Behind the Headlines

It was one of the strangest phone calls I’ve taken as metro editor at the Herald-Leader — and I’ve taken plenty of odd phone calls over the years. The woman on the line was despondent because she said the county coroner had left her friend’s scalp in wooded area along Newtown Pike. The man had died there, apparently under accidental circumstances, and the coroner had removed the rest of the body several days earlier. But the woman said a piece of her friend’s scalp, including hair, had been left behind. Further, she said she couldn’t get the coroner’s office to come out and get it.

So I asked police reporter Steve Lannen to find out what was going on.

He made some calls, then left to meet the woman, Sherry Nimbach. When Steve called me back a few hours later, things got a little stranger. “I have a scalp in my car,” Steve told me. Steve was on his way to the coroner’s office to deliver the body part, which Nimbach had removed from the roadside a few days before, wrapped in a plastic bag and placed in her freezer. Steve had advised her to take the hair to the coroner, but she was too distraught to do so, and begged him to take the bag to the coroner’s office. Steve agreed to do so, and Coroner Gary Ginn later confirmed that the material was a chunk of the victim’s hair. Ginn also took responsibility for leaving the material behind in the ditch. (Read Steve’s story, "Coroner gets dead man’s hair.")

And thus a new chapter was added to the lore of the Herald-Leader newsroom — and a rather interesting ethical discussion was borne. The ethical conundrum was two-fold: Should a reporter accept proffered body parts? And, if a reporter does accept said body parts, has he become so tied up in the story that he can no longer objectively write it?

Opinions in the newsroom differed on these points, as is often the case in journalism. Here are a few of the viewpoints from those involved in the story:

Steve Lannen, the reporter:
Steve says that he first advised Sherry Nimbach to turn the material over to the coroner. “But for whatever reason – fear, grief, distrust of authorities or all three – Sherry Nimbach balked at taking a piece of her friend’s hair and scalp to the coroner’s office," Steve says. “She begged me to do it. I rolled my eyes and balked myself and again encouraged her to make the delivery. But her protests increased and I started feeling bad for her dead friend, Paul. If I were in the same situation, I imagine I’d like someone to reunite my remains. And, I guess I’m a sucker for tears.

“In my gut, I suppose I knew I was crossing some journalism ethics line, but I couldn’t think of anything better… I was on the front porch with a mourning woman, who I didn’t know, whose moods swung widely the past few hours I had been with her. Oh, and she had produced a scalp from her freezer. Were we just going to stand there with the trash bag indefinitely?

“Just do the right thing, I thought. ‘Oh, OK. I’ll do it for Paul,’ I said. ‘Oh, Thank you. You don’t know what a good thing you’re doing,’ she said.”

Assistant metro editor Dori Hjalmarson, who ultimately edited Steve’s story:
“Normally the ethical muses of journalism frown on reporters becoming characters in the news they are writing about. Herald-Leader reporters and editors go to great lengths to balance and separate our jobs and our personal lives. It’s our duty to tell stories through others’ voices, to present other points of view – not our own.

“So what should Steve have done when presented with human remains from a woman’s freezer?

“Refuse to take them? It’s the job of all citizens – even journalists – to report things like human body parts to police. Call police on the spot? That risks breaking the trust of a woman who confided in us – also journalistically unethical. Besides, that still makes Steve a character in the story. Comply and take the remains to the coroner? That’s what Steve did.

“Then how do we present the story to readers? We must write it for at least two reasons. It’s newsworthy: The county coroner, a publicly elected official, acknowledged that he’d made a mistake in leaving any remains behind. It’s a compelling story: You can imagine what a woman went through, keeping part of her friend in a freezer and believing no one would take her seriously.

“But Steve is part of the story now. Should he write the story in first person? No, he doesn’t have first-hand knowledge of most of the story – only a small part of it. Should he remove himself completely from the story? No, that would be dishonest. Should he refer to himself in the third person – ‘the reporter’? That, in my opinion, leaves open the question of whether he’s the writer or the actor – or both. It’s a common journalistic tool when we want to avoid ‘being part of the story,’ but it’s one I don’t really like because I think it can be misunderstood. Plus, it’s corny to refer to oneself in the third person.

“I was not the editor dealing with the reporter throughout the ordeal… I did read and edit the story after Steve had written it six hours later, and I wrestled with how to present Steve’s side of the story. I have come to this conclusion:

“I believe a different reporter should have taken over the reporting once the first reporter became part of the action. I believe a fair and objective observer is needed to tell a news story the right way, and anyone who is a character in the story should not be presented as objective. But it took a bit of hindsight for me to come to that conclusion, and other editors, including my boss, disagree with me. When we’re moving as fast as we do, and when a reporter asks you what he should do with the human remains in his car, things aren’t always neat and clean.”

Here’s my take:
As the editor who took the initial call and worked with Steve as he reported, I think he did the right thing. The remains belonged with the coroner, and Steve took them there straight-away. He didn’t have a whole lot of time to make a decision, and he was dealing with someone who was obviously distraught at the way her friend’s remains had been handled. The remains belonged at the coroner’s office, and Steve made sure they got there. His other choice would have been to call the police or the coroner, but that doesn’t affect his involvement in the story any less, and the outcome is the same.

Second, I don’t think it was necessary for someone else to write the story. Steve had interviewed all of the major players, including Sherry Nimbach and Gary Ginn. He had seen the spot where the remains were found, and he had seen the remains in the bag with his own eyes. He had the most information, and the best information, to write a detailed and clear story. He played a minimal role in the story, essentially acting as a delivery person. His involvement didn’t change the story line significantly, other than to ensure that the remains made it to where they belonged. Also, I don’t think his minimal role compromised his objectivity (I’m not sure someone can be pro or anti when body parts are concerned). And there was a practical issue: By the time Steve got back to the newsroom, it was Friday evening, and deadline was approaching. It would have been impractical for another reporter to retrace the threads of the story to produce as thorough an account as Steve could produce.

So Steve wrote the story. In retrospect, I think we should have done one thing differently: We should have run a sidebar with the story explaining the odd circumstances in more detail, and Steve’s role in the story. Unfortunately, that idea didn’t occur to me until the next morning.

So, consider this blog entry the sidebar that could have have run with the article. Sometimes, an unusual story merits a bit more explanation.

Peter Baniak
metro editor