journalists to pretend to be what they are not. Undercover investigations are always deceptive. The issue of ethics here is: When are undercover (deceptive) investigations justified by the common good, the public need to know?
The answer is now fairly widely agreed upon by ethics scholars and news organizations. Undercover investigations by journalists are ethically sound only when they meet three strict standards:
*The matter under investigation must be of overriding public importance. Trivial matters - things the public might be merely interested in knowing - do not qualify. Some things that do count are threats to public health and safety (like mishandled meat); abuse of human beings institutionalized in nursing homes, mental hospitals or jails (where the public doesn't see what goes on after ``visiting hours''); and public scams and rip-offs (e.g., insurance peddlers selling fraudulent insurance policies to elderly and frightened widows).
*No straightforward or traditional investigative methods can reasonably be expected to yield fully accurate and compelling documentation. Hard evidence of some wrongdoing is the key. It's one thing if a reporter says, ``Patients in this nursing home say patients are often tied to chairs with bed sheets to immobilize them.'' It's more authentic reporting if a reporter says, ``I saw patients tied to chairs with bed sheets.'' Really splendid reporting happens when the reporter, with hidden camera, shows us patients tied to chairs with bed sheets.
*Journalists should never masquerade in a role they cannot perform, if failure to perform might put others at serious risk. For example, one should never pose as a firefighter who might be called upon to fight fire and, being untrained, place others in jeopardy.
In the "Prime Time Live broadcast," which aired Nov. 5, 1992, journalists showed us that Food Lion sometimes handles meat badly. They showed us unclean cutting equipment, unsanitary marinades and meat sold after the manufacturers' sell-by date.
The investigation didn't prove that Food Lion never discards bad meat, nor did it compare Food Lion's practices to those of other supermarket chains. It showed only that, sometimes, employees often under pressure of rigid work schedules cut corners and put out for sale products that may have been unfit for human consumption.
If the public is even only ``sometimes'' put at risk by improper food handling, we need to know it. In those circumstances where we can learn about our serious risks only if journalists investigate by falsifying their identity on job applications, so be it. Yes, lying is bad. But sometimes it's necessary if we are to avoid something even worse.
In this instance, ABC News had to choose between bad options: either not inform the public about a potentially serious risk to public health and safety, or deceive Food Lion in order to get reliable evidence. Given the people's dependence upon journalists, I think ABC made the ethically commendable choice.
Louis W. Hodges, who teaches the ethics of journalism at Washington and Lee University, testified in the Food Lion trial as expert witness for the defendant.
LENGTH: Medium: 83 linesby CNB