In his November 16 column, New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt examined two instances of the paper’s use of young people as sources. In the first, political reporter Jodi Kantor, trying to find information about Cindy McCain for her profile of the candidate’s wife, reached out to sixteen- and seventeen-year-old classmates of McCain’s daughter, Bridget, through Facebook. In the second, a Times stringer turned to a twelve-year-old witness of alleged police brutality in a New York City subway station.
“How a newspaper like The Times should deal with minors — as news sources and as the subjects of articles — is a continually troubling issue,” Hoyt wrote.
Facebook, MySpace and other such public windows into personal lives have made the issue more complicated. But the fundamental ethical questions remain the same: When is it appropriate to ask a youngster for information? When is it appropriate to quote a child on the record? When is it O.K. to name a minor involved in a crime or other news event?
Hoyt concluded that “children don’t have the life experience to understand what can happen when a reporter comes calling, and a responsible news organization owes them protection whenever it is possible.”
In Sunday’s column, though, Hoyt published a challenge to that maxim. “I would not want the reading public to think that minors are off limits when in fact we need to talk to them in a variety of situations,” James Smith, a veteran newspaper editor, wrote. “Frankly, I have found that young people are more honest about what they see and hear and care about than adults can be.”
In light of that, we return to Hoyt’s original questions: When is it appropriate to ask youngsters for information? How do we define ‘youngsters’ in journalism’s context, anyway? And how should reporters and editors balance a respect for the limitations of information children provide—indeed, a respect for children themselves—and their obligation to their stories?
Every Tuesday, CJR outlines a news-related question and opens the floor for debate. For previous News Meeting topics, click here.
Well, there are different types of stories for which you might interview a child, or for which it would only make sense to interview a child: a trend piece on the latest playground games, for instance. (Take that idea, NYTSunday Style section. It's yours.) It gets trickier when a child is quoted for a story like the police brutality one. But I don't necessarily agree with Hoyt that children are incapable of understanding "what can happen when a reporter comes calling." Today's kids live half their lives on the Internet; they certainly understand how fast some tossed-off words can spread. And I agree with James Smith in that I don't see why a kid's eyewitness testimony would be inherently less trustworthy or worthwhile than an adult's.
A reporter's primary responsibility is to the story. Certainly, treat young sources respectfully and gently -- it's not a bad idea to tell the kid that he's under no obligation to answer a reporter's questions -- but don't refrain from interviewing them solely because of some notion of wanting to protect their innocence, or something like that.
Posted by Justin Peters on Tue 25 Nov 2008 at 03:30 PM
For me the issue is not whether a child can understand that what he or she says to a reporter could be blasted around the world on the Web, but more that a child's understanding of things like human nature, people's motivations, the legal ramifications of certain situations, the fuller, real-world significance or meanings of the things they may have witnessed, etc. are inherently less mature than an adult's. These are things we learn by living, and the fact of the matter is that no matter how savvy they may be in the functionalities of digital media, children have limited life experience. So yes, let's use children as sources, but let's do it with all this in mind and take the necessary precautions.
Posted by Brent Cunningham on Tue 25 Nov 2008 at 04:54 PM
Truth is that there are a lot of things that "can happen when a reporter comes calling", whether you are a kid or an adult.
One of those things is that you might not end up quoted. But whatever you say will still inform the reporting, or perhaps be attributed to a little catch all phrase like "neighborhood residents say". That would seem to resolve any privacy concerns stemming from being underage.
Still, I can think of dozens of situations where quoting a child is not only appropriate but possibly essential--reporting on schools, high school sports, child services, etc.
In those instances, some special care might be taken, but I'm not a fan of any reporting policies that would give parents--or even worse, guardians like teachers, principals, or child services officials (who all have their own institutional priorities)--an iron clad veto to a competent minor's right to speak with a reporter.
Posted by Clint Hendler on Tue 25 Nov 2008 at 05:11 PM
What about a very simplistic rule: if you plan to use children as sources and parents aren't available to offer consent, you have to be your best journalistic self. That means thinking back to your ethics class and following its rules without deviation. If at any point during your pre-interview explanation ("I'm a reporter; I'm writing a story about X; I'd like to ask you some questions; I'm going to print this in a newspaper..." and so on) you're met with any kind of confusion, stop and find someone else.
Posted by Katia Bachko on Tue 25 Nov 2008 at 05:15 PM
I don't think this issue is about whether children can understand being reported or understand things as well as adults, but about whether or not the reporters understand they are interview children and take the appropriate way to do the interviews.
I can think of some instances in which children and their families were hurt a lot by some reporters who only care about their stories. Also, I can think of some good jobs with children as sources.
Posted by Jingxue Wang on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 12:26 AM
I wrote the first book-length expose of abuse in "tough love " "struggling teen" residential programs and many articles on the subject. The program operators had told parents never to believe stories of abuse and neglect from their own children about these places, because those were just "lies" and "manipulation."
This story would have been impossible to cover without talking to teens without their parents permission. Many of the parents still believed programs that starved, beat, sexually humiliated, isolated, restrained and sometimes actually tortured kids had "saved my child's life."
I was very clear with the teenagers about what I was doing and put no pressure on them to use their real names and identifying info-- many wanted to do so because they wanted their stories told and the abuse stopped.
I also spoke with many parents who believe their teens and these kids, too, of course-- I want to be clear that many parents who send their kids to these places have no idea about the abuse that goes on and crusade against it when they find out.
However, this story couldn't have been told properly if I had had to get parental permission to talk to these kids. And there are lots of stories like this about foster care and other situations in which kids are harmed and need to be able to speak out. This idea of "protecting" children can protect abusers-- and we infantilize teenagers far too much in this society.
Posted by Maia Szalavitz on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 09:31 AM
In response to Brent: Children may have limited life experience, but since when have there been set qualifications for which adults are eligible to be journalistic sources? When I've had to report on something, my sources' understanding of human nature, individual motivations' etc. haven't played much of a role in who I've decided to talk to (although it's determined who I've decided to quote, certainly). Far more important is the question of how much this person knows and what they could potentially tell me. That's a pretty good guide for dealing with anyone, including children--although obviously some journalistic discretion should come into play with younger sources. It's just bad form to write a story around someone who's terrified, impressionable, or not totally cognizant of the kinds of situations that would make a journalist want to talk to them in the first place...
Posted by Armin Rosen on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 10:46 AM
While using children as sources may, of course, have its merits in particular situations, I agree with Katia that we have to be our "best journalistic" selves in these instances. There's a reason children aren't legally allowed to give consent without parental/guardian permission. Sometimes, they just don't have the ability to fully comprehend the situation or be completely aware of the consequences of their actions or words. This can go for a 5-year-old or a 15-year-old. And while journalists may sometimes be confronted with adults who are in the same boat, I think it's safe to say that sometimes that distinction is more identifiable. Sometimes children are motivated by fear, are simply confused with the question, or have overactive imaginations. And while sometimes they can provide a wealth of resources and information, I think it's important to examine the context of the situation. If something doesn't seem right with the source, keep moving. It's not like they're the only one out there worth quoting.
Posted by Megan McGinley on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 11:15 AM
@Maia: You raise a good point. There's a difference in life experience between a teenager and a third grader, in the same way that there are differences in different children's comprehension (regardless of age) of the reporting process, legal or other repercussions, etc.
Posted by Jane Kim on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 11:19 AM
I am a newspaper journalist and teach Media Ethics at Rowan Univeristy in New Jersey. For me, the best guide when interviewing children is to use the SPJ Code of Ethics.http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
The second part is labeled "Minimize Harm" and it reads, in part:
Journalists should:
— "Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief."
Reporters are increasingly using Facebook as a research tool. I think in the case of the 17-year-olds, it is okay. More caution should be used for sites involving younger children, such as MySpace.
Yes, we want to give voice to the voiceless, such as children. But common sense and compassion must also come into play.
Posted by Kathryn Quigley on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 11:27 AM
Maia makes a great point: a mandate toward parental permission, even beyond the pragmatic challenges it presents, might sometimes be detrimental to a story. To that end, I like Katia's rule: it's flexible enough to fit most individual circumstances, and addresses most of the concerns about kids-as-sources expressed here.
But, then, I wonder what you guys think about this. In a Sept/Oct 1999 CJR article, Elizabeth Stone quoted a NYT journalist who was working with teenagers for a piece in the Times Education Supplement: "I sat down and told them explicitly, ‘I’m here as a writer for a newspaper and not as your friend although I will try and make you think I’m your friend. I’m following you hoping you’ll say something revealing, but if you do, you have the right to say Don’t print that.’"
The journalist continued, telling Stone, "I don’t normally do this, but I promised them that before I sent the story to the editor I would let them know any fact about them individually that was going to appear. And they could tell me then that it was off the record."
What do you guys think of that? Was the journalist in this case being appropriately respectful of her teenage sources, or overly deferential to them? Was she compromising her story?
Posted by Megan Garber on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 11:34 AM
I agree with Brent that the thing to be most aware/cautious of in using children as sources is their lack of, and I'm searching for a non-repetitive phrase here, life experience, but is it uniquely different from the other concerns that a reporter should constantly assess and address with respect to sources -- say, with adults who've never spoken to a reporter before, or who possess a certain naivete?
I think Megan M. makes a good point about this: it's not that there's a huge difference, it's that it might be more difficult to identify the solidity of a child source. And if that's the case, are there additional guidelines to help identify a child's capacity to serve as a source in the first place?
Posted by Jane Kim on Wed 26 Nov 2008 at 11:57 AM