A news story that ignited a storm of controversy in Iowa this summer continues to raise perplexing questions.
You’ll recall the story — a two-part series published originally in the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News about research carried out in 1939 on children at a Davenport orphanage by a University of Iowa graduate student working with Wendell Johnson.
The articles told about research that taught children to stutter. The goal was to try and prove stuttering was environmental, not genetic.
The Gazette was among several newspapers that reprinted the articles (“Scarred for life: UI-based study turned orphans into stutterers” and “Orphans retain scars from long-ago experiment,” The Iowa City Gazette, June 12-13). Readers reacted quickly.
“Journalism at its finest,” wrote one letter writer (Gazette, June 21). Another wrote: “The (experiment’s) ends did not justify the means” (June 21).
Some accused the reporter, Jim Dyer, of sensationalizing and inappropriately applying contemporary standards to research conducted long ago. Five speech/language pathologists signed a letter (Gazette, July 5) stating, “All that has been accomplished in this emotion-laden journalism is the trashing of a well-earned reputation of one of the most decent men who ever lived.”
Pressured for a response, the University apologized for the experiment.
But the story wouldn’t go away. Reporter Dyer whose articles accused the Iowa researchers of deceit was himself accused of deception by his executive editor, David Yarnold.
Yarnold wrote (Mercury News, July 25) that Dyer violated the newspaper’s policy which states, “Under ordinary circumstances, reporters or photographers ought to identify themselves to news sources.” Any exceptions must be approved by the editor or executive editor, and that was not done. Dyer apparently did not consult with his editors.
A question: What are editors’ responsibilities in providing appropriate oversight in news gathering?
Dyer had gained access to an Iowa state archive by identifying himself as a graduate student and not as a reporter, according to Yarnold, The archives, oddly, appear to be closed to the public, including journalists, but open to academic researchers. Why?
Dyer, an experienced reporter, studied journalism at the UI as an MA student. He has not graduated and has not been officially enrolled for a decade.
Was this a case of reporter deception? It seems so, though Executive Editor Yarnold pointed out “the story was accurate” and Dyer verified information obtained in the archives “through his own independent reporting.”
The Mercury News apparently did not discipline Dyer. But the executive editor’s rebuke was clear. Dyer resigned.
The Dyer case has stirred debate on the listserv of the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO), of which I am a member.
This seems to be “a very close call,” commented one member. “In the purest sense, Dyer deceived his editors and is paying the price,” wrote another. One echoed a typical policy of many newspapers, including The Gazette: Reporters must not misrepresent themselves “directly or by deliberate implication in the gathering of news for an actual or potential story except by specific permission of the editor.”
One cited Gannett Newspapers’ policy that “forbids any kind of deception.” Gannett’s Principles of Ethical Conduct assert “We will not lie” and “We will not misstate our identities or intentions.”
Yet highly successful journalism has resulted from the use of journalistic deception. In exploring the Dyer incident, Dan Fost of The San Francisco Chronicle points to a number of cases in which journalists who have not been entirely forthcoming in revealing identity have achieved professional distinction. (See his article here.)
What about the resolution of the Dyer case? In my opinion, the circumstances called for some disciplinary action, but a public verbal flogging by the executive editor was excessive.
Whether you agree or disagree, the incident underscores the fragile nature of the co-dependent relationships among reporters, editors, news sources and, yes, readers. And it tells us that deception can rarely be justified because it undermines the core journalistic value of integrity.
When, if ever, is deception justified?
Can journalists ever justify using deception in news gathering? Only if all of the following questions — adapted from the handbook Doing Ethics in Journalism, 1995–can be answered “yes:”
- Is the information of profound public importance?
- Have all other alternatives to get the information been exhausted?
- Are the journalists involved willing to disclose the nature of the deception and the reason for it?
- Have the journalists and news organization involved devoted sufficient resources to pursue the story fully?
- Will the harm prevented by revealing the information outweigh any harm caused by the deception?
- Has the reporter fully considered and discussed the ethical and legal issues in the decision-making process?
