Oregonian editorial page editor dies (after paying a college student for sex)

How would you have identified the person while still protecting anonymity?

I probably wouldn't have allowed for anonymity on what, at the time, seemed like a standard obituary.

 

Absolutely with you on this one Versatile.

 

Easy to say in hindsight, but I don't know why the editor would say anything about the details in the first place.

It's obvious her loyalties were with her deceased colleague and his family and not with the newspaper, which is fine. But then just say "I don't know" if anyone asks about the details. If that raises red flags, so be it. But it should have been pretty obvious from the start that a story about dying alone in his car was not going to be discovered to be a lie at some point.

 

"I don't know" would have also been a lie.

 

Then don't be the source for the news in the first place, or finesse your way around an embarrassing detail. Use "I can't say." or "You'd better confirm that with an official source." or "I've told you all I can." or "That wasn't a big part of my conversation with the family."

What you do NOT do is make your employer -- and, on a more personal level, a COLLEAGUE -- look foolish by intentionally lying.

Trying to protect a friend and his family is fine. Doing it at the expense of your professional ethics, the company that butters your bread and a coworker you've worked alongside for however many months (or years) -- is incomprehensible (yes, I understand the meaning of the word) and unacceptable. Unacceptable.

How could someone have done that to a coworker?

YOU DO NOT DO THIS.

 

Right. They should have fired her. And they did.

If presented with this exact situation, I would have told my newspaper's reporter that I don't feel comfortable talking about the death and provided contact information for someone closer to the family. Lying about it could cost you a job, but telling the truth could cost you close friends.

One of the big issues for me is why, on a standard obituary, a source would ever be granted anonymity. That seems to be a decision made simply because the source was an editor at the newspaper.

 

Ding, ding! What do we have for the winners, Bob?

The No. 1 rule in journalism ought to be that you don't knowingly put false information into print. Because not only is that a gross violation of everything we're supposed to stand for, that's also where you validate all the crazy conspiracies about how newspapers lie to further certain agendas.

 

Reminds me of the Skip Carey line when the Braves would have a 'business man's special' day game.

"Looks like a lot of businessmen brought their nieces to the ballpark today."

 

Caray.

 

There were about a dozen ways for her to get around this, other than I don't know, with little trouble, many mentioned here.

 

"I can't speak for the family" is a good phrase to keep in mind.

 

"It's the way he would have wanted to go -- without paying."