Did a Washington Post writer cross the line?

The article that set the world ablaze this morning was Eric Prisbell's profile of John Wall in this Sunday's Washington Post.

It is a tremendous read. Prisbell really gets Wall to open up to him about his relationship with his father, who spent much of Wall's childhood in prison. Seriously, if you haven't read it, go do it now.

Like I said, it is a tremendous read, and if it doesn't make you want to root for Wall, then you don't have a heart.

The article isn't perfect, however. At the very end, Prisbell reveals to Wall what exactly his father was in prison for. Wall did not know why his dad had been sent to jail -- he believed it was only for a robbery, but in fact his father had a much longer rap sheet, including second degree murder -- and Prisbell not only revealed it to him, but wrote about his reaction in the article.

Some, including myself, had a problem with this decision. From Kentucky Sports Radio:

Now imagine that scene for a minute. Just days before John Wall reaches a goal that he has worked for his entire life, a reporter for a newspaper, someone who is likely a stranger to Wall, looks at him and informs him for the first time that his father had killed someone. To me, that action is wholly inappropriate and somewhat shameful ... [W]hile I probably would not have done that research into his father’s past and included it in the story, I dont think it is malicious to do so. But once the reporter knew that Wall was not aware of his father’s criminal past, I find it highly inappropriate for him to believe that he should be the one to break the news to Wall. It is clear that both his mother, and for that matter John, have made a conscious decision not to bring up that part of the past in their lives. For a reporter to believe he has the right to report that past is one thing. But then to take the next step and personally tell John and THEN to record his comments and include them in the story, to me that crosses the line ... [T]here are lines that reporters should not cross. If Prisbell felt like he owed the readers a look into Wall’s deceased father’s past, then so be it. But Prisbell should not have made himself the self-appointed messenger to personally tell Wall what is likely one of the most hurtful truths that could exist in his life. And even if he were to do that, to quote his natural reaction in a newspaper story is not a journalistic potrayal, but simply sensationalism.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Wall is 19 years old. Wall is still a kid, but he's a kid that has made a conscious decision not to find out why his father was in prison. Maybe it was because he didn't want to tarnish the memory of his father. Maybe it was because his mother didn't want him to know. Maybe Wall simply did not care.

Whatever the reason, it was not Prisbell's place to disclose this information to Wall.

The issue, however, is that this is Prisbell's job. He's a reporter, and if he is writing an article on the relationship between John Wall and his father, how can he not include these facts if he has them. And if he has this information, how can he not get Wall's reaction? Prisbell addressed these issues in a live chat on the Washington Post's website (consider everything sic'd):

i was uncomfortable being in the position knowing such information that John may not have known (I didn't know what he knew before I talked with him). But when I got the records, it was then that I realized how long of a record the dad had. Before that, I just wanted to get the gist of what he had done if we had to include the background information.

Once I got the records, then I found myself in a situation that I found to be unsettling. I've been in a lot of odd situations in my career, but this made me uncomfortable. First, I wrestled with the idea of IF I should tell John, etc. But, hey, the driving force in his life is his dad, and he cherishes the memories from those prison visits. If I incldue that, how do I not include what the dad did and how long he was in there?

Then the question became how to do it. I talked all this through with editors, of course. We wanted to handle this with extreme care. We wanted to be sensitive, delicate, respectful. Both in how we wrote it and how I talked about it with john. I did not want to mention specifics with John, and I did not. John and I got into the heavy stuff about 12 minutes into a 45-minute talk. We talkd for a long while after that. The fact is: Even after I told John, it did not change his feelings toward his father. That says something pretty strong about John and his relationship with his father. The three words that jump out to me when thinking about John: humble, polite and mature.

I udnerstand reasonable people can and will disagree on the disclosure issue. But i am comfortable with the decisions we made because of how I handled it.

I understand, and sympathize, with the position that Prisbell was put in. He's right -- the article was about the relationship between John Wall and his father, and if Prisbell had this information, he had to include into the article, no?

Its a tough call. While I don't necessarily believe Prisbell crossed the ethical guidelines of journalism, I do believe he crossed a line of morality. John Wall may be the subject of an article you are writing, he may be the future of the Washington Wizards franchise, but this is still a human being who was delivered an incredibly important, meaningful, and potentially hurtful piece of information by a reporter.

But being a reporter, isn't his job to get the story? To ask the tough questions?

It is an incredibly difficult position to be in for Prisbell. And, to his credit, I think he handled it well. My one hope is that he ran this by Wall's mother before divulging it to Wall.

And for what its worth, Prisbell said that he disclosed this to Wall about a third of the way through a 45 minute conversation. If the information was that hurtful, would Wall have continued the interview?

Wall knew his father was in prison for a long, long time. If you're in prison for a long, long time, odds are pretty good that you committed a serious crime. Wall knew this, and it didn't bother him.

Maybe the crime his father committed truly didn't matter to him.

I've gone back and forth with this in my head all day, so I'll leave it at this: a reporter handled a difficult situation about as well as he could have. Hopefully, it didn't take away from what was a sensational article about how John Wall became the person that he is today.