What Ethics Should Writers Have?

Speaking of my reviews, I didn't post when, back in May, I reviewed Julie Salamon's Hospital. I was troubled by this book, and I have been wanting for some time to expand a little on what I touched on in my review.

Julie Salamon is a talented writer, one of those reporters whose powers of observation are nearly Holmes-ian. (Perhaps now we would say House-ian.) But I feel that she crossed a line in this book by bringing her megawatt powers of exposure to people whose lives could be harmed by this kind of attention. Although the director of the Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn gave Salamon full access and encouraged the staff to co-operate with her, it still does not seem fair for hard-working doctors to have details of their lives, or scraps of conversation and gossip, thrown into the open for no purpose other than Salamon's needing something to write about. Yes, it is interesting to know how a big-city hospital copes with its many challenges. Ultimtaely, though, the approach Salamon takes seems more appropriate for a scandalous subject, or truly bad-hearted people.

How can it possibly help the morale of the hospital or the giving of care for details about doctors' feuds over money to be published? How does it help matters to look for dirt on these skilled professionals? Of course there's always dirt: all human beings are bound to have failings--greed and egotism among them in the medical world.

But so what? The real question is whether the airing of those faults is useful information for the public. And in the case of Hospital, the answer is no. I very much doubt people will be able to make better choices about their care by reading her book, and I am certain that the reputations of some of the doctors she writes about will suffer.

Freelance writers do not need to subscribe to a code of ethics, but the same scruples that an honest journalist would take should apply: don't needlessly savage subjects' reputations; respect their privacy; understand the boundaries of their co-operation.

And speaking of ethics: I was at first delighted to see that another reviewer shared my point of view about this book. But when I read a little further, I found that the similarities went deeper. The Austin American-Statesman's review, which ran about a month after mine, uses some phrases that curiously echo my own. Whereas I say:

"Despite the fact that Brier is the successful leader of a competitive New York City hospital, where she contends with easily bruised egos, community tensions, runaway expenses and local politics (and with the aftereffects of injuries she sustained in an auto accident shortly before taking the job), Salamon wants us to see her as a bit of a nut case."

... the Statesman reviewer says:

"Salamon's intent, clearly, is to portray Brier as something of a freak."

"something of a freak" seems like a word-for-word substitution for "a bit of a nut case."

Or how about this. First, me:

"In meetings, Brier 'would get up while someone was talking, walk to a cabinet, pull out a bag of popcorn, and pour it into bowls.' Is that such a heinous offense? How about this one: 'During a telephone call with a fellow hospital president, she might make a truly odd pronouncement, like, "I want you to know I’m considered one of the great constipation experts in the borough of Brooklyn." ' Never mind that 200 pages later Salamon provides the context that makes this statement less an 'odd pronouncement' than a caring, if tongue-in-cheek, admonition to a hospitalized colleague."

Now, the Statesman reviewer:

"We also get physical descriptions and personality tics, especially the 'odd behaviors' of Maimonides President and CEO Pamela Brier, whom Salamon dings — unfairly, I think — for the unremarkable habit of rising during meetings to straighten curtains and pour popcorn into bowls while others are talking. Early in the book, Salamon offers, without context, this seemingly bizarre quote from Brier: 'I want you to know I'm considered one of the greatest constipation experts in the borough of Brooklyn.' [snip] Near the end of 'Hospital,' we're finally given the context for the offending quote: Brier is speaking to a doctor who is recovering from surgery and may, indeed, be in need of a constipation expert."

Coincidence? I wonder.