Response to email scrutiny

I’ll begin with this.  I see nothing wrong with the use of the email and its quotations.  The email was sent to people for the purpose of being read.  It was not from a private account.  It was from an account that was and is paid for by tax dollars and monitored by the University.  The journalist obviously did his or her homework in writing this obituary and found the email.  Presumably, the quotations of the email contained nothing but condolences for the family and words of admiration for the departed.  It would not have harmed those hurting the most, the family of the deceased.  Having found the email, I believe the journalist was within his or her bounds to publish it. 

However, I also believe he or she should have talked to the professor beforehand.  While the reporter has done nothing that is legally wrong, he or she has potentially burned a bridge in the journalism department.  In a job market like this, one cannot afford to do that.  Similarly, it is usually in better taste for softer news like an obituary to inform people that their correspondences are being published.  Doing this can establish a good reputation as a journalist.  Similarly, when a reporter informs the professor of his or her intent, the conversation could shine new light on the deceased and lead the reporter to friends that knew the deceased better.  Similarly, the actions of the reporter reflect on the entire Missouri School of Journalism.  Despite its’ legality, such actions can reflect negatively on the school and possibly impact thousands of other journalists in their quests for credibility and careers.

I do not doubt that this probably crossed the reporters mind.  He or she probably considered all these pros and cons.  If I had to guess, the decision came down to deadlines and/or workload.  The reporter probably did not have the time to confirm something that they already knew that they had permission to do.  It is another step that slows the process of publication.  Our society values and rewards those who break the story first.  While an obituary is not breaking news, it is accompanied by content that is.  That content cannot be published with an incomplete obituary section.  Similarly, breaking news demands more time and energy.  Reporters make their mark breaking stories, not writing obituaries.  If I had to guess the reporter probably had other stories on their plate and deemed the obituary of low priority, diminishing their need to verify the email quotations. 

In short, I believe that in situations like this it really depends on the circumstances and the journalist themselves.  They must choose what to do.  If they feel comfortable possibly alienating a source in pursuit of a deadline, I do not hold it against them.  Journalism and life in general is about making hard choices.  If one can make a hard choice and be able to defend that choice on scrutiny with no regrets, I think they should go for it.