Responsibility and the infinite race for the scoop

Twitter. The New York Times.  Perez Hilton. CNN. Gawker. 

No matter the source, news today is never ending and rarely not available. It leaves journalists like myself scrambling for balance.  How do we report the news with both integrity and swiftness? 

Earlier this month, the Internet was abuzz with rumors that the New York Times was preparing to unleash some dirt about New York Gov. David Paterson and an extramarital affair. In this Huffington Post article, the author aggregates an article from the New York Magazine about the brouhaha. The article never confirms the allegations, but, at the very least, it does keep the rumors going.  

Turns out, the New York Times published an article that focused on issues surrounding questions about the rise of the Governor's top aide. The storm surrounding Gov. Paterson fizzled into a lame flurry of scrutiny focused on the promotion of one of his aides. 

The whole debacle underscores the need for good judgement and, in my opinion, organizational oversight when reporting news. Traditional journalists have an obligation to report truth--no matter if its via Twitter or for the 10 p.m. 

Bloggers, like good 'ol Perez, also should strive for truth, although clearly their gig is largely based around unsubstantiated claims.  And, to their credit, bloggers have certainly uncovered some worthwhile news.

Still, it is a delicate balance. 

Ultimately, my goal is to report aggressively, but err on the side of truth--even if that means getting scooped from time to time.  

Kids and TV :: Establishing my own boundaries

As a print reporter, I covered the gamut of tragic news about children--from a hostage situation at an elementary school to all kinds of child abuse. 

Those stories are hard to cover.  But I am beginning to wonder if the tragedies journalists are obligated to tell are a bit easier to cover for a newspaper in comparison to TV--especially when it comes to children. 

I've been working for the last week on a package about an amazing kid named Austin.  He's 16 and has been living with Batten Disease for the last eight years.  The rare neurological disease has essentially robbed him of his ability to, among other things, walk, talk and see.  If research doesn't turn into good medicine soon, the disease will likely kill Austin.  

The story is sad and now as a multi-platform journalist, I've struggled with the continual notion that I might be exploiting Austin's story. For example, it felt uncomfortable to videotape his tremors, even thought I knew such video would help me explain his plight. 

I did shoot the tremors and, while I don't regret it, I have come up with my own code of ethics of sorts when it comes to covering sad news that involve children--particularly those who are vulnerable. 

1.  If the story has the potential to be controversial, I'll seek parental permission. 

2. If the source doesn't have the capacity to understand what is happening, I'll seek out an advocate on his/her behalf before I pursue an interview. 

3. I won't use video of children that exploits them. 

4. I won't craft a story about children that is in vain; it needs to serve a purpose. 

Austin is an amazing guy. Meeting him has been a highlight of my time as a budding TV reporter. I hope the story I produced--and the guidelines I've put in place aimed at protecting him--does his life justice. 

Perception verse reality of the Western Hemisphere's 'poorest' country

I guess it is not surprising that America's media parachuted into Haiti following its earthquake. Everyone was eager to tell the terrible stories we were inundated with following the natural disaster. 

It seemed like the right thing to do. And, let us not forget, it also wasn't bad for ratings and readership. But the coverage of what many describe as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere got me thinking.  How do we know Haiti's story--the real story--when all we see is the aftermath of a disaster that was so horrific it still seems almost unfathomable from this journalist in training? 

I recently read this NPR article that highlights attempts from President Bill Clinton to help encourage economic growth prior to the earthquake.  The article talks a bit about Clinton's effort to help Haiti before it spirals into a negative nosedive about the country's many woes.  I get that its our job as journalists to report the truth.  But how do we--more specifically, American journalists--know what the truth of Haiti is when all we've done is respond to a natural disaster?  To be fare, the article's article does a more substantive job than most when it comes telling Haiti's story.  At least this story focused, in parts, on life before the earthquake. 

Moreover, do Haitians want our pity?  I was bantering with a classmate who has close ties to Haiti this week about this very issue. She says the Western media has long done a horrific job at telling the story of Haiti.  She says it is a place where children actually did laugh. She says it is a place that was, by and large, safe.  She says it was, well, nice.   She also says it has obvious struggles--struggles that the Western media's reminds the world of continually.  She says the type of coverage does little to help advance its democracy. I think she may be right. 

Sniffing out the story--bloodhound style

A few weeks ago, I noticed some surveyors asking patrons of the Daniel Boone Regional Library to sign a petition aimed at strengthening regulations for dog breeders in Missouri. Turns out, the Show-Me State is widely regarded as "Puppy Mill Capitol" of the country, at least in the eyes of animal advocates. And for good reason. Check this out.

Still, several groups, like the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners staunchly oppose the idea of placing more regulations on breeders who depend on these animals for their livelihood. This seemed like an interesting story, so I began reaching out to some interested parties.

Note to other budding reporters: Suck it up and pick up the phone. Turns out, e-mail is the easiest way for sources to avoid annoying journalists. So, after e-mailing nearly every breeder I could find in Mid-Missouri (and there are lots), I did the unthinkable and picked up the phone.

A few days later, I was sitting in the living room of a hobby breeder, along with his nine blood hounds.

My source opposes the petition for a lot of reasons. While that helps with the crux of this story, his story in itself was fascinating. He treats his dogs like babies. During the winter, the dogs stay inside the house. Some even sleep in his bed. They eat a complicated regimen of organic food, including a bit of tuna. He even personally feeds his eldest dog, who recently retired from the breeding business. Suffice it to say, if I can't make his story, which I've barely touched on here, compelling to viewers, I might as well hang up the hat.

There were still some challenges: For one, dogs aren't as easy to shoot as one might think. They rarely cooperate. They are loud, particularly when you get nine in a house. They certainly were not amiable to letting this photographer get needed sequences. The up-side: They are cute beyond measure.

I've also interviewed a spokesperson for the Central Missouri Humane Society, one of the groups championing the initiative. The interview was informative, although upon arriving at the organization I realized I forgot a tripod. Awesome. Luckily, I was a bit early, which never happens, so I ran back to the lab to get one. So, yet another lesson learned: Be cognizant about what you're doing. Make sure you have all equipment, and that it is functional.

I'd like to get some B-roll this week of some people signing the petition to round out the story. I think I am becoming the classic "over-shooter." I know it is a weakness I eventually need to confront. This week, though, I'll focus on making sure I have all my equipment.