Ethical quandary @ WaPo: Story spiked

[Perry White]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/09/DI2008010900720.html

The situation:

The Post sends a reporter to attend a three-day seminar in seduction, in which men are taught how to pick up women and get them into bed. The company giving these courses, "The Mystery Method," knew a Post reporter was in attendance; the reporter paid the same admission fee as everyone else. Courses by the Mystery Method and its competitors are becoming big business in the United States.

Like all Mystery Method instructors, the teacher of this seminar uses only a nickname. He calls himself "The Don."

To protect the privacy of the men taking the course, The Post agrees to refer to them only by nicknames in the story.

The course was eye-popping for its casual misogyny: The routine way that women are unabashedly sorted by looks alone, pursued methodically through a learned set of rules and phony pickup lines, and seen as targets in what is, essentially, a process of conquest.

The reporter writes the story, filled with anecdotes from the three-day seminar. It is a complex story, but, on balance, is sharply critical of the methods used.

An editor tells the reporter he must identify The Don's real name. The Don refuses, saying that he doesn't want his life as a pickup artist to be known to friends, relatives, prospective employers. Moreover, he says, he would never have agreed to allow a reporter in the room if he believed his real name would be used. And that's the problem: Against Post policy, the reporter had implicitly agreed to this without first consulting with his editors.

The conflict cannot be resolved: The Post kills the story.

The writer's reaction:

This was the cover story I'd been working on for two months. It will never see print, and although I disagree with that decision, I understand it and have only myself to blame. Biggest mistake in professional judgment I've ever made. (I've made bigger mistakes in PERSONAL judgment, and I can't write about those, either.)

When you work for The Washington Post, every once in a while you are reminded of what a towering institution it is, and how, by and large, its decisions are propelled primarily by a sense of integrity. Sounds sappy, but it's true.

At every stage of figuring out how to deal with this mess, the easy and expedient thing to have done would have been to publish this story. In all likelihood, no one would have complained; it is an absolutely fascinating story (sob); and to publish it simply would have entailed making a minor shift in institutional thinking via the application of some slightly squishy situational ethics.

The fact is, the editors felt that it was essential that we not appear to let The Don hide behind a facade, and ordered me to name him. The fact is, I could not recall exactly what I had told The Don about whether his name would be used, but inasmuch I had never really intended to use it, I probably conveyed that in ways he had a right to rely on. Though I tried to wiggle around that in my own mind, I couldn't sell it to myself.

I do think the Post's decision was wrong, and had I taken the poll I would have picked options 6 and 7. The thing that most surprises me is that so many of you did the same; from opnions of readers expressed elswhere, I expected more of a consensus that anonymity is bad, period.

I feel deflated, disappointed, embarrassed, but not angry. The precipitating error was mine alone. The Post is trying very hard to tighten its rules on granting anonymity, and I should have known better than to have casually dispensed it.

 

[playthrough]

Hmm. Who paid more, the Wash Post for the three-day seduction seminar or the NYPost for planting the Jessica Simpson lookalike in Dallas?

Sadly, the far better story didn't make it to print.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Does this mean the Post will no longer let campaign aides who rip into other campaigns do so with anonymity?

I bet not.

 

[Ace]

There does seem to be a double standard, but the reporters should have manned up from the start and been prepared to use the dude's real name.

 

[bigpern23]

What amazes me is this has gone from crappy VH1 reality show to a full-fledged business.

Can't anyone get laid without help anymore?

 

[Chi City 81]

What amazes me is this has gone from crappy VH1 reality show to a full-fledged business.

Can't anyone get laid without help anymore?

No.

 

[Pilot]

What amazes me is this has gone from crappy VH1 reality show to a full-fledged business.

Can't anyone get laid without help anymore?

4,581 posts ... you don't seem new here. Are you using a friend's account or something?

 

[old_tony]

What amazes me is this has gone from crappy VH1 reality show to a full-fledged business.

Can't anyone get laid without help anymore?

No.

Ouch, Doc. That was cold. Good shot.

p.s. Sorry Mike.

 

[friend of a friend]

What amazes me is this has gone from crappy VH1 reality show to a full-fledged business.

Can't anyone get laid without help anymore?

No.

Awesome

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Just read this book if you want the story:

 

[Chi City 81]

Unavailable for comment:

 

[GB-Hack]

Just read this book if you want the story:

I keep seeing adverts for this thing on MyspaceTV when I'm over there.

 

[mike311gd]

What amazes me is this has gone from crappy VH1 reality show to a full-fledged business.

Can't anyone get laid without help anymore?

No.

Fair enough, good sir. Fair enough.

 

[BYH]

Unavailable for comment:

BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

 

[dooley_womack1]

Yeah, but was he in The Client?

 

[Ira_Schoffel]

How does one work on a story for two months and not have this fundamental topic hammered out with editors somewhere along the way? I obviously don't know all the specifics, but I fail to see how a supervising editor doesn't get disciplined for allowing a reporter to waste two months of time and resources like this.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

And is this an instance where "the Don" needs to be named? Sure, it's preferable. But can't it still be pulled off without the name, since it's not exactly a unique thing this guy is running.

Oh well, I'll just read more about an unnamed aide from an opposing campaign instead.

 

[mike311gd]

Adding the guy's name does nothing for the story, in my opinion.

 

[Perry White]

Adding the guy's name does nothing for the story, in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more. This is where you draw the line on anon sources?

 

[Dyno]

Just read this book if you want the story:

I read "The Game" last year (a male friend thought I would get a kick out of it). It was fascinating. I think I posted about it on the Books Thread, but I'm too lazy to check.