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?