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.