Going Undercover

There can be a lot of controversy around the topic of journalists going undercover to get a story. Is it ethical to deceive your sources, or is it sometimes a necessary measure to get the story?


Misleading or Investigative Reporting?
It is no lie that undercover reporting has brought about changes in corrupt institutions throughout history. Ambitious Elizabeth Cochrane posed as mentally ill “Nellie Bly” in 1887 in hopes of exposing the horrible conditions of the Women’s Lunatic Asylum near Manhattan Island. She was successful in helping raise awareness and eventually a larger budget was initiated for the Asylum to improve the conditions (www.womensenews.org). But sometimes undercover reporting can go terribly wrong like in the case of Cecelia Lynn Coy-Jones who posed as a “suspicious” character wearing scrubs in the nursery of hospital. There had been two local kidnappings prior to Coy-Jones’s stunt, which was the initial reason she entered the hospital undercover. She was arrested, charged with two counts of attempted aggravated kidnapping, and bail was set for $10,000 (www.amarillo.com). Not only can going undercover be risky, but it can also raise questions about deception, dishonesty, and overall trickery. There are benefits to going undercover, but in doing so, some journalists lose their respect in a business widely held accountable for its system of ethics.
In the fall of 2003 Chronicle reporter Kevin Fagan and photojournalist Brant Ward hit the streets of the Tenderloin area in San Francisco. Anyone familiar with the area knows that it is highly populated with the homeless, junkies, police, and a few confused tourists. They ran a series called “Shame of the City” that took readers into the world of the homeless and addicts. It was a call for change and brought hope to the people Fagan and Ward had become very close with. The two Chronicle reporters spent a lot of time with their sources before they pulled out a notepad or snapped a photo. They didn’t want to intimidate, and ultimately their tactics were successful in capturing the lives of the individuals most people group together as “the homeless” (www.sfgate.com/homeless).
In one specific instance, Fagan and Ward entered a shelter notorious for dangerous and unsanitary conditions. They stayed two nights at Multi-Service Center South Shelter, and upon arrival did not identify themselves as reporters. However, they did not dress any different than they normally would and never lied about their purpose of visiting; no one had asked (www.gradethenews.org). They spoke with many people about what goes on in the shelters and how they ended up there. Fagan paints a vivid picture of four men who easily sneak in beer and crack and begin to use in an isolated corner of the shelter. They [Fagan and Ward] are warned to hold their belongings tight because things go easily missing. A late night attendant reveals that, "This is where the city sends the dopers or boozers who say they don't want to clean up,” later explaining that they are aware of the crack and booze in the shelter they just don’t hunt for it. During their time in the shelter Fagan and Ward asked permission to print photos or quotes if names were used. An ethical question arose after the story was published: Was it ethical for Fagan and Ward to go undercover?
Yes, says Fagan. He thinks that if the shelter were warned in advance of the Chronicles presence his experience would have been different. "If you let public officials know you're coming, you're going to get the cleaned-up version," said Fagan in his defense of going undercover. His intentions were to capture the reality of shelters, not to deceive anyone (www.gradethenews.org). He admits that he did wrestle with the idea but that it was originally editor Phil Bronstein’s idea and ultimately the collective decision of the editors.
The Chronicle follows a set of ethics that determine whether or not it is justified to go undercover. The newspapers asks: Is the resulting news story or photograph of such vital public interest that its news value outweighs the potential damage to trust and credibility? Can the story be recast to avoid the need not to disclose one's identity in gathering the information? And, have all other reasonable means of getting the story been exhausted? In this case, the issue of homelessness was of vital public interest and a big problem that needed to be addressed. The story needed to speak for itself in the form of pictures that were more powerful than words; and the reality of the issue was emphasized through first hand accounts. On the other hand the newspaper also applies the same code of ethics when it’s necessary that a reporter identify him/herself. Will some of the most vulnerable people on the streets be upset when they learn the person they have been speaking with turns out to be a journalist? Most importantly, failing to identify oneself as a reporter is deceiving.