By Kelly McBride
Ethics Group Leader
As the nation’s news media went wall-to-wall with the Elliot Spitzer case, transparency suffered at the hands of speed and the buzz of the big story.
The New York Times broke the story, attributing it to an insider in the Spitzer administration. In watching some of the cable television coverage and presentation by online news sites, it was hard to tell where the reporting was coming from. In fact, in the first couple hours, there appeared to be little if any original reporting beyond that of The Times.
That’s the world we live in now. We should be honest with our audience. Although many journalists are eager to point out when they have a scoop, few give much ink or airtime to competitors when they are repeating what others report. Why not say, “We don’t have any original information on this, and The New York Times is the only source on this so far?”
That lack of transparency forced most news sites to repeat the initial vague headline, “Spitzer involved in prostitution ring.” What does that mean? Was he running the ring? Protecting it? In most cases I suspect that the initial reporting was so vague, nobody besides The Times knew what to say. If that’s the case, it would make sense to put the attribution in the headline, as some sites did.
The “prostitution ring” headline is misleading. The reporting so far suggests that Spitzer hired a prostitute who worked for an organized ring. No one is suggesting that Spitzer is somehow involved in running the ring or protecting it. A more precise headline would be more accurate.
In a developing story, information falls into three categories: new, already reported and contextual.
In the first couple of hours, as the story was repeated on virtually every news Web site across the country, a few national outlets like CNN and the Washington Post started turning up new information. Since most of this was attributed to anonymous sources, it was hard to track who was taking responsibility for that information. Occasionally journalists would be explicit, saying “a source told CNN.”
This is a new discipline for journalists to master. As a story breaks, how do you let your audience know where your information is coming from? How do you attribute anonymous sources of another news organization? How do you distinguish your own work, from a wire story or from stuff you are pulling off the Web?
