wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] In Chicago October 22, 2007 - 12:23PM

  I know a journalist who was working with a single mother in extreme poverty who saw no problem in giving the mother a ride to pick up her son when the woman otherwise would have needed to take two buses.

  The reporter said it was the least she could do because the woman had given her access to her life.

  Of course, I disagreed, saying that she was now reporting on an altered version of the woman's life, and she missed out on any chance encounters the woman might have on the bus...perhaps a half dozen other women in her same circumstance.

  And of course, once the woman knew she could rely on the reporter, she was bound to alter her daily schedule.

  There is another story of a journalist who intervened to offer life-saving support to his subject. That's noble. But then he continued to cover the person!

  I think the standard is, you pull someone out of a burning car or a flooding house...you don't just watch someone die. But you have to be clear about why you're covering a situation. Presumably, a documentary is meant to shed light on a subject and the help will come later.

  
  
• [2] Journalist in NY from Brooklyn October 22, 2007 - 01:05PM

  If you're intervening in someone's life, you're no longer writing about what that life is.

  It's harsh, but a lot of journalists navigate this successfully. Look at Adrian Leblanc, and her stunning narrative, Random Family, which required maintaining a relationship with the women and children she was following for a decade. She built up a real relationship with them, but not one where she crossed that line.

  What responsibilities does someone telling a story have to their subject? Absolute honesty with that source. Agree on the ground rules, and be sure the person you're working with/profiling etc. agrees at the outset, and understands them. And as In Chicago points out, you can't just leave someone to die.

  I support some non-profit organizations, but I don't cover them.