by Stacey Sheridan
As journalists, one of our main duties is to “give voice to the voiceless” – the entities, both alive and inanimate, that cannot defend themselves after being taken advantage of by those in power. The Society of Professional Journalists even says journalists should “give voice to the voiceless” in its code of ethics. The notion of giving that voice is so ingrained in journalism that the phrase has become something of an old chestnut. Award-winning public radio journalist Stephanie Kuo tweeted a picture of a hand holding a microphone out to an open-mouthed opossum with the facetious caption, “I went into journalism to tell important stories and give a voice to the voiceless.”
Overused the expression may be, it is still a noble and important endeavor to hold power accountable and provide a platform to the disenfranchised, the overlooked, the ignored to tell their tales. “I think we are the only opportunity for people who don’t have a voice or feel like they have nowhere to turn to get help,” says broadcast investigative reporter Stephanie Wade of RTV6 Indianapolis. “At least once a week, I’m working on a story that gets help for viewers.”
At the time of our interview, a story of Wade’s exemplifying giving voice to the voiceless was a few hours away from airing. “An apartment complex was withholding a woman’s security deposit and she never stepped foot in the apartment,” Wade recounts.
Wade contacted the building’s management company and was told that the company would never withhold a prospective tenant’s security deposit. A few hours later, the company emailed Wade to admit that, after further review, they did in fact keep the woman’s deposit. The woman’s money was subsequently returned to her. “If I were to not step in to shine a light on wrongdoing, this woman would never have her money back,” says Wade. Grateful viewers frequently thank Wade for exposing wrongdoing.
Some of the biggest changes in history were made in response to journalists publishing the stories of the voiceless. Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” detailed the harmful effects of pollution and pesticides. Her discoveries, whether directly or indirectly, led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA today may be said without exaggeration to be the extended shadow of Rachel Carson,” wrote Jack Lewis in an article for the EPA Journal.
Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” prompted the government to create the Food and Drug Administration. More contemporary examples include the Boston Globe’s investigation into the Catholic Church uncovered widespread instances of child sexual abuse at the hands of priests and the Church’s efforts to cover it up. As a result, people all over the Earth came forward with their own personal accounts of being abused by priests. The investigation took the world by storm. The Church was forced to at least acknowledge the problem publicly.
It is hard not to identify with those who have suffered or been done an injustice. Through interviews and research, journalists become hyper-aware of the damage – whether emotional, physical or financial – inflicted on others. However, journalists need to take “giving voice to the voiceless” with a grain of salt. That creed, when taken quite literally, has its pitfalls. Holding too steadfastly to the belief, journalists run the risk of losing objectivity and veering into advocacy, subsequently compromising their journalistic integrity.
“It’s totally hard,” Wade says, to avoid the trap of advocacy and remain objective while interviewing the voiceless. “I do get passionate and we’re going to work for our viewer, but there has to be objectivity.” To make sure her own feelings aren’t coloring her reporting, Wade has several managers read through her scripts.
When reporting, Wade is mindful of fairness, another journalistic rule of thumb. She gives all parties equal opportunity to share their account of the events that prompted her to investigate. “It’s gravely important to give both sides equal airtime and represent the situation fully, as close to the truth as possible.”
Rolling Stone has become something of a poster child for the pitfalls of overly identifying with those not in power, as well as the necessity of fairness, objectivity and detail substantiation in reporting. In 2014, the magazine published the infamous 9,000-word article, “A Rape on Campus,” detailing the brutal gang rape of a woman at a fraternity party at the University of Virginia. The article vilified the fraternity, the university and its associate dean of students. The problem? The rape never happened. Swept up in the so-called victim’s story, the journalist, the fact checkers and the editors all failed to verify the story, despite it having many inconsistencies. Nor did the publication attempt to interview the accused attackers, whose even existence is questionable. Rolling Stone retracted the article, but damage had already been inflicted on the school’s and the fraternity’s reputations. Faced with defamation lawsuits, the magazine ended up paying the fraternity $1.65 million in damages. The associate dean received $3 million. The magazine’s credibility took a paralyzing hit.
Two of the biggest journalistic guidelines – giving voice to the voiceless and fairness and objectivity in reporting – are a bit at odds with each other. The former has the inherent bias that institutionalized clout is wrong, while the underdog is right. As with Rolling Stone, that is not always the truth. Yet being fair and objective does not outrank the need to publicize injustices and demand answerability. Nor does being fair and objective mean that reporters must be as unemotional as robots.
“If I’m interviewing a mother who just lost your teenage son to gun violence, you can feel sad for them,” Wade says. “I think that shows your humanity.” If journalists are stoic and impassive, people will feel uncomfortable in their presence and unlikely to confide in them. Without the confidence of subjects, the pool of stories to tell dwindles.
“If you’re doing a confrontational interview and you’re holding someone accountable, feel free to be strong, you know, and represent who you are representing and fight for them,” Wade also says. Journalists should not throw them softball interview questions.
Whether writing for broadcast or print, the tone of your reporting must always be responsible and appropriate. Fairness in reporting means telling both sides of a story, even when natural inclinations push you more toward the side of the victimized. By all means, give a voice to the voiceless and hold power accountable, but never forsake fairness. The two guidelines work best as checks and balances to each other. Using them as such will not only protect a reporter’s credibility but add complexity and depth to their stories.
-30-