If Kim Tingley had written a spot news story about suicide in which she interviewed only one source, I would argue that she should have talked to at least one or two others to make sure that what she was reporting wasn't disputed by someone else. That is standard practice in science reporting. Just as it's wise for a political reporter to talk to a Republican as well as a Democrat (and perhaps a few people outside the Beltway), it's essential for a science writer to report more than one point of view.
What is one to say, then, when Tingley writes a single-source story that is more than 6,000 words long? "The Suicide Detective," in the June 30th issue of The New York Times Magazine, is about Matthew K. Nock, a clinical psychologist at Harvard who is trying to understand and prevent suicide. A few people make very brief appearances in this story, including one of Nock's researchers and a Harvard colleague. But the only other person quoted at length is "Melissa," one of Nock's patients. She, needless to say, is not a scientist.
The story is nicely written. Tingley gives us a good sense of Nock and his work, and she provides us with a touching portrait of Melissa. We get the usual statistics, and a brief historical survey of earlier views of suicide. And Tingley displays intelligence in her reporting:
One evening in his office in January, I asked him if he’d ever gotten an answer that did make sense to him. It was a school holiday, and most of the building was empty. Nock, working late, was wearing a tracksuit top and trying to kick a five-cups-a-day coffee habit by sipping a mug of apple cider. Outside, far below in the dark, snowflakes were slicking the roads.
Nock began to talk about pain…
It's a good story. I enjoyed reading it. But with only one source in evidence, I don't know whether Nock's findings are as significant as Tingley makes them out to be. I don't know whether anyone else is studying suicide, or what else is being learned. Was Tingley so taken with Nock that she gives us an unduly optimistic view of his research?
I don't put all the blame on Tingley; the Times, and her editor, Dean Robinson, should have demanded that she do more. A bit more context would have made the story far more persuasive.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply