Welcome to SPJ Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

SPJ President: Ethical Journalism Isn't Lost

Excerpts from an Ethics Week column in The Mountain Mail, of Salida, Colo., by our own Clint Brewer:

Studies detailing media distrust by the American public - and of journalists - are too numerous to count. But instead of heeding the warning, many traditional news entities bend to pressing market forces.

With each passing year, they blend in more and more with the noisy din of partisan talk shows, celebrity infotainment and, more recently, the Wild West of the blogosphere.

...

Ethical journalism is not dead. It just requires one to know where to look - whether it's on the Internet, the newsstand or the airwaves. A map to help media consumers find that place of trust would also be helpful.

As the Society of Professional Journalists celebrates Ethics Week this week, we offer that map to help consumers find the news they can trust. And, as always, we offer this code of ethics to help journalists guide their actions.

Obama Objectivity

Here's an interesting and very public ethics quarrel between two well-known journalists.

A little background: Todd Gitlin writes a column for the Columbia Journalism Review that critiques Tim Russert's interviews. A recent critique was of Russert's interview with Barack Obama.

From the top:

Dan Kennedy: Shouldn't CJR have chosen someone other than Todd Gitlin to write about Tim Russert? Gitlin's debut isn't bad. But look at this: Gitlin publicly announced his support for Barack Obama back in February.

Todd Gitlin: I’m not writing a column on Obama. I’m writing a column on Tim Russert. I’ve been writing about Russert for a decade or so. I was writing about him—critically, in the main—when I’d never heard of Barack Obama. I’ll write straight about Russert whatever his subject. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, or if Obama is, I’ll still treat him straight. If you think I get Russert wrong, criticize me for that.

Dan Kennedy comes back on his blog: "You and I have heard of Obama, and you've publicly endorsed him. Thus you've forfeited the right to evaluate Russert's coverage of the presidential campaign without disclosing that fact. And if you do disclose it, fewer people will take you seriously. This is basic journalism ethics. Do you not get it?"

I'm curious about whether they discussed these issues privately before taking to the page.

Will there be a next punch?

'Citizen McCaw,' Pentagon News Analysts, More ...

The Ethics Committee comes across far more ethics-related publications than we can absorb and comment on in a thoughtful way, but it's often a waste to not at least mention them.

Today, for example, Chairman Andy Schotz sent the committee a couple of interesting articles I thought you might like:

A Fight for Journalism Values in Santa Barbara
John Diaz at the San Francisco Chronicle: "Citizen McCaw" delivers chapter and verse of how News-Press owner Wendy McCaw poisoned a climate of ethics and professionalism.

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand
A Pentagon information apparatus has used television-news analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance. | Responses

I usually track journalism-ethics-related news on my feed reader, using Google Alerts. Here are a few more recent pieces from around the Web:

Chinese Academy Asks U.S. Journalists to Review 'Creed'
A Chinese higher-education academy has responded to CNN and other Western media that delivered "distorted reports and offensive comments on China."

Canadian Journalism Ethicist Heads to U.S.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison has selected Stephen J.A. Ward to be the first James E. Burgess Chair and Professor in Journalism Ethics and the director of a new Center for Journalism Ethics beginning in August 2008.

Redefining Journalism Ethics to Include Social Media
Liz Pope at SpinSucks.com and DenverPost.com: A code of journalism ethics needs to be redefined to include bloggers.

Do you like these news snippets? Let us know.

My thanks to Amy Gahran at Poynter Online for helping inspire this post with her "Mini-Tidbits" on journalism and technology.

Suspect IDs

Should criminal suspects be named in print if they haven't been charged? This piece (http://www.minnpost.com/davidbrauer/2008/03/19/1203/on_arrestees_local_media_increasingly_naming_names) explores the issue well through some Minnesota news organizations. One important note, though. The reference to the SPJ Code of Ethics was not right. SPJ does not list or characterize any section of the code as automatically being more important than any other. Journalists should consider the guidelines they believe are relevant to the decision at hand. A balance of competing interests might be necessary.
posted by AndySchotz | 5 Comments

'The Press Is Too Free'

I heard this several times in Taiwan, each time from a very different person.

One was a government official. Another was a nonprofit executive. Also -- gasp! -- a newspaper editor.

"The press is too free," they agreed -- in rooms full of journalists.

SPJ recently sent 10 of its members to Taiwan to learn more about the country. We met with high-level government officials, charity leaders and foreign journalists.

I can't remember one among them who unequivocally disagreed with the statement. And the more we asked them why, the more it became clear to me that the problem with Taiwan's journalists isn't too much freedom -- it's too little ethics.

They aren't responsible, said one. They're too sensational, said another. There's a difference between a public and a private person, and so on.

Sound familiar? These are many of the same criticisms levied against journalists in the United States.

We journalists are trained to distrust, to uncover wrongdoing and unsparingly hold authorities to account. We're not trained to make everyone happy.

But hearing so much discontent with the press reminded me of the importance of our Code of Ethics, which I offered to send at least one of the people who spoke this way.

We should make it very difficult for people to call us unfair and sensational. We should make every effort to explain why we went after that politician, and why we reported on her or his sex life. We should adopt ethical guidelines and post them in places where readers can access them and hold us to our own standards.

We should not make it easy for people to think we are "too free."

I can't read Mandarin Chinese, so I'm not sure what about their press offends the Taiwanese people. Some are reading -- and buying -- these "too-free" publications, so not all of them concur.

Still, people high in Taiwanese government, with considerable influence over policy, say with little reservation that "the press is too free."

Our president, who has been accused of leading the most secretive administration in U.S. history, would be humiliated for saying that publicly. Remember the media fallout from his joke that "a dictatorship would be easier?" Imagine him saying something like that seriously!

(I recognize some of you think he has.)

It's scary enough when people call for limits on press freedom in the world's strongest democracy. But what is said of Taiwanese journalists, earnestly and by their own people, is more fearsome when dictatorship knocks so loudly across the strait.

It was difficult for me to glean exactly what the Taiwanese government proposes to do with journalists who are "too free." To his credit, the editor we spoke with emphasized that the press itself, rather than government, needs to impose limits on how it reports the news.

But regardless of the general mood in Taiwan, which gave several indications of being a healthy democracy -- a raucous political march on a main thoroughfare, no one looking around before talking about the government, limited and cordial police presence -- the fact that some people at the top even utter the words "the press is too free" is a reminder of our own freedoms and responsibilities.

Let's make our own rules, friends, and stick with them.

To Vote, or Not to Vote?

Mike Allen, Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris take on an old question at Politico.

Allen wrote that he's voted only once: In a Democratic primary, when his roommates campaigned their hearts out for a candidate and he didn't want to let them down.

VandeHei, who covered the Bush-Kerry race for The Washington Post, wrote that he abstained from voting in the 2004 general election because he was told he would cover the winner and didn't want readers to think he voted for against his subject. He sat out the Virginia primaries this year, but doesn't object to voting in local elections that the Politico doesn't cover.

Harris has voted in every presidential race since 1984. He wrote that he didn't participate in the Virginia primaries because he didn't want people to know within which party he would have voted.

I have voted in elections in which I'm not required to reveal a party preference.
But I often wonder: At what point does political participation become an ethical no-no for journalists? Is it enough to stop at running for office? At what point does a conversation between an editor and a reporter turn into a newsroom's unwritten commentary on politics?

Journalistic Ethics, Clear and Simple

Forgive me for tearing a page out of my own newspaper, but here's a thought from Manning Pynn, public editor of the Orlando Sentinel. He recently discussed journalism with students in Central Florida and expressed to readers his admiration for simplicity:
"Ethics codes come in a variety of sizes. The New York Times, notably, came up with one more than 50 pages long a few years ago. I'm sure that it covers every possible contingency but less confident that I could commit it to memory.

"The Sentinel's is decidedly more compact and, in my view, more likely to be remembered -- and used. Still, I favor the sort of reminder that can be reduced to a wallet card."
In that spirit, he tells budding journalists to focus on the following "seven admonitions":
  1. Don't accept free stuff.
  2. Don't cover friends, family -- or enemies.
  3. Don't use your position for personal benefit.
  4. Don't make stuff up.
  5. Explain where you got your information.
  6. Don't steal other people's work.
  7. Don't alter photographs.
Pynn admits those don't cover all the pitfalls, but that sticking to them will avoid common problems.

What do you think? Suggest an eighth rule below.

'Fair Enough?' Maybe Not

Tuesday, I suggested that Parade magazine's slip up with a Benazir Bhutto interview might be permissible since the magazine is printed so far in advance of its distribution to readers.

The magazine's publisher, Randy Siegel, said he let an interview with Bhutto go out without an update because the issue had already been printed before her death and the interview would still be relevant to readers. So it arrived at millions of doorsteps as if Bhutto was alive and (correctly) still fearing for her life.

"Fair enough," I wrote, responding to Publisher Randy Siegel's explanation.

Later that day, Poynter Online's Amy Gahran used the exact phrase I did in response to Siegel's defense. Then she did a great job aggregating the backlash to Parade's press-time faux pas.

And apparently, "fair enough" was not what some readers were thinking.

If you judge from her post, there's plenty of discontent over Bhutto's posthumous appearance in some of America's most hallowed newspapers. As you might have read in my earlier entry, The Washington Post was among the many that issued editors' notes addressing the confusion.

Much of the debate over the interview surrounds whether news organizations should print material so long before they reach readers (in Parade's case, about two weeks) -- and whether they should reprint material, even at great cost, in light of significant news developments.

The questions are prescient. Have cost cuts in print media set a new and higher bar for stopping the presses? Exactly how late, or how wrong, must a story be to merit an update?

Bhutto's Death Puts Newsrooms in Bind

If you read your Sunday paper, you might have noticed the posthumous interview with Benazir Bhutto that that ran in Parade. The magazine's publisher, Randy Siegel, said it went to press before the former Pakistani prime minister was killed, too late to avoid a litany of editor's notes.

Fair enough. But what if a piece of news came too early for publication? That's the dilemma Bhutto posed to CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

On Oct. 26, Bhutto spokesman Mark Siegel sent Blitzer an e-mail from Bhutto on the condition that it would not be published unless Bhutto was assassinated. Blitzer, who revealed the message hours after her death, said he agreed not to publish the material before he received the e-mail.

A key point in Bhutto's letter was that if anything happened to her, she would hold Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf responsible. (An excerpt from her note, in which she uses the letter U to address Blitzer, gives her writing an informal air.)

In defending his actions, Blitzer noted that Bhutto previously wrote about her security concerns for CNN.com. "I didn't really think that it was a story we were missing out on," he said. "I don't think the viewers were done any disservice by my trying to hold on to this."

Wasserman: Are Page Views Destroying Journalism?

Miami Herald columnist and Knight professor Ed Wasserman tells the story of "a career columnist with career problems":
Penelope Trunk delivered career advice on Yahoo Finance until two weeks ago, when Yahoo dropped her Brazen Careerist column. Trunk says Yahoo decided the column didn't draw enough traffic to warrant the premium rates advertisers pay to be in its financial news package. So out she went.
It could be a telling example of online journalism's new direction, he writes. If news organizations live by the click, they could be killing good journalism:
The problem with online Popularity Pay is it that it mistakes journalism for a consumer product, and conflates value with sales volume. Journalists don't peddle goods, they offer a professional service, a relationship. The news audience renews that relationship to get information and insight on matters it trusts journalists to alert it to, even though the news may be disquieting or hard to grasp.
It's a point to ponder, but the venerable Wasserman may have been scooped on this issue. When The New York Times' most-e-mailed-articles list threatened to tear apart its newsroom, the first -- and only -- organization to report on it was The Onion.

Reviewing anonymous chatter

I share this story from the Ithaca Journal in upstate New York (http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071229/NEWS01/712290341/1002) not because I'm quoted in it, but because it's a well-executed examination of the newspaper's decision to let people post anonymous comments after stories at its web site. Newspaper editors and ombudsmen often explain editorial decisions in columns, but you rarely see stories and reporting like this. I think it serves readers well.
posted by AndySchotz | 0 Comments

Mocking and 'hocking'

Was it fair to turn New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine into a street peddler in print? (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003677872) The Asbury Park Press illustrated a story about the state's toll roads with a picture of Corzine symbolically "hocking" (selling) cars and highways as he held open a tweed coat. (http://www.newseum.org/media/dfp/pdf25/NJ_APP.pdf) The illustration's edginess seemed better suited for an alternative weekly, but I was bothered more by how it was presented. The image was peculiar enough that someone might have known it was a computer-created compilation, but I think the disclaimer - "Photo illustration" - should have been much more prominent. The doctored image was dominant above the fold; the disclaimer was in small type below the fold. Clarity should have trumped page design.
posted by AndySchotz | 3 Comments

Impure votes

The writers who both cover Major League Baseball and decide its individual awards say they won't honor players whose contracts have bonus clauses tied to those honors. (http://www.examiner.com/a-1088342~Baseball_writers_vote_to_get_out_of_the_bonus_business.html) The writers don't want to appear beholden. But isn't there already a potential for bias among writers chummy with (or annoyed at) certain players? Why don't the writers see the bigger picture? Reporters should cover the news, not create it. Some major newspapers already understand this and prohibit their reporters from voting.
posted by AndySchotz | 0 Comments

At last, free to be biased

The relief that former ABC News anchor Carole Simpson must feel, now that she is a civilian and can be biased (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/19/professor_takes_heat_for_nod_to_clinton/?page=full). Since she's no longer practicing journalism - and only teaching it - I suppose she should be able to ease back into civilian life, which might include campaigning for a candidate. I'm an idealist, though. What's wrong with a journalist maintaining a modicum of neutrality after leaving the business?
posted by AndySchotz | 0 Comments

Fast driver, furious reaction

The Albany (N.Y.) Times Union recently profiled a man who wants to legally break a speed record in his pickup truck (http://timesunion.com/speedster). As part of the story, the reporter rode with the man on an area highway and watched as he supposedly drove as fast as 160 mph - in a steady rain, on tires that "slip and slide." Then, when a "traffic jam looms," the driver had to slow down. The driver, though, says his speeding was exaggerated - the speed was maybe 85 mph, not 160 (http://blogs.timesunion.com/readandreact/?p=269 - go to post #66. The paper responds at #68). If the newspaper stands by its account, was it prudent for a reporter to go along on such a dangerous ride? The newspaper's editor tried to address that question in a column (http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=637814&category=REXSMITH&BCCode=&newsdate=11/18/2007)
posted by AndySchotz | 0 Comments
More Posts Next page »