How the Chronicle's editors treated the story; How other journalists would have

After much deliberation, the Chronicle decided to press on with an undercover operation at the homeless shelter.

The reporter, Kevin Fagan, and the photographer, Brant Ward, presented themselves at the shelter using their own names, and never lied about what they were doing. They also did not dress down to look like drifters. But no one ever asked why they were there.

"We decided that the way to get the most unfiltered view was to go undercover," Mr. Fagan said. "If you let public officials know you're coming, you're going to get the cleaned-up version."

The also talked with many residents of the shelter, and wrote down their responses. If they used anyone's name, they made sure to ask permission before printing their quotes or images afterward. All agreed to be included, Mr. Fagan said.

Editors throughout the Chronicle were involved in the decision to go forward with the story. Fagan said the original idea was Executive Editor Phil Bronstein's, though a handful of other editors were also involved in shaping it and setting the ground rules for the expose.

"I wrestled with it a lot," Mr. Fagan said. "It's not something that you do casually. The full goal was to get the true reality of the shelters. It wasn't to fool or blindside anyone."

How other journalists would have treated the story

Jill Tucker, education reporter at the Oakland Tribune, said she was unsure if the word "undercover" was even appropriate in the homeless shelter case. Often she goes into schools to report, but keeps a low profile. That's not exactly undercover, she said.

"School officials know I'm there, but if the kids know I'm a reporter, what they say and do often becomes exaggerated," Ms. Tucker said. "If you are a fly on the wall in a public setting, that's not undercover."

"There are many gray areas when you're talking about this type of journalistic method," she added. "But the fact that he went to a public location that is accessible to anyone in the public, gave his real name and ultimately identified himself to sources -- it sounds like he didn't cross the line. But there is a line and a lot of people cross it."

Eric Nalder, an investigative reporter at the San Jose Mercury News, agreed that Mr. Fagan's approach was justified.

"I always use a technique called 'reporting by hanging around.'" Mr. Nalder said. "The key there is that you are simply there observing. But you should not deceive."

"We are in the truth business, and we don't want to be telling lies," he said. "I'm not saying you can't but once you carry this out you better plan it very carefully and ethically."

Hank Plante, a political reporter at KPIX Channel 5, said it's easier for newspapers to get away with low-profile interviews. In television, he said, "We're different. We're like Ringling Brothers. Everybody knows we're there."

So often, television reporters contemplate and conduct "hidden camera" investigations. The most important distinction for using a hidden camera is the legal standard of whether the subjects being recorded have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But beyond issues of law, it might surprise people outside journalism, Mr. Plante said, that television journalists have ethical discussions all the time.

"Every once in a while people will have the hare-brained idea that someone should apply for welfare to see how easy it is," he said. "First of all, it's a felony, but second of all, it's wrong."

What the Society of Professional Journalists recommends:

"When is deception by a journalist justified? What are the criteria for a 'Just Lie'? To justify a lie or deception one must fulfill all of the criteria.
"• When the information sought is of profound importance. It must be of vital public interest, such as revealing great 'system failure' at the top levels, or it must prevent profound harm to individuals.
"• When all other alternatives to obtaining the same information have been exhausted.
"• When the journalists involved are willing to fully and openly disclose the nature of the deception and the reason for it to those involved and to the public.
"• When the individuals involved and their news organization apply excellence, through outstanding craftsmanship as well as the commitment of time and funding needed to fully pursue the story.
"• When the harm prevented by the information revealed through deception outweighs any harm caused by the act of deception.
"• When the journalists involved have conducted a meaningful, collaborative, and deliberative decision-making process in which they weigh:
"-- the consequences (short- and long-term) of the deception on those being deceived
"-- the impact on journalistic credibility
"-- the motivations for their actions
"-- the deceptive act in relation to their editorial mission
"-- the legal implications of the action
"-- the consistency of their reasoning and their action."

-- Deception Checklist from Doing Ethics in Journalism by Jay Black, Bob Steele and Ralph Barney of the Society of Professional Journalists, 1995.

Read the series, see the photos.

Reporting by Michael Stoll