Once again, the NYT belives the rules are different for them

C'mon guys give Hondo a break. The Times has small print and big words--like believes--and is a big paper, not one of those tabloids with small words and big fonts.

It's tough to read. Not everyone can do it. Lay off Hondo.

 

Bullshit. I don't work for the NYT and me and my wife threw more than $2k at some kids in bad situations last year.

Simply because this guy worked for the NYT and makes more money than you is not an automatic strike against him. Grow up.

 

Also worth noting that once the reporter realized he was doing a story on the kid, he told him that he needed the money back and it was paid.
I also don't give a flying fuck about appearance, doing the right thing is doing the right thing and in this case the reporter did the right thing.

 

Just last nite on some Law & Order rerun, some lawyer went to jail rather than reveal where his child-molester client had hidden some bodies. I prefer my ethical professionals be fictional!

 

Some interesting questions raised here. Is paying sources an ethical question or a financial one? I mean, I always thought the reason newspapers had a policy against it was they didn't want to set a precedent that would result in sources routinely demanding for money. This surely isn't the first time that a source was paid for his information, and it won't be the last.

Then again, I'm intrigued by the "private citizen" angle. A lot of publications take the stance that their newsroom employees are not private citizens. In particular I'm remembering the cases where papers told their staffers they could not buy tickets to the democratic fundraising concerts. (Miami Herald, wasn't it?) In essence, they were saying, "what you do with your spare time and money is subject to corporate decree." Are we as journalists "private citizens," or not? In this case, I think it's disingenuous for the reporter to say he was after the fact. And, the paper probably has a right to know what tactics its reporters are using to gain information. It had a positive outcome, sure, but the "save a kid's life" reference strikes me as a tad Machiavellian.

 

I don't have a problem with the reporting going above and beyond to help someone get a new start on life. But when you're on the job and these personal things start intermixing, that's when it can get more nebulous.

Plain and simple, tell the editors, let another reporter write the story if need be (likely with the same results, i.e., bad guys going to jail) and still help the kid at the same time.

 

I'm certainly not the type of person who has a rigid ethics code that would keep me from doing unusual things to help a source, but you really bought that line? How is giving $2,000 to a complete stranger who involved in pornography saving the kid's life? Wouldn't you want to actually talk to the kid first?

 

it seems to me that people are confusing the issue. he did a good thing. it violates journalism ethics but most reasonable people would view ethics as a series of circles partially linking to one another, with the ethics of being a decent human being as the one that overrides the journalism ones.

weren't there similar issues during katrina in new orleans where reporters did or didn't help the stranded?

 

Leo,

You're right about the ethics of humanity being more important than professional ethics. But let's face it, there's a difference between what happened here and your example about New Orleans.

The biggest is that the guy could have -- and should have -- recused himself from the story. The kid would've been helped, the NYT would have gotten the story and everybody would have been happy.

If you're on assignment in New Orleans, you don't have too many options: It's either help the people in front of you or choose to be Kevin Carter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter)

But this guy had plenty of options. Professional and human ethics didn't have to conflict...he brought the conflict upon himself.

 

I have no bias against the New York Times. But if you work for the New York Times or the New Times you should know that you can't become part of the story. He did that when he gave the kid cash. There's nothing wrong with that, in general. I've donated to victims in OTHER reporter's crime stories as a private citizen.

He should have told his editors' immediately when this became a story. I just tend to think he didn't because he wanted to write it as well. That's for the editors decide. Not the reporter. He may have helped the kid but he did the paper a disservice by not disclosing it ... tarnishing -- even if only by appearance - what should have been entirely a feel-good story.

Here's a tip. When in doubt, disclose, disclose disclose.

 

I think it has more to do with the "purity" of your sources' motives. I guess it would be like the difference between the cops' paid snitch and a good citizen coming forward with information because it's the right thing to do. To most people, the former would be a more suspect source.

The idea is to maintain a professional distance from what we cover so our ethics don't come into question.

There was a case in 1984 when a young Dallas Times-Herald reporter was arrested with a nun and a social worker for transporting illegal aliens, El Salvadorans, while on assignment. (There is, surprisingly, almost nothing about this on a Google search.) I was on the same staff as this guy at a previous stop for both of us and, while I did not know him well, naturally I followed the story after I read about it. The consensus in industry magazines and in gossip among those of us who had worked with him was that he probably had humanitarian motives but did sort of cross a line that made us uncomfortable. As I recall, most of us seemed relieved that we hadn't been in that position and the general reaction was, good guy, not the smartest decision.

 

Always a voice of reason, Mr. Ridgeway.