As a citizen who reads the news and watches many reports on television faithfully, I understand that reporters have to interview persons that they don’t know (or understand) and that contact with the public is not always an easy task. There is often competition from other media sources to get an exclusive or juicy tidbit and this raises the tension level for persons conducting the interview (and those that might be interviewed).
Reporters often don’t have the time or the resources to meet every person they interview and first contact with many potential “interviewees” is often made using the telephone. Sometimes this struggle for communication goes badly. One phone message left on a recorder could have been ignored or misinterpreted; a second represents a confirmation of sorts, that an offer is out there to be interviewed. Why would a reporter leave a third message for someone to respond when two previous messages had not been returned? This starts to cross that blurry line called “harassment”.
Reporters should not be immune to rules of conduct that would otherwise apply to any good citizen or professional (unless you subscribe to tabloid or paparazzi tactics/mentality). If you call persons and you are sure about the number you’ve called, by all means leave a (one) message. If no one answers and an answering machine will accept your message, it’s understood that any call worth making deserves at least one message, maybe two. So make them good (clear and concise) ones, in the interest of your time and theirs.
Answering machines or phone-mail have become a new mode of communication for just about every person who owns or has access to a telephone. Phone etiquette shouldn’t have to be written in stone, but leaving multiple messages of equal or lesser value for the recipient represents the equivalent of spam. More specifically, leaving multiple (3 or more) “call me” messages on someone’s answering machine for the purposes of soliciting an interview could easily be perceived as some kind of harassment.
Not to single out Demorris Lee of the Raleigh News and Observer, he is only a staff reporter who is doing what he believes to be his job, but would he be at least somewhat annoyed if every one of his contacts left multiple messages (at least 3) on his answering machine for every article or subject that he was to write about? Probably. Most persons only want one message from a single caller with pertinent contact information, some useful information and a question or two so that they can make a decision about whether or not to return the call to any persons who leave messages. Leaving two messages is certainly forgivable. Three messages means that someone is wasting their time (and/or someone else’s), or starting to.
Whatever code of conduct that reporters subscribe to at the N&O is probably not unusual. There’s no joy in singling out a single newspaper or reporter. Not every phone call a reporter makes deserves a response either. Not all persons (sources) involved in a story have the time or inclination to make an official statement concerning recent events. It also deserves to be noticed that when a reporter calls on what could be one of the worst days of a persons life about something they’ve not completely assimilated in their own mind, that these persons will not (and should not) respond (or be forced to) say something that might later be regretted.
I understand District Attorney Jim Hardin’s decision not to pursue this (harrassment charge?) issue in court and support him. I also understand that Staff Reporter Demorris Lee has a professional obligation to fairly report on the persons and events he has been assigned. The Raleigh Police shouldn't be faulted for not scheduling an appointment during business hours to arrest Mr. Lee either. These events do not mean that every potential interviewee should be called or courted thrice for every interview or that persons that receive messages from him (or other media persons) are obligated to return a “no comment”.
What this means is, that when we decide to communicate with each other as human beings, it should not instantly become an adversarial situation. First time contacts with persons you don’t know aren’t based on love or trust, and they can often be awkward (especially after experiencing some form of victimization). If some of us (victims?) act with occasional reservation or reluctance that is normal and should be expected. Some persons will require time and additional information before they are going to be ready to comment for reporters.
When you reach into someone’s home and leave a message, it’s worth doing this carefully. The content or tone of the messages left behind may not be inflammatory or intended to cause irritation, but the frequency of certain messages can be perceived to be.
These issues shouldn't have to be settled in court. Potential news sources (victims?) shouldn't be burdened with having to understand the nuances of the "escalation process" or management structure of a newspaper if they have a problem with a staff reporter either. After all, it wasn't Ruth A. Brown's choice to be the "news piece of the day". Unfortunately, in this all too litiguous society that we live in, it might sometimes be necessary to escalate with the help of police when the public is "harrassed" by the media.
Just maybe such an "escalation" was not appropriate this time... (did a magistrate suggest contacting newspaper editors first, before signing an arrest warrant?). Hopefully all parties involved are wiser for this recent experience.
Calls hardly a crime
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/sill/story/1877013p-8210313c.html
Hardin's good call
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/1871396p-8205740c.html
