As more student media move from being merely a showcase for football players and prom queens to being serious news organizations, not afraid to address controversial or sensitive subjects, they face many of the hazards that have long confronted their commercial counterparts: threats of libel lawsuits, invasion of privacy claims, charges of bias, etc. While such problems are daunting, they need not be crippling. With the exercise of proper caution, the risks of covering a hot, or sensitive, story can be significantly reduced. Toward that end, the Student Press Law Center offers our suggestions for how you can avoid getting burned when the story you are covering is a hot one.
While the nitty-gritty details of libel or privacy law can be confusing, the main ideas are fairly straightforward, generally conforming to common sense. For example, libel law in a nutshell: Don't publish things that aren't true or that you don't have the evidence to reasonably support and don't be a sloppy reporter. Privacy law: don't publish or gather information that is nobody else's business. Common sense also dictates that if you don't understand something or if a story simply doesn't make sense ask enough questions of enough people until it does. If you are confused, rest assured that your readers will be as well.
Your job is to accurately relate the facts of a story to your readers. Go into a story with an open mind and not just looking for information that supports any preconceived version of the story that you might have. Your job is to find and report the facts as they exist. Do not be content with anything less. Good reporting is hard work. Be prepared to invest the time and energy necessary to get the story right. No excuses. If you're not willing or can't do so, leave the story for someone else.
The "Golden Oldie" of libel lawyer advice. Record facts and interviews scrupulously, including who said what and when. If you know you are a weak note taker, invest in a tape recorder.
Get it in writing. If your source tells you during an interview that she acquired her information from an internal memo, ask for a copy of the memo. And then read it to make sure that what your source told you jibes with what's in the memo. Also, whenever possible, cite a public record as your source for information. In most cases, doing so will protect you from liability even if it later turns out the information contained in the public record was wrong.
You are a reporter not a salesman. Get rid of the "bigger is better" mentality. Your football coach who can't account for $1,000 of the team's budget does not need to be labeled "corrupt" or the "ring-leader of the largest financial scandal in school history." "Two sources" is not "many sources" or "a number or sources" - it is "two sources." And it is perfectly okay for a problem to just be a "problem" and not a "crisis." You get the idea. Finally, you should generally avoid the temptation to interpret the facts or reach a conclusion or an opinion for your readers. In covering a sensitive story, it is safer to let the facts speak for themselves.
Either to yourself or to your readers. When interviewing a source, ask yourself if you think he's telling the truth. Does he have a reputation as a liar? Does he have any reason to harm the subject? If you are relying on statistical data or some other published report, establish that source's reliability. If, for example, the manner in which the statistics were compiled has been reasonably questioned, say so in your story. Remember that one exceptionally credible source is worth far more than a dozen semi-credible sources. Finally, anonymous sources should be used sparingly. And at least you should know the identity of your confidential source.
Not only does this give a story an essential element of fairness, it also provides you with an opportunity to catch - or at least confirm - parts of a story that may be subject to debate or question.
Sensitive stories are not the place to show off your literary talents. Leave the flowery prose and melodrama for the features page. Write carefully and purposefully. Edit out sources or subjects that do not contribute to the "core" of a story. They are potential plaintiffs. Delete unnecessary (even though interesting) allegations. Tell what you know and how you know it. No more. No less.
Prior to publication, ask others to look at your story and offer their criticisms or suggestions. After working endless hours on a story, "fresh eyes" are essential for catching gaps, inconsistencies, confusing phraseology, mistaken attributions and all of the other small traps that are forever hidden to one who has already read the copy twenty times. This is also the time to contact your adviser, an attorney, the Student Press Law Center or someone else well-versed in media law if you have specific questions about the legality of a story. An ounce of prevention sure beats sitting in court.
Forget the little details upon which you have focused so long and hard. Read the story through one last time. Taken as a whole, are there any obvious questions you failed to ask or glaring sources you didn't contact (for example, a person in a room who witnessed a key - and disputed - meeting)? Look at your story from different points of view. Do you believe each of your subjects and sources would feel they were treated fairly (even if they didn't like the story itself)? What about headlines and subheads - are they fair and accurate? Are the graphics, photos and accompanying captions correct and not misleading? The bottom line: make sure the story makes sense to you and fairly presents the facts as you know them.
Studies have shown that a person who perceives that he or she has been treated rudely or arrogantly by a media organization is far more likely to sue than one who believes that they have been shown the proper respect. Select one person - preferably a "people person" - to whom all complaints should be referred. While that person should not admit fault or provide information about specific newsgathering practices, he or she should listen carefully to the caller's complaints, promise to investigate the matter - and then do so. Where a correction or retraction is appropriate, publish it in a timely fashion.
As a student, you're not supposed to know it all. And ask for that help sooner rather than later. It's much easier to put out a brush fire than a forest fire.