Tough Calls: Dealing with Public Officials

BRAD REINEHART
Assistant General Manager
WFMZ-TV
Allentown, PA
“When did you stop beating your wife?” The dilemma in this tired old joke is that there’s no denial that can erase the doubts created by the question. Should journalists consider that there’s a patent unfairness in circulating false statements when no corrective editorial� addendum will truly undo the harm? In a taped Program Department debate, WFMZ recorded a politician saying that two local banks had failed when in fact they had not. In the current tinderbox of financial panic, we had to consider whether airing that statement, even with an accompanying correction, would risk a run on the bank. One of the banks insisted that it might. But clearly the politician’s faux pas was of significant public interest. WFMZ chose to air the politician’s� statement and to point out her mistake, but to excerpt the names of the banks. It is not uncommon for journalists to strike a balance between information that is publicly relevant and that which is not. We report the rape, but protect the victim’s identity. I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument how promulgating the specifi cs of a falsehood serves a public purpose. Would the inclusion of those names really have caused a run on the banks? Fortunately, we’ll never know.

TERRY SCOTT
Director, News & Information-Broadcast
The Canadian Press
Toronto
Elected officials and those seeking public office are accountable for their actions and their words. If the gaffe has no impact on public safety, it’s fair game and the statement, as incorrect as it may be, should be presented in its full context without edits. Let’s remember we are not the
sanitizers of news. Our duty is to inform the public in an accurate, comprehensive and fair
manner. That said, an informed crew would have challenged the individual on the incorrect information in order to give him or her an opportunity to clear the air. Again, the entire exchange
should be presented to the listening or viewing public. Let’s use discretion in the event the remarks might jeopardize public safety or threaten to cause unwarranted hysteria. Yes, we need
to report the gaffe. But first we should reassure our audience with the facts that all is well, then present the statement from the budding politician. Editing may be warranted, but certainly
not censorship. Remember, we’re dealing with an individual who is seeking the public trust.

SCOTT LIBIN
News Director
WCCO-TV
Minneapolis
Generally speaking, I think it would be appropriate to run the comment largely if not entirely
unedited. But, as in most ethical decision-making situations, I think the key is to identify a
number of alternatives and pick the one that would—as my old Poynter mentor Bob Steele
would say—maximize our truth-telling responsibility while minimizing harm. Candidates
for public offi ce are and ought to be judged by the public based on their records and on what
they say. I can imagine, however, certain circumstances in which we might need to exercise exceptional care with treatment of such statements. If, for example, the candidate’s words are profane, hateful or otherwise truly harmful, we might choose to use only an excerpt or redacted
version on air, perhaps running the full version online. We might also use different standards for
a 5 p.m. newscast from those we apply at 10 p.m. I think context is critical, too. That’s where online coverage can be especially important, enabling us to provide an entire speech, interview or other long-form version to help viewers reach their own judgments of what the candidate
said and what it really means.

Comments

Add Comment