Was it “Grave Insensitivity” or Balanced Reporting?

204319_1339123.jpg.1500x1000_q95_crop-smart_upscale

Harvard University’s daily student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, has come under fire after it contacted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for a comment following a campus protest against ICE immigration policies. On September 12, Act on a Dream, a Harvard-based student immigration advocacy group, held a rally at which it called for ICE to be abolished. The Crimson covered the rally and later reached out to ICE officials for comment as part of its reporting on the protest.

Act on a Dream and other student organizations attacked the paper’s decision, asserting that it should not have contacted ICE because of its “long history of surveillance and retaliating against those who speak out against them.” Students were quoted in the story and identified, and photos of students were used. The group wrote a petition to get the paper to no longer contact ICE for comment which, as of this writing, has gathered 650 student signatures.

In the petition, Act on a Dream expressed concern that by contacting ICE, the paper compromised the identities of some students who might be targeted for action by ICE officers. The organization said that the paper “has an obligation, as a student news publication, to consider the safety of the students they are reporting on. As our fellow peers, they have displayed a grave insensitivity in the handling of reporting on undocumented individuals.” The paper did not contact ICE during the rally; it did so after the event, in the process of writing the story.

Crimson Managing Editor Angela Fu defended the decision to reach out to ICE, saying the paper follows a “commonly accepted set of journalistic standards, similar to those followed by professional news organizations big and small.” She added, “Foremost among those standards is the belief that every party named in a story has a right to comment or contest criticism leveled against them.”

It could be argued that Fu is right; asking for comment by all parties involved in a story, whether they are present at an event or not, is considered proper journalistic procedure. It’s simply a matter of balanced reportage. But in this case, did the pursuit of balanced reporting put student safety at risk?

Sources: nbcnews.com; thecrimson.com

What are the Guidelines For “Background Check” Reporting?

It had the makings of a viral success story: A young man jokingly holds a handmade sign asking for beer money in front of ESPN “College Game Day” cameras in Ames, Iowa. His cameo appearance goes viral and thousands of dollars flow into his Venmo account, at which point the lucky student announces he will donate all of it (“all but enough for a case of Busch Light”) to the University of Iowa Stead Family Children’s Hospital. After announcing on Twitter that he was “turning beer money into donations to [Children’s Hospital],” endorsers started lining up, including Anheuser-Busch and Venmo. Within a few days, 24-year-old Carson King raised $67,000. And more money was coming in. Estimates had him raking in at least $200,000. Maybe even $1 million.

Then the Des Moines Register did a “routine background check” on King and everything came crashing down. While writing a story on King, reporter Aaron Calvin looked into his Twitter account, finding two “offensive tweets” King had sent 7 years earlier when he was 16 years old. The Register described the tweets as “racist jokes.”

Before the Register published its profile online, King held a press conference to apologize for the posts and to announce that Anheuser-Busch had ended its partnership with him. (It is unclear what prompted Anheuser-Busch to end the deal since the Register’s story had yet to be published.) Nevertheless, the beer maker still promised to donate the more than $350,000 it had already pledged to the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics. But King’s press conference and Anheuser-Busch holding to its promise didn’t keep the Register from pursing publication.

When his profile appeared, references to his tweets were mentioned toward the end of the piece and weren’t the focus of the story. Here’s an excerpt:

“A routine background check of King’s social media revealed two racist jokes, one comparing black mothers to gorillas and another making light of black people killed in the holocaust. The joke tweets date back to 2012, when King was a 16-year-old high school student. When asked about the tweets, King was remorseful and thanked the Register for pointing them out, saying they made him ‘sick.’ He has since deleted them.”

At the same time, the Register’s executive editor published––online and on Twitter––a lengthy explanation on the paper’s decision to publish the story on King and his background (see below).

What readers didn’t know is that King wasn’t the only person who was guilty of publishing “racist” tweets; it turned out that Calvin––the reporter––had published some of his own. Some readers who were upset with the Register’s reporting decided to do some digging. According to The Washington Post, after looking through Calvin’s Twitter feed they “soon found several [offensive tweets] that appeared to be at least as problematic as King’s two racist jokes.” The Post noted that “between 2010 and 2013, Calvin published tweets that used a racist slur for black people, made light of abusing women, used the word ‘gay’ as a pejorative and mocked the legalization of same-sex marriage by saying he was ‘totally going to marry a horse.’”

The Register’s explanatory statement on Twitter was soon flooded with images of the reporter’s offensive comments. Shortly thereafter, Calvin began deleting old tweets, and then locked his account after posting an apology. He wrote, “Hey just wanted to say that I have deleted previous tweets that have been inappropriate or insensitive,” he wrote on Twitter. “I apologize for not holding myself to the same high standards as the Register holds others.” As of this writing, the Register has merely said that they had been made aware of offensive tweets made by “a staffer” and are investigating.

This case certainly raises a number of issues. The Washington Post cites this as another example of “cancel culture:” Penalizing people, namely celebrities, after their moral transgressions come to light by dropping endorsements, firing them, or canceling their programs. Such was the case several weeks ago when Saturday Night Live dismissed a new cast member after racist comments were discovered in some of his past podcasts. The nature of cancel culture and what brought it about is a topic worth considering, for it speaks to social norms and the state of moral relativism.

However, the more pressing issue from a journalistic perspective is the practice of journalists undertaking background checks on those who they cover. Unfortunately, there seems to be no steadfast rules on when, where and how they should be conducted, and under what pretenses. The Society of Professional Journalists seems to offer little guidance on how and when background checks, presumably of sources, should be conducted. Thus it seems that newsrooms must themselves establish policies for their reporters to follow.

Certainly there are times when journalists should perform background checks as a matter of best practices or due diligence––for example, when a journalist has reason to question the character or veracity of a source for an important story. But herein lies a troubling double standard: If undertaking background checks is a matter of routine for journalists, shouldn’t it also be a matter of routine for news organizations themselves? In other words, shouldn’t news organizations undertake background checks, and perhaps even perform them periodically, on the reporters they employ? If anything, as a matter of transparency?

There seems to be a real need for guidelines. The missteps taken by Calvin and the Des Moines Register seem to be only the latest demonstrations of why such guidelines may be necessary. Readers may recall the case of Charles Ramsey who, while being lauded as a hero for helping to rescue girls who had been kidnapped, was revealed by a reporter to have been the subject of domestic violence charges. Critics argued that reporting on Ramsey’s past was not necessary and may have diminished the goodness of his actions.

The need for background checks in reporting may certainly be debated. Having guidelines to work from as a starting point would help inform the debate and help reporters to not harm sources, to not undermine the news value of stories, and to infuse more accountability into journalism itself.

Many thanks to JMC major Angela Hutchings for the tip.

Sources: desmoinesregister.com; The Washington Post (via omaha.com)

UPDATE (September 30, 2019): Aaron Calvin was fired from the Des Moines Register. In an interview with BuzzFeed News he said he felt “abandoned” the paper.