Ethical quandary @ WaPo: Story spiked

Well, the guy who did the piece, Gene Weingarten, is a funny writer with a terrific feel for features. So even if the story idea is a little passe, I'm pretty sure he'd bring something entertaining and perceptive to it.

But yeah, why they'd wait until the end to discuss ground rules is bizarre. And, as others have said, it's a pretty odd place for the Post to suddenly take their stand on anonymous sources.

 

An excellent point, Ira, though I'd think most of the blame lies with the reporter on this one. I'd think that, at some point of the fact-gathering process, the reporter would have said something to the editor about how he should handle people in the story not wanting to be named.

(Funny, when I typed the last sentence, I first typed "wanking" instead of "wanting.")

 

Anonymous sources should only be used when appropriate, and this isn't one of those cases.

Kind of sounds like the convention that Stephen Glass made up in one of his stories. A hacker's convention, I think? When one company basically paid this teenager to stop breaking into its system. These details might not be correct, but you get the point.

I always laugh when posters demand punishment for those involved in these situations. Someone said the editor should be disciplined for letting the reporter waste so much time with no pay-off. I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned in the person's annual review, but punishment is hardly in order. Things move quickly at newspapers, especially one like the Post. Not everyone has time to hold hands or ask, "Can we use everyone's name in story?" This was the reporter's fault, and from what I can tell, he's admitted as much. Lesson learned.

 

I believe Frank's position is that features don't belong in the newspaper unless there's a news hook? Am I wrong, Frank?

Get rid of 2/3 of the Sunday NY Times if that's the case.

Anyway, I remember an article in the WP in the early 90s... A very young Laura Blumenfeld, who may have even been an intern at the time, attended an LSD party. All names were changed.

Great story... It was obviously very memorable.

I guess the Post's policies have changed quite a bit.

 

I think a newspaper feature -- as opposed to some TV sweeps-week crud -- ought to tell us something we don't know, and I don't believe this one qualifies.

And I like Gene's work, usually. It's worth noting that he's been an editor -- of The Miami Herald's Sunday magazine; I believe he hired Dave Barry -- so, really, it's not like he's some reporter who doesn't understand how things work.

 

I also agree. Who cares what the guy's name is, unless he's somebody the reader would otherwise be familiar with? As a reader, I feel like I've been denied a good story because of red tape. And it is more than a little ironic that a newspaper would be the one providing the red tape. Isn't cutting through red tape a major part of the job?

 

What would be the objection to using his name.

Legally, what prevented the reporter from getting his name? Why start out with the assumption that you wouldn't use the name?

One issue is that without a name, how do you know the whole thing isn't made up?

 

Weingarten says he promised the guy he wouldn't use his name, and in exchange the guy gave him full access. The only mistake was Weingarten not getting prior approval from his editors to maintain the guy's anonymity.

I hope nobody here is suggesting that Weingarten go ahead and publish the guy's name after all, just because it would be legal. He also said he spent hours on the phone with the guy, trying to convince him to be named.

My question is why the Post won't agree to let the story come out on the web or somewhere else -- I understand it can't/won't be published under their imprint, but why bury it completely. Christ, I'd pay $5 to read it online -- Weingarten is hilarious.

 

Weingarten is a phenomenal writer. Grew up reading him and Barry in the Herald's Tropic section. But not even someone of his stature should be given two months to work on something with no direction. I'm not saying an editor should hold his hand through every step of the process. But naming or not naming the lead source is a fundamental question that absolutely MUST be discussed on the front end. I don't care how busy you are. There needs to be some level of planning on a story that's going to require two months of time -- ESPECIALLY someone whose time is as valuable as Weingarten's.

 

Making too much of the "two months" deal....Weingarten writes a weekly column and does a weekly online chat with daily updates (longgggg and hilarious).....holidays in there, too.....I'd bet the magazine stuff he does is freelance on his own time...and I think the "two months" came from him, anyway, in an attempt to influence the poll he was taking online as to what readers would've done in that situation....

 

I'm also disappointed that after two months of reporting and writing, a story gets spiked because editor and reporter stalled on the whole anonymous source thing.

Sounds like something you'd get squared away after leaving the assignment desk. Or after Day 1 of reporting.

Or maybe they don't make reporters or newspapers like they used to.