When working on my quotes for our survey article, I realized a friend of mine would have been a good person to talk to about my question (number 7 - "Do you feel safe walking across campus at night?") Her brother was jumped three weeks into school as a freshman at a larger university (not OSU large, but another public institution in the state). He was pretty badly beat up (nose broken - needed surgery, etc) and he was walking with a group of guys!
He didn't go back to that school for the rest of the semester, but he eventually wound up atOWU because of this incident. I wanted to talk to the girl and use her as a source even though she would be biased (extremely, as anyone would believe) because I was hoping to mention this incident and I was hoping she would compare the two schools (OWU and the other school). I knew her brother would have been a good person to talk to, but the girl didn't even want to talk about it without talking to her brother first (and I got the impression she didn't want me talking to her brother about it - she's a protective big sister). How would I have been able to use her bias quotes without touching on WHY she felt that way?
I know her brother would have been a good person to talk to but since she didn't even want to talk about it, I didn't try to contact her brother at all.
The girl is a good friend and I respect her privacy, but wouldn't that have made a good source? Someone who had been in that situation and someone who was so closely connected to campus violence?
1 comment:
Great ethical question. Do you potentially endanger a good friendship to gain an interview with someone you may not know as well to get insightful information about campus violence? This reminds me of investigative reporter Carl Bernstein working personal friendships to gain access to possible key sources of information during the Watergate investigation. If it were me, and the story was so important that risking a friendship was a reality, I would risk the friendship. Or, I might approach the brother to ask him about his incident as a background source, to better understand campus violence. If the brother agreed to talk on the record, great. If he preferred to talk on background (i.e. off the record), I might be OK with that, if it helped flesh out the reality of campus violence. I think in this case, the older, protective sister might be receptive to this approach, if she understood what you (the reporter) were trying to accomplish -- explaining to readers the realities of campus violence on small and big campuses. Also, if the brother feared for his safety, that would be a legimate reason to grant anonymity for sourcing. But bottom line, if the brother is CRUCIAL to the story, I would risk circumventing the sister (and possibly losing a friend in the process) in my attempt to persuade the brother to grant me an interview. I hope this helps.
Post a Comment