Q: My question doesn't really relate to ethics or job-hunting. It has to do with an investigative piece I did. It was the result of about three months of work and basically raised the point that this city I cover has no policy in place for checking the backgrounds of some key staffers. What's worse is that the two people I wrote about have somewhat of a history in similar towns to the one I cover.

Now, so far, no one has made any serious challenges to the accuracy of the story and both I and my editors went to huge lengths to make sure all sides were represented fairly. However, the story is extremely unflattering to this town's city staff and council.

Here is my dilemma: while I'm not second guessing the legitimacy of the story or its importance, I've effectively alienated myself from ever getting any comment or information from most anyone in this city again. It's not like I didn't expect people to get upset about being criticized, however, I really didn't think through how I was going to cover this town again after making a serious challenge to its staff's competency and accountability. This is probably not a dilemma unique to me, however I'm pretty new to the newspaper world (I graduated last December and have been working for my current paper since May), and was wondering how I should handle this. The advice of old vets like yourself is invaluable.

Thanks a bunch for your help.

Unpopular

A: I've read your stories and think you did your job well.

Your reporting is thorough and the treatment fair. The subject you took up -- reference checks -- is valid and you put it into the context of other cities. (Just curious -- how good is your newspaper at checking references?)

So, as near as I can tell, you're dealing with the unfortunate fallout of doing your job well.

You have to hang in there. You have to cover just as many meetings and request just as many interviews as before. You have to bend over backwards to show that you are not going away, that you will try as hard as always to get their views into the paper. Even if they tell you 10 times in a row that they will not talk to you, you have to go back to them on the 11th story. Wear them down by being consistent, fair and accurate.

Of course, they will see that a good reporter confronted with stonewalling will tell reader/voters when city officials are refusing to comment on issues of public interest. They will see the reporter develop new sources.

The problem officials find when they refuse to deal with a fair and tenacious reporter is that they isolate themselves from the electorate and that information comes from documents and sources they would prefer did not exist. This no-comment policy eventually goes poorly for public officials and some come around and have to talk.

Good reporting got you into this mess; good reporting can help you get out of it.