Reporters: Helpmates or Irritants

"Had there been a reporter along with Lieutenant Calley when he massacred those people in Vietnam, I think that probably wouldn't have happened."~Bob Schieffer, CBS News

Greetings once again. Coming across that quote about “Rusty” Calley struck a chord -- actually a couple chords -- for me. First, I too was an Army lieutenant in Vietnam. As executive officer of a battery of self-propelled 155mm howitzers, I had ultimate responsibility for the deaths of more than 100 Vietnamese, all of whom (I fervently hope) were enemy combatants.

Second, Calley emerged just a couple weeks ago from whatever quiet existence he was leading to admit his own guilt in the My Lai massacre in an extraordinary speech before a service club somewhere in mid-America. Calley actually watched as his men dealt out more than 300 deaths. Most were women, children and the elderly, none of them armed. It was mass murder.

Schieffer was right on the money, particularly when you think about My Lai’s place in America’s tragic Vietnam story. But the veteran CBS newsman’s remark also made me think about what it means to have a reporter hanging around. The sort of free publicity inherent in a journalist’s presence -- far less dramatic than My Lai to be sure, but still relevant day to day -- can be both a blessing and an impediment.

What I’m referring to is a two-sided personal phenomenom. First, as a journalist (Kansas City Star, Business Week, Penn State faculty), I believed in full disclosure pushed as far as the law allowed: No secret meetings or hearings; couching “no comments” as an admission of malfeasance at worst, passive ignorance at the least; protection of confidential sources without whom investigative journalism would be well-nigh impossible (sounds a bit hypocritical, doesn’t it?); and detailed probes into the background of anyone seeking high-profile public office.

But now I’m the chair of a school board in Maine, and that changes everything. I want to control what appears in the local newspaper. I can’t get all the way there, of course, but I have tried to manipulate the beat reporter by warning her ahead of time when I have something “newsworthy” to say.

By the same token, I’m amazed at how many times I’ve tried to direct the board’s conversation onto safe, noncontroversial ground when a reporter is in the audience. Worse, on way too many occasions I’ve uttered something to the effect of, “I wouldn’t be saying this if that reporter were sitting here.”

So it depends on which master you serve. But how does that apply for someone -- perhaps you -- who hopes to get the most out of any press encounter? When I run media relations seminars for government agencies, nonprofits and companies, the first topic I address is “agenda.” There’s a misconception out there that reporters routinely pursue political or personal agendas in the way they cover stories.

Well, yes, there is an agenda. But in nearly all cases, the agenda is themselves. They seek recognition from peers, promotion, higher pay, a steady climb up the professional ladder to top editor, a job in DC, an international posting, etc. They love the limelight, the front-row seat on history and the front-page byline or 30-second “on camera” time. The best of them are obsessively curious about their fellow human beings, politics, science, natural disasters, technology, sports, you name it. As columnist Anna Quindlen puts it, “Being a reporter is as much a diagnosis as a job description.”

So please keep this in mind: Automatically distrusting reporters could be a lost opportunity. Welcoming them to your place of business or nonprofit and feeding their curiosity and professional pride by offering to act as a source (“on background,” perhaps) could be a lasting step in the right direction. Trust them until they give you a reason not to. If that happens, by all means fight back. Go directly to their editors or producers and tell them you’ve been wronged. That way, you’re going after their only real agenda -- themselves and their future.

Take care.

Dave