Ethical, Revealing, or Both?

When two journalists from Philidephia's "City Paper" went undercover to report on how the Clinton and Obama campaigns work, the editors knew ethical issues would come up soon after publishing the stories.

The stories came out this week with Mike Newall reporting on the Obama campaign and Tom Namako on the Clinton campaign. Names in the stories were changed and both identify the reporters as being undercover during their investigation. Does that still make it ethical to write the story? The editors of "City Paper" think so:

Sometimes, in the interest of serving the public and fulfilling what we feel to be a higher calling, it's what we have to do. Running the story is not a decision we made lightly. We went to a lot of sources — from newspaper vets to lawyers near and far — and finally to the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics:

"Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story."

Huffington Post's Jay Rosen would agree: "Ethical? Maybe. Revealing? Absolutely."

I agree with both the editors and Rosen, these stories provided substantial information that the public would both be interested in and need to know. Therein lies the truth of how campaign offices work.

Code conflicts in blogosphere

When Michael Tunison, reporter for the "Washington Post," was fired recently for his "blogging at a sports-themed Web site [...] after editors came across some profane-laden postings that also identified him as a Post scribe." Uh-oh.

Tunison defends his blog postings, saying:

There was no conflict of interest between my writing for Kissing Suzy Kolber and my work for The Washington Post. The blog is not a journalistic endeavor and it is not something I was paid for until I revealed my identity. [...] I also find it troubling that I was summarily fired for engaging in something that is core to the spirit of The Washington Post: full disclosure. Even if editors had a problem with the language used in the blog, they should have been able to respect that my goal was not to defame The Post, but to be forthcoming with my readers.

His editors, though, are sticking to their guns, citing two ethical standards the Post expects from their employees:

•We work for no one except The Washington Post without permission from supervisors. Many outside activities and jobs are incompatible with the proper performance of work on an independent newspaper.

•Our private behavior as well as our professional behavior must not bring discredit to our profession or to The Post.

But the answer isn't clear. Do these standards apply to the blogosphere as well? When does a blog conflict with writing for a paper? Traditional media outlets need to readjust their ethical codes to include what they expect from their employees in regards to their activities within the blogosphere, especially on what blog topics would constitute a conflict of interest. If not, there will be a lot more cases like Tunison's popping up.

WWMD

What Would Murrow Do? An ethical paradigm suggested by Poynter's Jill Geisler as she helps set up the Radio-TV News Directors Association convention in Las Vegas:

A plenary session at the convention will be: "What Would Murrow Do?" It will have a strong focus on journalism ethics in changing times, with changing technologies. I think we know the answers in advance: be courageous, be rigorous, be fair but never hesitate to reveal wrong when you can prove it.

Perhaps this should replace the "Mom" test in the Kidder Model.

Modern philosophers Stewart and Colbert?

An article by Sam McManis calls Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert modern philosophers, comparing Stewart to Socrates and Colbert to Plato for the insight their television shows provide.

As an example, the essayists compare Socrates' dismissive dialogue with the out-of-touch religious leader Euthyphro over the meaning of piety with a "Daily Show" snippet in which Stewart mocks Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens' uninformed speech about the proposed Net Neutrality Act.

After a clip in which Stevens shows little knowledge about the Web, Stewart pounces: "You don't seem to know jack ... about computers or the Internet. But hey, that's OK; you're just the guy in charge of regulating it, so what difference does it make?"

Philosopher? I'm not sure. Journalist? Maybe. Looking at the 10 elements of journalism, as stated by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosensteil, Stewart might just be as ethical as the "real" journalists of major newspapers across the United States.

1. Obligation to truth. In a satirical, hilarious way, Stewart does lead the viewers to his version of truth.

2. Loyalty to citizens. Yes - Stewart is definitely loyal to his audience, showing them the injustices of the world.

3. Discipline of verification. Not really. Here Stewart falls short, his satirical comments often have a factual basis, but it's up to the audience to research further on the topic. However, that's more than what I can say for many of today's journalists, as an LA Times reporter was accused of fabricating a story about Brett Farve's potential return to the NFL.

4. Maintain independence. Stewart makes fun of the people that make his "news." Independent? I say yes.

5. Independent monitor of power. In his own satirical, humorous way, I'd say yes. He often sheds light on ridiculous happenings in government, such as the oil mongrels talk with Congress.

6. Provide a public forum. With a large following and a community on Comedy Central's website, I'd agree.

7. Make the significant interesting and relevant. By mocking and satirizing public figures and events, his audience rolls with laughter. Yes, yes, yes.

8. Comprehensive and proportional. Not really, he's obviously left-leaning. However, by adding Colbert to the mix with his own right-leaning show, there's an attempt to show both sides.

9. Personal conscience. I have no idea. Jon Stewart, do you exercise personal conscience with what you decide to put on the show?

10. Rights and responsibilities of citizens. I watch the Jon Stewart Show and often look up topics he addressed to get the rest of the story. Do you?

The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar attacks the media for their lack of coverage in Iraq. Quoting the anonymous 32-year-old blogger of Inside My Broken Skull, a veteran, Sklar rests her case. His words are below. Hopefully, they put that much more meaning to my previous post: read it and demand more.

I'm starting to feel a little burnt out by the fact that it seems that no one really cares about what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, except for a select few and the men and women fighting over there and their families.

Seems to me that it is becoming a more and more forgotten issue and will be that way until something horrible happens, which I pray never happens.

I don't know if the American public will ever wake up and demand action or justice, seems like everyone is too pre-occupied with Britney Spears, Starbucks closing for 2 hours and American Idol then the plight of several thousand men and women of the Armed Forces.

Sometimes it makes me want to forget about trying to make a change, but I won't stop. I'll just keep on keeping on and hope that things will change. Because if they don't, we as vets are screwed.

Media Silence on Iraq

"The Rocky Mountain News in Denver and the Daily News in New York were the only papers to give their entire front pages to honoring the men and women killed in Iraq. The Los Angeles Times gave a top quarter of their front to a feature called "Stories Of The Fallen." [...] Let's take a look at just some of the major US papers that left the soldiers out of their main front page headlines. To give a small bit of credit where not much is due, I've updated that The Washington Post posted a small headline in its very bottom left corner while The New York Times had a mention in a story excerpt below the fold." - Zaleski, The Huffington Post

Tragic. Is it because American newspaper readers (those few who are left) no longer care about the war? Soldiers are still dying. The war (if you can even call it that) is still there. It's the job and the duty of journalists to present this information to the public. Make us care. Show us the truth.



Katharine Zaleski of The Huffington Post shows this "sad day" in journalism through copies of major newspapers:

"The major newspapers -- some cut above the folds -- are pasted below. No need for more words. The media's silence on Iraq is loud and clear below."

Look at them and demand more.

So they did tell us the truth...

We just didn't listen.

5 years ago at least one-third of newspapers opposed the war in Iraq and voiced their negative opinions of it (who knew?)!

Print names before charges?

The Minnesota Star Tribune has historically refused to run the names of people arrested for high crimes, like murder, until a formal accusation has been released by police. Even as local T.V. stations are spilling out the name of the person arrested, the Strib usually waits to release the names. However, a recent murder case showed that their ethical guidelines might be changing:

The Strib did print [the arrested man's] name — on buzz.mn, which it brands 'Star Tribune Communities.' There, a user named 'mplscrimewatch' posted the complete Minneapolis police media release — with the identity that newsroom professionals had redacted.

Why? Why change policy now? Two reasons...

The web's rampaging information flow [... and] competition.

Not good enough for me and others agree as there are some worries about the change.

[R]eporter Caroline Lowe says she's open to her boss's argument
but, 'My concern is you can never give back a reputation if the person is never
charged. How can we minimize the harm?'

Good question, Caroline. Maybe the Strib's list of exceptions to the old policy holds a few answers.

Assistant Managing Editor Paul Klauda, who heads up the Strib's
review, says his paper's protocol allows four basic exceptions: when there's no
doubt who committed the act, when the suspect puts himself or herself in the
limelight, when the suspect is a public figure, and perhaps the most gaping of
all, when the case has high public interest.

Not good enough for me either. Legally, this all sounds great; ethically, there's something missing. However,news director Scott Libin at WCCO-Channel 4 explains further.

Libin insists a looser policy can have moral grounding: "The
Society of Professional Journalists says [our] primary obligation is to seek the
truth and report it as fully as possible. Not seek the truth and hold it. Second
is journalistic independence, and the third is minimizing harm — but that's
third. To me, that means we don't need a good reason to report what's true, but
a good reason not to."

Brilliant. Duty over compassion - Kant would agree and so do I.

Spitzer Ethics

With the NY Governor's scandel commanding center stage the last few weeks, the media outlets reporting on it are quite numerous. These stories are sure to gain attention, and the Wall Street Journal's Kimberly A. Strassel does just this in an op-ed piece as "she accuses the 'adoring' and 'compliant' press of acting 'as an adjunct of Spitzer power, rather than a skeptic of it.'"

However, according to Jack Shafer of Slate, Strassel's article is far from perfect and, "like most press critics who hunt with a blunderbuss, Strassel is low on specifics." He notes several inconsistencies and facts she neglicted in her article, but perhaps the most troubling is her use of anonymous sources:

"Strassel's press critique neglects to name the favorite reporters to whom he 'doled out scoops' and 'who repaid him with allegiance.' The publications that 'buried inside' the news that would embarrass the prosecutor also go unnamed. She claims that news organizations (unnamed, in the interest of consistency, I suppose) 'that dared to criticize him' found themselves 'cut off.'"

What publications? What reporters? And according to Shafer, what evidence?

"To make the case that the press serviced Spitzer, Strassel needs to do more than shake her bloody burlap bag as evidence."

Whoa. Maybe Strassel should have quickly glanced through the Kidder model before posting her piece, because there are obviously those who believe it would have failed the facts level. I'm not sure what I believe, but Shafer does make an interesting case.

**Note**
I'm currently on Spring Break and unfortunately the old computer my parents own has an older version of Safari that won't allow me to edit formating or place links, as well as spell check and more. I will fix all of this when I return to good old Simpson College tomorrow (this is due tonight at midnight). Until then, the links are posted below. Thanks!

"Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly A. Strassel thinks the press serviced Eliot Spitzer by Jack Shafer"/ Slate Magazine:
http://www.slate.com/id/2186549/

"Spitzber's Media Enablers" / WSJ.com:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120528114453028807.html

Ethical Questioning: Media Blackout Edition

Every article published goes through a series of ethical questioning, consciously or not, to make sure everybody (the media, the people involved, and the audience) is ready for it.

The New York Times recently did this with the McCain article.

Another example?

"Why we agreed to a media blackout on Harry" by Bob Satchwell.

Quiz Me

MediaShift's Mark Glaser put together an interesting weblog , claiming that in the background of the bloggers vs. journalists argument: "mainstream media reporters have started blogging in droves, while larger blog operations have hired seasoned reporters and focused on doing traditional journalism."

To prove his point on how the lines between journalism and bloggers are blurring, he put together a quiz only Andrew Keen (and perhaps Brian Steffen) could pass (I won't tell you how badly I did on this, but I can tell you that my score would make you feel better about yourself).

1. Who won a recent Polk Award for investigative journalism, a blogger or MSM reporter?

2. Which big New York-based website has four editors and four reporters, and is looking to hire two more reporters — a blog or traditional media outlet?

3. Which site hired a young blogger fresh out of college? Blog or MSM site?

4. Which site in Silicon Valley edits 80% of stories before being published online? Blog or MSM site?

(see his article for the answers)

Interesting. Very interesting, indeed. Isn't it a great day to be both a journalist and a blogger?

Times Editor Speaks Out

Click here to read NYT's executive editor Bill Keller speaks out in a Q & A session about the controversial McCain article.

McCain Mayhem

The NYT's story on McCain's alleged affair has been questioned even before it was printed for its questionable ethics. However, as Kelly McBride, ethics reporter for Poynter, explains, the ethics of reporting on the story holds potential problems:

• If you start with McCain's denial of wrong-doing, he looks guilty.

• If you start with a statement that the McCain campaign was thrown into turmoil today, he looks guilty.

• If you start with the allegation that McCain's staffers were worried that he was having an affair, you make him look guilty.

True. So how should media outlets report on the NYT's story without causing further ethical dilemmas?

Here's an alternative structure: Give your audience the big picture. Tell them that the nation's largest and most prestigious paper published a long, complex story today, calling into question McCain's judgment on many issues. As part of that story, the newspaper revealed that eight years ago the senator's staffers feared he was having an affair with a lobbyist, who seemed to show up at unexpected times. Explain how news is originated and then repeated. Explain that many people have questions about The New York Times' approach. Examine the entangled relationship between journalism and politics. (McBride)

Follow that format to make sure everyone is getting the news they need, instead of continuing to smear either the Times or McCain.

Ridiculous, right?

Should it matter how journalists vote as long as their opinions stay out of their stories. Absolutely not.

Online Time

Richard Stengel, managing editor of Time magazine, stated Tuesday that "someday there will be people who don’t know there’s a print product."



Whoa. Pretty big statement right?



Not really. Everybody knows that print media is becoming a way of the past as more and more newspapers and magazines move online. The only question remains whether movements of the journalism world to the Internet will help counteract "The Cult of the Amatuer," as related by Andrew Keen.



Time magazine, a trusted source for genuine news, has made the decision (as have most other print media outlets) to become an online news site. Stengel claims “there’s no news that breaks in print anymore.” True enough.

I believe that, as long as people know and understand where to go for trusted news, genuine journalism sites (there are plenty out there), we can counteract the potentially harmful affects of the bloggosphere. As a society, we're smart enough and savvy enough to know how to locate these sites. Just trust us to guide ourselves.

Media apology for lack of campaign coverage

The Montana Kaimin ran an op-ed piece yesterday, apologizing to Ron Paul supporters for the paper's lack of campaign coverage. However, would they have apologized if Paul hadn't "won more delegates than any other candidate at the Missoula County Republican Caucus?" Doubtful.

Keen's elitism: is there a golden mean?

Poynter's E-Media Tidbits column for the day, written by Amy Gahran, highlights part of an post from USA Today's Beau Dure, citing the differences between two extremes of elitism practiced in the online world:

"Beneficial elitism is the notion that we can all handle the truth and make educated decisions. Its enemy is the ersatz populism so often practiced by politicians who prey on Americans' anti-intellectualism. ...Jon Stewart is practicing beneficial elitism. If only more people would follow his lead.

"Harmful Elitism is loosely akin to cynicism. It's the assumption of someone else's inferiority, leading to a premature dismissal of what that person is saying or doing.

I'm sure Andrew Keen would like to believe he is a "beneficial elitist" - however, I'm not so sure. What I've read of The Cult of the Amatuer (I'm nearly finished) seems to suggest his beliefs are more in line with "harmful elitism."

However, the book and Dure's quote made me stop and think: is there a golden mean to find between the two extremes? And, if there is, the most important thing journalists and bloggers can ask is how we can acheive this golden mean.

I agree with Keen that we do need some gatekeepers, some experts (so to speak) to help us filter out the good information from the bad. But at the same time, I can't help but believe that, as a society and as individuals, at some level we have the power to understand the truth and decide for ourselves. We could just recognize both points of view, but is that more of a compromise, a social contract, than a golden mean?

Pseudo-environment, what?

Photoshop in a blue sky on a snowy day because a prof. tells you to?
Join the discussion.

Playin' Favorites

A recent study released by Medill Reports Chicago exemplifies the media's roll in determining who will be the future President of the United States. Think the media doesn't play favorites? Think again.

It's less than a week from Super Tuesday and the numbers are in: 29 percent for Hillary Clinton, 27.8 percent for Barack Obama and 6.1 percent for John Edwards.

That's not the election results, but the breakdown of campaign stories about the leading Democratic candidates for president. Trouble is, some observers say, the amount of news coverage affects the amount of votes each campaign gathers.

Whoa. No wonder Edwards dropped out of the race. The media didn't play any attention to him - just because he wasn't bickering with the former First Lady. Sad day in the media, don't you think?

Shouldn't he have received the same amount of coverage as the other two Democratic leaders? Objective, fair and balanced news and reporting huh? Right. Try again.



Andrew Rojecki, professor of political communications at the University of Illinois Chicago, is worried about the American public's ability to make an informed decision "because the media has given minimal coverage of the candidates' stances on political issues." Right-o. And Dewey would agree. "Bottom-up" he'd say.


Finally, the article quotes some disturbing statistics:

According to “The Invisible Primary,” a report published by The Project for Excellence in Journalism in October 2007 that looked at media coverage during the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign, while only 15 percent focused on the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals.

To make an informed decision, I don't need to know how many racial attacks Clinton's advisors have accidently released or how many Kennedy endorsements Obama's gotten. Give me their policies and their stances - show me how they can lead. Let me have my own opinion.

Losing coverage of higher-edu.

Reporters on higher-education are getting pulled off this topic, due to the paycuts experienced by many print media outlets, to make sure other issues are covered.

However, I think John Dewey would agree with Richard Whitmire, who lists reasons why higher-education still needs some coverage. Check it out.

Media follows public opinion - sell out?

Our society has a massive appetite for drama, and little for reality. We read about Britney Spears when we need to read about Afghanistan. And the media, which has the mandate -- and the constitutional right -- to lead us from this abyss, are all too often not doing so. Media, which once led public opinion, now all too often follow it.

A startling, and true, commentary on media today stated by Bill Dwyre from the LA Times, describes what is becoming an all too familiar trend.

Going against Walter Lippman's Public Opinion, which claimed public opinion must be guided, and John Dewey's belief that mass communication should educate the public so that, as a community and as individuals, people can form their own opinions, Dwyre's view of media today claims that it neither serves as an educational tool nor a guide for public opinion. The media follows what the already-formed public opinion demands.

It's true. The balance between entertainment and traditional hard news is faltering. As the television stations, like CNN and Fox, have experts discussing the failing US economy, this critical information is interrupted by the breaking news that Patriot Quarterback Tom Brady has been seen with his foot in a cast. Suddenly everybody's asking, "what could this mean for the Superbowl?"

Shouldn't we be much much more concerned about how quickly the Dow is falling? Should we expect and demand the media give us the tools to make an informed decision about how to survive a possible recession instead of how to place our Superbowl bets?

I definitely think so. Give me reality over drama, please.

How to make ethicial media decisions for dummies.

Please read:

Bob Steele's "Ask These 10 Questions to Make Ethical Decisions"

Thanks.

Independent media politics. What?

We've all seen it - the questionable relationship between the media and the political world, especially now that the '08 race to the White House is becoming increasingly critical.

Kelly McBride, ethics blogger for Poynter, wrote an article about how an independent relationship can be compromised by a campaign's use of a reporter's positive feedback on their candidate:

"When favorable stories about a political candidate are used by a campaign or a
political action committee to generate support, or when the opposition uses
negative stories to tear down a candidate, it compromises the perception that
the reporter and the newsroom are independent."

However, isn't this relationship already compromised by their traditional announcement of their endorsements of political candidates, such as the Des Moines Register's endorsement of both Clinton and McCain before the caucus took place.

Should a major media outlet be allowed to endorse candidates? Isn't that potentially influencing instead of merely educating? Isn't that removing their unbiased position that journalists are supposed to maintain?

"Despite research challenging the effectiveness of endorsements, many news
organizations embrace the tradition because, as they see it, endorsing
candidates is a journalistic
obligation to readers.

'We have such a rare opportunity as residents but also as journalists to
listen to these candidates,' said Monitor editor Felice Belman [...] 'Why
wouldn't we give readers the opportunity to tell them what we've learned?'"
- Mallary Jean Tenore, Centerpiece
blogger for Poynter

A journalistic obligation to inform the public? Yes. A journalistic obligation to ruin the supposedly independent relationship between politics and the media? No way.

Wikipedia fake

As reported by Media Ethics, a Wikipedia editor is a fake. Surprised? He used Catholicism for Dummies as a resource for entries.

"P-word" consequences

Plagiarism. It's bad. It's unethical. We are reminded of it daily in the classroom. We are constantly reminded to cite our sources correctly.

We know this happens in schools everywhere; somebody you know has probably been caught plagiarizing a work, whether it was accidental or not.

This act is not contained within a campus, there are several incidents of plagiarism within media. Those reporters who are caught in the act are quickly dealt with, commonly immediately terminated, their reputations irreconcilably tainted.

Roy Peter Clark, an expert on plagiarism, believes that the punishment for an act of plagiarism should depend on the severity of the crime and that the "p-word" should be used less frequently to define pure laziness or sloppiness:

"Because the p-word is the scarlet letter of the literary world, because it is
associated with a rogues gallery of writers and reporters, it should be
reserved, in my opinion, for the most serious cases of malpractice.To use the
term to cover too many sins may be a kind of ethical problem unto itself.
You can be called a lazy or sloppy reporter and recover. To be called a
plagiarist, and fired for it, has a deeper meaning and darker consequences."

Take for example, Clark says, Professor Emeritus John C. Merrill. An article he had written contained work from a student reporter, which was placed within quotations, he merely failed to attribute it correctly.

"...We may have a case here where even a famous journalism professor and a
fine newspaper editor are confused about what constitutes plagiarism. Join the
club, boys, I'm right there with ya.
I've studied Merrill's column and the student story from which he appropriated quotes. There are two things I do not like about his column:

He should have dropped a quick attribution into the column ("as
reported in The Maneater"). I'm not suggesting that not doing so was an
ethical lapse, only that doing so would have shown respect to the student and
the publication.

The column itself was a dinosaur cliché, the easiest kind of attack by
a cranky old prof against the political correctness of gender studies. But
that's not unethical either."

Merrill was labeled a plagiarist and fired. However, Clark disagrees. The editor of the Missourian "has no more right to call Merrill's actions plagiarism, than a prosecutor has the right to refer to reckless endangerment as murder in the first degree." He continues:

"It is a far greater ethical transgression, I believe, to create a
consequence -- excommunication and humiliation -- out of all
proportion to the violation. If it were up to me, I would have printed a
clarification, attributing the quotes to the student reporter. I would
have called Merrill and informed him that using quotes that way, even in an
opinion column, violates the standards of the Missourian, and that if he did not
want to adhere to such standards, he should pitch his column somewhere
else.

What we are left with instead is a stain on a scholar whose work over
decades has been judged original, and a good editor who looks more than a little
like those Puritans who pinned a scarlet 'A' on ladies suspected of adultery."

From this case, it is clear the definition of plagiarism is fuzzy; no one is sure of what to do with Merrill's mistake, honest or not. So they do what every other media outlet would do - terminate the reporter.

Ethical? I'm not sure. Give me a clear cut definition of the "p-word" and this argument would be a lot easier.