Yesterday afternoon, a reporter from the Boston Herald called my home number.
A number I never give out professionally. Because, you know, it’s my home number.
A number I have listed under my husband’s name so I’m not easy to find. Because even though I know that my stalker ex-boyfriend from the early 1990’s knows my husband’s name and our current address (pathetic, I know), the many years of dealing with him has left me in the habit of erring on the side of caution when it comes to privacy.
The reporter wanted to ask my opinion about the recent 8-week maternity leave ruling in Massachusetts. I put the reporter on hold so I could get Laurel settled with an activity while I took the call, then asked her how she got my phone number. The conversation went something like this:
Me: “I’m happy to talk to reporters but I never give out this number. I prefer that media contact me by e-mail, as indicated on my website. Can you tell me how you got this number?”
Reporter: “I looked it up in a database.”
Me: “I shouldn’t be in a database. This telephone number is not under my name.”
Reporter: “Actually, I looked it up under your husband’s name.”
Me: “Excuse me? How did you find that information? My husband and I have different surnames and I purposefully list the phone under his name so I’m not easy to find. I prefer to keep my daughter and husband as separate from my public activities as possible.”
Reporter: “We have a special sleuthing database that we pay a lot of money to have access to. It’s the same kind of database that background investigators and the police use.”
Me: [Envision mouth hanging open] “I find that really, really creepy.”
Reporter: “Oh, well don’t worry, you were really hard to find. I don’t think anyone else will be calling you soon.”
As if that was supposed to make me feel better.
Admittedly, as this conversation went down, I was: a) in a state of shock; b) still interested in conversing about the 8-week maternity leave ruling; c) exhausted and emotionally hung over from BlogHer; and d) having flashbacks of sitting at my college public safety office asking them to kick my stalker ex-boyfriend off campus if they saw his car on the property. Had I been in a more lucid state of mind, perhaps I should have refused to speak to her given that she clearly didn’t respect me enough to not violate my privacy. But I did give the interview. And she was actually very nice and we had a very pleasant conversation.
That said, this experience left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Whatever perception one might have of the Boston Herald, it’s still a newspaper. And in my lofty, idealistic world, that means that reporters ought to operate by a code of ethics, which not only includes reporting honestly and with integrity, but not violating the privacy of the people to be interviewed. I know I’m probably more stringent about privacy than most due to my stalker issue + my many years in academia and in HIPAA training, but still, there ought to be standards. I refuse to pass along private email addresses when people ask me to make connections (instead I ping person B and let them know person A wants to connect), much less pimp out private phone numbers. And even if I had access to some expensive database, were I in this reporter’s shoes, I certainly wouldn’t go digging for private information when it takes about 10 seconds to click over to a person’s contact page (which even has an easy to click to Media Inquiries section) and fire off an email.
In the past four years, I have been contacted by media outlets large and small and never, ever has one of these outlets found it necessary to dig for my home phone number via a private investigation database. In fact, just today I received an interview request from WGBH and lo and behold, they contacted me via the media request e-mail address provided on my website.
So Boston Herald, if this is the way you teach your reporters to roll, I suggest you revise your practices. Because sadly, yesterday, one of your reporters acted no better than my stalker ex-boyfriend.
August 10th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Damn. I wish reporters were clamoring for MY husband’s phone number to get MY opinion on mommy shit. As it stands, my 2-year-old won’t even listen when I speak. I say revel.
[Reply]
August 10th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
That is the craziest thing ever…and that she would so freely admit that she was literally being a freaky stalker!
*shudder*
[Reply]
August 10th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
So sorry that happened to you! As a journalist, one of the first lessons we are taught is to reach out to people the way they request to be contacted (or else be pretty much guaranteed not to get the interview). Don’t understand why the Herald reporter made her job harder by trying to be sneaky.
[Reply]
Christine Koh Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Thanks for weighing in Deb; I appreciate hearing from people who are in the business.
You hit on one of the reasons this was so bizarre. Other than my phone number, I’m totally out there. Easy to e-mail. Easy to tweet. Easy to message via my Boston Mamas Facebook page. It’s not rocket science.
[Reply]
August 10th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Ooh..Yikes! I would be livid. There is no reason to dig for someone’s number who clearly doesn’t want to be found. Not good at all.
So sorry! I know that was freaky. I had my own little freak-out this morning because the FedEx guy called my cell. My cell? How did he get that. But I forgot I gave it to the company that was sending my package. Duh.
[Reply]
August 10th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
I had the exact same experience with the Herald about 12 weeks ago. They are icky and I didn’t respond to the call.
[Reply]
August 10th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Ick, ick, ICK! That’s really unprofessional, not just the creepy insistence on finding your personal number, but also the casual attitude with which she dismissed your concerns. NOT ok. She’s lucky you didn’t hang up on her.
[Reply]
August 10th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Sorry, but I don’t see how this incident can fairly be described as either stalking or an invasion of privacy. A reporter made one call to a publicly listed telephone number. That is neither stalking nor invasive.
Had the reporter persisted in calling against your wishes or engaged in subterfuge to get your private information, that would be different. But your preference to be contacted by e-mail does not make it wrong to contact you by phone. Neither is there anything unethical about using a commercial database to look up a publicly listed telephone number.
Yes, I am biased in favor of the news media. I practice media law and worked many years as a journalist. But to equate a single phone call from a reporter with an ex-boyfriend who’s stalked you for years is simply not fair.
[Reply]
Christine Koh Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Dear Bob,
I appreciate your taking the time to weigh in here.
However, I have to disagree that this behavior did not seem invasive. This reporter was not just looking up my name. They were sleuthing to find my husband’s name (different surname than me) in order to get to me. The phone number is publicly listed to him, not me.
Perhaps I should have gone into it further, but the post was already running long and it seemed more complicated… but one reason this incident seemed so bizarre and stalker-like is that the behavior was not necessary. As I commented back to another journalist above, phone number notwithstanding, I am easy to contact, whether by e-mail, Twitter, or a message on the Boston Mamas Facebook page. That is how lots of other media have gotten in touch with me. Yet this reporter thought instead that they should use the Herald’s resources to find me via back channels (she herself said I was hard to find)… just because she could.
In parallel, my stalker used to stake me out periodically and appear in places I was on my way to. He told me he had people watching me at home and en route who would notify him of where I was headed. For no other reason than because he could.
-Christine
[Reply]
August 10th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Creepy, indeed. Yowza. If you were the head of a huge organized crime syndicate and living in exile MAYBE I could see using questionable journalistic tactics to hunt you down - but an article about maternity leave? Really? Come on. BTW I am sure you would kick a#$ as the head of a mafia family.
[Reply]
August 10th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Christine,
I was interviewed by the Globe for the same story today. They found me because I left a comment on one of their stories yesterday a/b the 8 week maternity leave fiasco.
The first word out of the reporter’s mouth? “I couldn’t find your number.” She had contacted me through my web site. My answer “good.” I’m happy to grant interviews but I too have a different name from my husband and my child and want them kept out of my public image.
I’m glad they didn’t use a database to find me. Altho, honestly I’m not sure it would have helped … (I had stalker issues too …)
Hope the story comes out well with the Herald, looking for your take on it too.
Lisa
[Reply]
Christine Koh Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
See Jack Sullivan’s comment below yours. This basically makes me want to go live in a yurt in some remote corner of the planet.
Even if some of this is technically legal, it ain’t right, IMO.
[Reply]
August 10th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Christine,
The database is called Autotrack and it is owned by ChoicePoint, a data compilation company that also gathers info for the government. Autotrack has been around for decades and is used by private investigators, credit companies, government, lawyers, media and the such. That’s how credit card companies track you down.
All records are gathered through publicly available documents such as court records, government records like voter registration, land sales, tax bills, phone directories, credit agencies and a bunch of private databases that are for sale such as gym memberships and email accounts. Even if you have an unlisted number, that could be part of it too because when you fill out a warranty card and put the number on it, that information is for sale as well and Autotrack gets it. Know those little tags you use at the grocery store for sale items? Your info that you fill out for that gets sold as well.
Autotrack coordinates all the information and when the same names align at the same addresses or telephone numbers, it shows up in a search. It’s not that clandestine, just intrusive. But as a quick exercise, I found out your information pretty quickly by Googling you, finding your husband’s name and the town you live in through an online bio and then running it through land records available on the Secretayr of State web site. Wasn’t that hard. When I was an editor at the Herald and later the Ledger, I wanted people to display enterprise in finding people we needed to talk with. Autotrak doesn’t come with a “do not call tag.” Like I said, she found the info through publicly available avenues. It’s not like she printed it with the story. Your problem isn;t with her; it’s with the companies that buy and sell who you are.
[Reply]
Christine Koh Reply:
August 10th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Dear Jack,
Thanks for sharing your perspective; I truly appreciate hearing all sides.
So, I still find all of this information tracking creepy (though of course I’m aware that it exists), but I do still have a problem with the reporter, not just the companies that buy and sell info.
Just because companies engage in creepy practices, doesn’t mean that because it’s there, it’s OK to engage, particularly when it’s not necessary. As I have said above in other comment responses, I am very out there in social media. It is absurdly easy to e-mail, tweet, or FB me. It’s not rocket science and seems like a waste of resources (according to her, the database is very expensive to use) and a lack of basic etiquette on the part of the reporter.
To attempt to be more clear with a personal parallel, if someday I learned my kid was doing drugs, I would have a problem with her, not just the dealer who bought and sold the drugs to her. Everyone shares responsibility — the person who draws from the well is just as responsible as the person who fills it.
-Christine
[Reply]
August 10th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Every night the local news starts off with reports like this: “Brian, in the house you can see behind me, family members have gathered to comfort each other after a six-year-old boy killed his baby sister and the family dog with a knitting needle.” With that as the standard for the media’s respect for privacy, it’s hard to be shocked by a reporter digging through public records to find a home phone number. The reporter might have found through past experience that when on deadline it’s better to make phone calls rather than send e-mail and wait for replies. While I don’t necessarily think that the reporter did the right thing in this case, it would be way, way down on my list of complaints about the media.
[Reply]
August 10th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
I think Jack is missing something… hmmm… could it be that the Herald wanted to contact you because you’re a mommy blogger? So… you the Herald wanted to ‘interview’ you because you have a web persona. They didn’t want to interview you because you have a phone persona. I suspect that if they did any sort of research on your mommy blog persona, they would have visited, oh say, this BLOG, and wouldn’t using the information provided here been the best way to break the ice?
If someone wanted to talk to me about any opinions on my blog, but followed me into a public restroom to ask questions, I would definitely not talk with them.
[Reply]
August 10th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
All of your alma maters have the exact same database. I worked in a development office, and you would not believe the information we could gather.
http://www.alumnifinder.com/
If your old school finally finds you after you moved and starts sending you solicitations or the alumni magazine again, that’s how.
[Reply]
August 11th, 2010 at 6:22 am
I agree with the other posters. This isn’t anywhere close to stalking. (She just called you once, asked for an interview and you agreed.) Nor is it an invasion of privacy. (She didn’t print your secret phone number. She just looked it up in a database that millions of people use everyday.)
That said, it would have been best to e-mail you first. But she was probably panicked by a deadline. She probably had two hours to find people to write the story — and thought it would be quickest to give you a call.
[Reply]
August 11th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean that you should. Being a reporter doesn’t mean you need to be a jerk too. If it is your family’s privacy that was invaded, how would you feel. I know plenty of journalists that have families and understand that. Being one isn’t an excuse.
[Reply]
August 15th, 2010 at 9:29 am
I’m afraid that I agree with those who say you are over-reacting a smidge. The good news is that you are becoming famous! The bad news about fame is that you have less privacy. Even a site like http://pipl.com allows you to find all kinds of info about folks. I’m afraid you are now in the public eye… congrats….
[Reply]
August 17th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
[...] was intrigued last week by a tweet from a blogger who objected to a journalist’s use of a database to find her number and call her for an [...]
August 18th, 2010 at 5:07 am
Hi Christine,
We met on Twitter about 2 weeks ago.
I have to say I’m still really disappointed to hear about this practice that the Boston Herald seems to employ for contacting contributors.
I am a journalist and video journalism trainer with the BBC here in the UK, and our editorial standards/guidelines/practices are immortalized in a very thick manual (of nearly 400 pages). I understand that not all broadcasters and media institutions the world over will adhere to the same strict guidelines that the BBC does. However, it should be basic journalism 101 to reach out to possible contributors through formal, public channels first. If the journalist then gains permission from the contributor to reach them at home, or on a private channel, then that contact information should be provided by the contributor herself.
This is what concerns me about moving back to the USA and working in the American, private sector media industry again (I worked in it for 15 years from LA and NYC, so I’m not speculating about this) — it seems to me that the race to get there first, get the scoop, and get the hottest/most original material, is all driven by advertising money and making a profit. When profit is the underlying motivation, read=selling newspapers, then the editorial standards of the media institution tend to weaken and erode and journalists find themselves compromising standards in order to make their editor happy, i.e. getting there first, making it hot/original and beating others to the punch.
Interesting to note that WGBH — a beloved public sector broadcasting station — contacted you with integrity, transparency and respect.
Maybe it comes down to this — public sector media institutions have to stick up for the highest journalistic standard because they are funded by tax payers and are beholden to the public. Private sector media insitutions are motivated by profit and advertising money so their standards are inherently compromised and there’s usually a political/economic bias to boot.
Working at the BBC, I see this division and contrast between us and, for example, Sky TV, all of the time.
Thank you, Christine, for writing about your experience with the Boston Herald reporter. I think this is an issue and practice that we don’t address often enough in a public manner.
My wish is that the private sector will resist the temptation to take shortcuts and cross boundaries and instead make its reputation and win our respect by living up to the highest possible journalistic standards.
Sincerely, Karin Thayer
[Reply]
Christine Koh Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Dear Karin,
Thanks for these thoughtful comments. It’s been fascinating to read the commentary; many (both regular citizens and journalists) agree that this behavior was creepy and unnecessary, and then many (both regular citizens and journalists) think I’m overreacting and should shut my whiny mommy blogger mouth (as if the niche has anything to do with anything).
What is so mystifying to me about this incident is that it was remarkably unnecessary. Not only am I incredibly easy to contact online (e.g., e-mail, Twitter, my site’s FB page), but it wasn’t even a pressing story where I was a central contributor. The article featured comments from a number of women regarding the maternity leave ruling and the quote the reporter decided to include was not particularly remarkable.
Also, re: public/private sector, I just wanted to say that I have received a lot of press in the last 4 years since I started my site and in every other case, all outlets (including The Boston Globe, Boston Magazine, NPR, ABC News, etc… you can see everything at http://www.bostonmamas.com/press.html) have contacted me by email, very respectfully. That’s another reason the Herald’s behavior seemed especially poor.
-Christine
[Reply]
Karin Thayer Reply:
August 20th, 2010 at 7:50 am
Thanks for your response, Christine. All good to know.
What I’ve observed, and also been told by colleagues across the spectrum of media outlets in both UK and USA, is that the private sector is more willing to resort to extremes as a regular practice because of a pressure that seems constant. I’ve been told by some that there is not time to distinguish between what is an urgent or non urgent matter — the pressure to sell and meet deadlines is fierce, especially as the numbers of staff/employees are getting smaller and people are asked to do ever more in their work day.
It sounds like this is a tale of a hard working, well meaning journalist who is working in an environment where shortcuts are a matter of course, just to get through the workload. Or that may be the justification she and colleagues like her are giving themselves.
Really pleased you’ve taken the time to put these thoughts and issues out there for us to discuss. Thank you!
Best
Karin
[Reply]
August 30th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
I just stumbled across this post and read through all the comments with interest. As a former TV news reporter, I’d have to say that the last comment from Karin was probably spot on. This reporter was no doubt under a tight deadline, and just figured that the quickest way to reach you was to find a phone number. Poor choice, obviously. But she probably didn’t think that you would respond to an email quickly enough…as many people do not.
I was surprised to read that several reporters wrote that ethics was one of the first things they were taught on the job. That never existed in the newsrooms that I was a part of…which is the primary reason why I am not a journalist any longer. A typical scenario that I saw played over and over went something like this: local student dies in car accident. This automatically becomes our “top story.” If I were assigned the top story, it would become my job to a) find out who the victim was, and b) get someone from the victim’s family to talk on camera. No matter what. Many times, I called every person with the same last name in the phone book to try to find out if they were related. And if I got all “no’s” over the phone, a producer would say: “Go knock on their doors.” And if every door got slammed in our faces (which they usually did), we would start talking to anyone who knew the victim…neighbors, friends, the mailman. I always felt terrible about doing these kinds of things, but it was producer-driven…and it was my job. And the tighter the deadline, the pushier I would have to be. And why? We HAD to have that sensational top story soundbite - to beat the competition to the punch - to be able to say that we had “breaking news,” or “you saw it here first.”
I left news 5 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then. I doubt it though. So, the way I see it, you haven’t truly been stalked by a reporter yet. God forbid that any tragedy ever befall your family…because sadly, then you would be.
[Reply]
August 18th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
It sounds like she was on deadline. Who knows is she procrastinated, my guess. It’s not like maternity leave is a breaking story.
[Reply]