PressEthic

I just finished Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.” It is a good book, providing an in depth and personal look at the people in this country who work full time for pitifully low wages.

However, the way she did the research is somewhat controversial. Is what she did ethical? By not telling the people around her that she was a journalist, did she deceive them and invade their privacy?

In “News Reporting and Writing” (2003), Melvin Mencher writes:

Some journalists condemn this kind of reporting. They point out that journalists have exposed intrusions of privacy by credit investigators and some governmental agencies. Journalists cannot, they say, set themselves apart from the rules that apply to others. 282

I have been told by a couple of professors at NYU that undercover reporting is risky and a journalist should avoid it. Professors have told me that the first thing I should do when covering a story is announce that I am a reporter and explain what I am doing.

But I am not sure that Ehrenreich would have procured the same information if she investigated this story in any other way. If she openly confronted managers, their responses would have been, most likely, prepared and cautious. And, most managers would not allow their employees to talk to a journalist, at least not at work anyway. Even if Ehrenreich did talk to the same employees, they would have changed their demeanor and responded differently if they knew she was a reporter.

Mencher writes:

We know what happens when a television crew arrives at an event. Drones become animated. Reserved people begin to gesticulate. Reality is altered. … Even the reporter’s pencil and paper can distort the event. Every reporter experiences the trying moment when, after chatting with a source to put him or her at ease, it is time to reach for a pencil and notepad. In an instant, the mood changes. 281-282

Ehrenreich might have found similar information by investigating in an upfront way, but would the story be as compelling? Would it seem so authentic?

Of course, I don’t think that Ehrenreich hurt anyone by writing this book. She makes an effort to note that her coworkers were not surprised or upset by what she did. On the other hand, it’s safe to say that she angered a lot of managers and executives at the companies where she worked by writing this book. But, she got to the truth, and that is the important thing, right? Does the end justify the means?