An Open Newsroom

By Kelly Carr
October 28, 2008 04:49 PM

By Kelly Carr
October 28, 2008

Battle Creek buzzed earlier this month as rumors spread that a big company was planning to build inside or within miles of the city’s limits. If true, this would be a  substantial news story. The possibility of new jobs in this tough economy is an important story in any part of the county, but in Michigan, a company’s commitment can transform a community.

It wasn’t long before the frenzy trickled into the newsroom of the city’s paper, the Battle Creek Enquirer, sending reporters scouring for information to print. Early reporting revealed that it was an alternative energy company planning to enter to the area. Later, they learned the name of the company from sources off the record.

But the Enquirer still didn’t have a source willing to name the company in its newspaper. The reporters also lacked documents to back up the details they were hearing.  Until they had something concrete, the information was stuck in the newsroom, or at least until reporter Darby Prater was given a document that would change everything.

Prater, who covers the nearby city of Marshall, reviewed a series of city council documents on Oct. 10 with the Enquirer’s Metro Editor Eric Greene. The paperwork detailed a series of tax breaks for a big company that was considering building nearby Battle Creek in Marshall. They both knew it was the company everyone was talking about. But the company’s name on the documents was covered with liquid eraser. Instead of blacking out the name and photocopying the document for the reporter, which was the usual method, city officials covered the information with White-out.

Greene held the documents in his hands, staring at white chipped residue that covered the company’s name. Curiosity prompted his next move. He took his thumb and began to rub off the white specks. One of the letters of the company’s name appeared, so he kept scratching.

Within minutes, the document told Greene the company was United Solar Ovonic, an alternative energy manufacturer. Now, the staff at the Enquirer had to decide what to do with the information they had uncovered. Should they run a story to tell the public about the company, a move that may hurt the deal? Or would they wait and keep the information secret until an official announcement was made?

“My instinct was always to use this in print. We had never had anyone say if you use the name you will jeopardize the project,” Greene said. “If the company decided they would change their plans based on a newspaper story that said something about the company. This was a hot rumor and a lot of people wanted to know, including us.”

A discussion about the benefits and consequences of running the name in the Enquirer was held between Greene, Prater, a former business reporter, Stacy Hanna, and Enquirer Executive Editor Michael McCullough. A media lawyer was consulted. A high-ranking city official confirmed the name in a conversation. Then, the staff learned that Michigans governor Jennifer M. Granholm would announce the company’s commitment to Battle Creek three days later. After weighing their options, the Enquirer ran the story.  Follow-up stories came too over the next few days.

United Solar Ovonic, the paper reported on Oct.13, planned to build a $220 million plant in Battle Creek that would create at least 350 new jobs in the next three years. The story detailed the deal and unveiled the company for area residents.

The staff was unsure at first how the public, city officials and  company executives would respond to their coverage. But Greene says so far he’s received no negative calls, e-mails or letters to the editor. His column explaining how the Enquirer’s discovered the name and later reported it, however, has sparked pages of reader comments. The story is now a forum for debate between those who agree with the newspaper’s decision and those who don’t.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Enquirer’s methods in discovering the name or the editor’s decision to run with the story, there is a lesson here. The fact that the issue was openly discussed between reporters and top editors, that a dialogue ensued in the newsroom to adequately vet the decision, is a vital part of a culture that’s missing in many newsrooms today.

Too frequently, especially in the world of faced-paced information, important ethical and complicated coverage decisions are made by a reporter in isolation. Editors or other reporters are left out of the mix and decisions are not thoroughly discussed. Reporters’ inability or unwillingness to ask for help and guidance on complicated coverage matters can lead to hefty ethical problems for any media outlet. Imagine if the reporter scratched off the name of the company, reported it in a story and never explained to his/her editors how the information was obtained. What if there was a huge fallout from the story, legal ramifications? What if the reporter got it wrong?

Several years ago I was a reporter in this Battle Creek newsroom, working a beat under Greene. Several sticky situations came up, as they always do in a newsroom, and open discussion about how to handle the issues always ensued. That practice has stayed with me.

Since then, I have witnessed other newsrooms where this practice of open debate is not the norm; places where editorsare too busy to stop and weigh coverage decisions and places where the fast pace of the now 24-hour news cycle forces reporters to make split-second, important decisions alone. At the Enquirer, the editors’ decisions may not always be popular, but it’s the openness of the newsroom and the spirited discussion that ensure ethics always remain top of mind.

Please enter your friend's e-mail address

Please enter your e-mail address

If you would like to include a message, please add it here:

Copyright © 2008 Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism