THE ETHICAL DEBATE
Gay Talese’s fellow journalists have long admired his depth of reporting, literary narratives and elegant style; his works are often used as set texts in journalism schools. And yet, The Voyeur’s Motel found many of his colleagues furrowing their brows — even before he disavowed (then reaffirmed) it. Should Talese have protected Gerald Foos, his Peeping Tom source, and then relied so much on his diaries in the book? Two Canadian professors of literary journalism weigh in.
Bill Reynolds, Graduate program director, Ryerson University
What a fantastic mess. (His) Frank Sinatra (essay) is a write-around (where Talese didn’t have direct access to his subject), and he relentlessly reported, whereas, what’s this thing? It’s not really reported at all. And that’s why I think it’s exploitative.
He’s admitting that he’s on shaky ground here. He kind of knows better. If you read it carefully, he’s not brazen. He’s saying, “This is kind of dicey. I’ve walked out on the pond and the ice is starting to crack a bit; the water’s pretty cold. I don’t know . . .”
Talese must have been desperate for a book topic. Here he is at the end of a long, successful career, going, “What am I going to write about now? Well, I’ve got this manuscript. Oh, it’s really prurient. I can make a few bucks.”
Gerald Foos played him for a fool.
Julie Wheelwright, Director, MA creative writing, City University of London
He’s interviewed someone who’s clearly a fantasist. How much did that spur this man on and legitimize his behaviour? As journalists, we have to think (about) our interviewing someone about deeply intimate, personal moments and, in this case, moments that affect other people, who have not given them their consent to be observed. I think that it makes it even more ethically dubious.
After I read (the piece), I felt like washing my hands. I felt slightly soiled. (After the new revelations), I think I might want to have a shower.
Everything is now in question, because you can’t say, “OK, this man seems to be a reliable narrator, but we can’t trust these bits.” It’s really important, especially in this “post-factual” age, not to let even very celebrated and talented writers get away with not being held to the same account that the rest of us would. We have to be rigorous about what we do, because all we have is our reputation.