by Lily Lowndes

I have always believed that journalism is a function of justice. As journalists, we are truth-tellers. We seek to bring injustices to light, whether those injustices come from a company, government body or an individual.

What I also believed was that the harmful actions of these companies, government bodies and individuals were indicative of their characters. I was at peace with any consequences they might face after reporters brought their stories to light. If they did something wrong, there were no excuses.

Of course, the reporting must be fair, but it should not cushion the harm that was done. Justice must be enacted through tough, no-nonsense coverage.

These were my beliefs until I read an article where I knew the subject facing no-nonsense coverage. Having a real connection to this person and reading the subsequent articles about their actions changed my outlook on how journalists report on private citizens.

As journalists, we must take extra care to ensure to be fair when covering a private citizen and their actions.

Last fall, Block Club Chicago and the Chicago Tribune both ran stories about a DePaul student distributing fliers to a homeless encampment announcing free housing at a nearby hotel. These fliers not only turned out to be false, but they were a publicity stunt for the student’s mayoral campaign.

If a reader did not read beyond the headline of the story, they might assume terrible things about this student, that they likely had malicious intent, they are against the unhoused, or they do not have empathy for others.

When Block Club and the Tribune shared their coverage on social media, the backlash this student received was severe. I am not condoning what they did, but I will never support online attacks.

Twitter users commented on the Block Club and Tribune posts writing that the student was a horrible person, calling for DePaul to expel the student and one user even wrote that they should be kicked out of Chicago.

At the time of the incident, the student was a freshman in a class I was mentoring. I was in class with this student, talked one-on-one with them and gave feedback on their assignments. The person that I grew to know was kind-hearted. They did not seem like they would act with malicious intent, nor did they seem like they should be kicked out of Chicago.

Instead of gunning for hard-hitting coverage, for the first time, I was yearning for the reporters to take a more compassionate lens. This student was a minor, only 17 years old. They were not malicious, naive maybe, but I thought that this coverage broke a golden rule of the Society of Professional Journalists: minimize harm.

After reading the articles, I was worried for the student’s well-being. I was angry at the reporters because I could tell what questions they asked and what questions they did not ask. At the end of the article, I had even more questions that were unaddressed in the text.

Even if someone read beyond the headline, they would not find a clear answer to why the student chose to distribute the fliers. Yes, it was a part of her mayoral campaign, but I found it shocking that the reporters did not ask how it would help her campaign or if she had an action plan for the unhoused.

A person is more than their actions. It is imperative that we know not only what a person did, but why they did it. We cannot treat private individuals like they are government bodies or major corporations. These are real people with a backstory and a life before the covered event that happened because there is a difference between enacting justice and reporting something that brings harm and needlessly ruins someone’s life.

-30-