Ethical news organizations follow the tenet in the Society of Professional Journalist’s code of ethics that says good journalists “[d]iligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.”
More and more of those subjects don’t actually answer the questions, however. Companies, politicians, and others often respond to questions with pre-packaged statements. This makes sense for the public relations folks, because it gives them control. And it gives them the chance to not say “no comment” — a bad thing for PR folks to do — even as they provide no actual comment.
But it makes for many non-responsive responses, which can be frustrating for journalists who would like to ask follow-up questions on behalf of their audiences. And it wastes time for already-strapped-for-time journalists, who have to decide if it’s worth the time to reach out for a more responsive response.
That leads to a question for the journalist: How much of of a non-responsive response do you publish?
An April 2019 example from The Dothan Eagle shows that sometimes, printing the entire answer just isn’t worth it.
The story tells of Jostens, a national company that sells caps and gowns and other stuff to high schools and colleges, losing a $3.1 million lawsuit to competitor Herff Jones and its local distributor. The jury ruled that a former Herff Jones salesman stole trade secrets when he went to work for Jostens, allowing Jostens to take sales away from Herff Jones.
The reporter dutifully reached out to Jostens for comment. The company replied with not so much an answer as it did a sales pitch:
“Jostens is currently reviewing its options related to the verdict. In the meantime, our focus remains on continuing to provide the high quality of products and services that schools have come to expect from Jostens, which is no way impacted by the verdict in this case,” the company said.
Translation: “We aren’t commenting on being caught stealing stuff. But we sell good things.”
It’s not much different from press conference scene, in the 1987 movie Raising Arizona, where Nathan (Huffines) Arizona answers reporters’ (sometimes-stupid) questions about his son’s kidnapping but ends with a sales pitch: “But remember it’s still business as usual at Unpainted Arizona. If you can find lower prices anywhere, my name still ain’t Nathan Arizona!“
The ethics questions:
* Do you have an ethical obligation to tell audiences that the company replied in a statement?
* Do you publish the entire quote, or just the first sentence?
* Do you turn it into an indirect quote? “In a prepared statement, Jostens said it is reviewing its options.”
* Do you use an indirect quote that points out that Jostens managed to turn a non-response response about stealing from a competitor into a sales pitch? “In a prepared statement, Jostens said it is reviewing its options. It then said its loss had nothing to do with what it called ‘the high quality’ products and services it sells.”
* Do you shows readers the questions, if any, you asked the company?
* How transparent should news organizations be in explaining the pas de deux between news organizations and subjects they seek for comment?