An Oct. 23 editorial said in part that “most mainstream news organizations, including the Chicago Tribune, disavow” undercover reporting methods. “Deceptive news-gathering techniques undermine public trust, and they are rarely necessary to find and document important investigative stories,” according to the editorial.
I respectfully disagree, and three Pulitzer Prizes awarded to the Chicago Tribune in the 1970s for local reporting are the foundation for my conviction that undercover reporting is a legitimate and effective way to get at the truth.
All three of those Pulitzers were for stories in which reporters worked undercover. Those stories led to dozens of indictments and convictions, new state and federal laws, and most importantly, the Tribune’s readers and the public at large were well-served by the revelations.
One of the reporters, William H. Jones, who won the Pulitzer as a result of his superb undercover reporting, went on to become the managing editor of the Tribune before his untimely death. The Tribune’s own annual investigative reporting award is named in his memory.
Two Tribune reporters whose undercover efforts were critical to the success of two of the Pulitzer Prize-winning series of stories have gone on to win additional recognition, including another Pulitzer Prize.
Undercover reporting has a rich and historic presence in American journalism. It most certainly is part of the Tribune’s well-deserved reputation for serving the public in a responsible and ethical manner. The undercover stories for which the Tribune received the highest journalism award could not have been told any other way. It’s a form of journalism that demands well-trained, highly ethical reporters and editors to make it serve the public good.
Otherwise, it’s “an invitation to sensationalism and abuse,” as your editorial so clearly stated.
