I'm in the middle of a sticky situation. Here's the story...A freelance writer is writing a story on the practice of Reiki. The PR peeps at a local hospital set him up with a patient to interview knowing that the patient (we'll call her Ann) doesn't want her last name used in the story. The hospital people also work with our photographer in setting up a photo shoot with Ann while she is having Reiki.
Half of us think it's awkward for us to publish a photo with Ann without using her last name in the story. The other half of us think it's no big deal. What would you do in this situation? Please leave a comment!
Posts
10 comments:
Why would a source agree to be photographed but not give her last name? That doesn't make any sense to me. I'd explain to her that given that her first name and photo will be there, her last name may as well be too. But if she isn't easily identifiable in the photograph, then I don't think using just her first name is a problem. The overall problem is a PR team/reporter too lazy to find someone willing to give their first and last name. That shouldn't be hard to find.
bah- no big deal! as a reader, i don't really care what her last name is...
As a reader, I don't care either, but a lack of last name makes me wonder if the patient things Reiki is weird or something...
i wouldn't add her name. names can be googled if the story ends up on the web.
wow -- a real discrepancy between journalist and reader...thanks for the input guys!
Nothing strange about it at all. I once worked a hospital photo gig (involving ultrasound procedures) and I had to fill out a medical privacy/nondisclosure agreement with HR before I could even set foot in the hospital. No names or recognizable faces allowed unless the patient(s) signed a permission form to that effect. In our litigious society it helps to remember that covering one's ass is always a pretty good idea (even if things border on the paranoid).
In this instance I would simply respect the patient's request and move on. And I wouldn't fret that readers will find it "odd". Some might, most won't. I think it's quite normal for many people to keep their medical information and procedures somewhat private, and I suspect that many readers interested in learning about this treatment will understand this. I read articles with singular names as sources or photo captions all the time - very common in documentary pieces and not at all unexpected in anything related to health and medicine - alternative or otherwise! Good luck!
PS - Totally unrelated, but speaking of singular first names: When I was in college I read about a national history quiz given to high schoolers across the US. One of the questions on the quiz (multiple choice) asked students to identify Chernobyl. An embarrassing percentage of students - nearly a quarter of them - thought that Chernobyl was Cher's full name.
I'd say make mention of it in the article that she wasn't comfortable giving her last name (Ann _____ asked that we keep her last name confidential, etc., etc.) to show that it wasn't a reporting lapse.
Though, I still think it's odd that she's willing to put her first name and photo out there.
As a reader, I would think it's odd. As others have said, why a photo but no last name? I am not sure what the angle of the story is, but it wouldn't seem right to have a feature story sourced mainly to someone who didn't feel comfortable sharing their name, especially a source for a story on this topic because it really discredits their insight.
I agree the hospital is at fault here. Why would they give you someone for a story who isn't entirely committed. I keep coming back to the sense that this a story on Reiki. Unless she's getting treatment for something truly private, I cannot understand why the secrecy. How can she make us a believer if she clearly isn't?
I found myself in a somewhat similar situation a few years ago, when I wrote a feature on the prevalance of drinking among young women. All of the women I followed were fine with their whole names being used, but I thought their candor would be incredibly damaging to them, because they were mostly college seniors who were about to enter the job market. I decided, after much deliberation and discussion with my editors, to leave their last names out. Do I regret that decision? Not at all. That being said, Reiki doesn't have the potential to damage someone's reputation — unless this hospital is practicing a form of Reiki that I'm not familiar with :-) I guess I don't get the reluctance — it's not like she's at a methadone clinic or something.
After all that, though, the one thing I can't wrap my head around is why the reporter would just use the person the hospital provided and not try to find his or her own source — one who doesn't mind using a last name.
Thanks everyone! I think it's all going to work out...the patient decided it would be ok to use her last name after all. I let her take a look at the article and she was pleased with it. Sheesh!
Post a Comment