Freedom of the Prez

Ethical journalism is not lost; let me help you find it

We’re journalists and we’re here to help you. Trust us.

That is essentially the line American media companies have been using since the dawn of television. Each year, however, that message is received with increasing skepticism from news consumers.

The studies detailing the American public’s distrust of the media — and of journalists — are too numerous to count. But instead of heeding that 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.

The Internet and the arrival of cable television have combined to make America and Western Civilization cultures of choice. This holds true for news as well. In the absence of a press that consumers can trust, readers and viewers are taking advantage of new media outlets to customize their own version of the “news.” Partisan news organs, blogs and talk radio all enable consumers to hear or read only viewpoints with which they agree.

Yet, if you clear away the “news” outlets that are proliferated with opinion and entertainment programming, there are plenty of ethical, fair journalists out there reporting news the American public can trust.

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.

Our volunteer membership organization is the most broad-based media association in the world, with more than 9,000 journalists, journalism educators and students. The SPJ ethics code, a voluntary set of values for journalists to follow, is the gold standard for the practice of ethical journalism in the industry. And it will help any citizen decide if his or her news outlet is practicing ethical journalism.

The first sentence of the SPJ ethics code sounds the call quite well: “Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.”

Taken on their face, the four major points of the Ethics Code are sound advice for journalists and a good yardstick for the public to use in sizing up the reporting and conduct of journalists and media organizations:

•    Seek Truth and Report It
•    Minimize Harm
•    Act Independently
•    Be Accountable

It is possible in this new culture of choice to find journalism that is relevant, serves the greater good and is executed with clarity and ethical provenance absent of partisanship or agendas other than the interest of the public. It will come in all manner of voices and formats. On behalf of journalists everywhere, we ask America to keep looking.

Shield Law Slam Dunk

What a day. What an amazing day for journalism and democracy.

In a historic, landslide victory, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 sailed through the U.S. House of Representatives on a 398 to 21 vote Tuesday, enjoying clear bipartisan support.

It was a long day of political maneuvering and some drama brought on by a move to see the bill sent back to committee. SPJ Communications staff and our attorneys from Baker Hostetler monitored the debate live  from the floor and via C-Span all day. To give members a sense of how things unfolded, here is Quill Editor Joe Skeel's post-mortem take on how the confusing committee vote came down:

"The bill was indeed sent back to the House committee with instructions. That part we had right. However, the committee approved the amendments on the spot and sent the bill back to the house floor for a full vote. This is where the confusion set in. I thought that once it was sent back to committee, it would need to be heard during an official committee meeting. I was under the impression the final vote was for the second amendment. In actuality, it was for the bill’s passing."

Happily, it passed. We issued a statement here that made the national Associated Press story here.

It was a proud day for a great many people, including quite a few SPJ volunteers, who have worked tirelessly on this for years.

It was also quite gratifying to see the bill sponsors, Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), stand in the well and champion this legislation.  Pence, a former television broadcaster, was positively inspirational from the floor:

“Protections provided by the Free Flow of Information Act I submit are necessary so that members of the media can bring forward information to the public without fear of retribution or prosecution, and more importantly, so that sources will continue to come forward. Compelling reporters to testify, and in particular, compelling them to reveal the identity of confidential sources, is a detriment to the public interest. Without the promise of confidentiality, many important conduits of information about our government will be shut down. The dissemination of information by the media to the public on matters ranging from the operation of our government to events in our local communities is invaluable to the operation of democracy. Without the free flow of information from sources to reporters, the public will be ill-prepared to make informed choices.”

Now, we must turn our attention to the Senate bill, S. 2035, which passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Oct. 4. The day also brought a strong suggestion from the White House the bill would be vetoed if it is passed. Let us hope that the bill passes the Senate with the same kind of overwhelming numbers it passed through the House and that a veto is an obvious political defeat waiting to happen.

Tatum's random thoughts on her way out the door

If you missed SPJ's 2007 national conference, you missed what very well could be the best wingding this great organization has staged in years. As USA Today Editor Ken Paulson put it Saturday night, "The star power was here in full force."

It was a glorious end to a wonderful year packed -- absolutely packed -- with accomplishment. Very soon, you'll find my annual report on SPJ.org. Please take a look at it because I think you, too, will be mightily impressed with the ground covered since August 2006. I provided an overview of all that territory for chapter delegates. Afterwards, Steve FitzGerald, president of SPJ's Cleveland pro chatper, asked, "Are you sure this is over the last 12 months and not the last 12 years?"

Yup, pretty sure -- and pretty amazed, too.

This is my last entry in Freedom of the Prez. President Clint Brewer, who was inducted Saturday night, will take over from here. I have little doubt that he'll have plenty to share, discuss and debate with you during the 2007-08 season. We're counting on you to remain engaged because SPJ's leadership -- and everyone tuning into this forum -- will benefit from your insight and input.

If ever I can be of service to you, please contact me at ctatum@spj.org.

These are random thoughts, observations and thanks I leave you with:

The greatest regret of my presidency. On Saturday night, I completely blew it. I was working from a script that had been prepared by SPJ's staff to keep things on track for the Society's president's installation banquet. At the last minute, I realized I had left said script -- heavily marked with my own notes -- in my room. There was no time to retrieve it, so I decided to wing it from another copy. DUMB move. As a result, I completely blanked and utterly failed to say a word about SPJ's absolutely wonderful national staff. Allow me to fill you in here:

• Forget the real estate, the cash reserves (which have grown from zilch to almost $400,000 in five years, by the way) and the building in Indianapolis. Executive Director Terry Harper is one of this Society's chief assets. It's also wonderful that he just happens to be a class act. Terry has done a great job of building a strong and very hardworking staff. While he hopes to retain those wonderful people, he's also a big believer in helping folks move on to bigger, bolder and better opportunities. If only more people could benefit from that smart approach to management ... Terry was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor in June -- something he shared with conventiongoers with the authority, good humor and steely resolve many of us in SPJ's national leadership profoundly appreciate about him (What do you say when a guy who has just had a brain tumor removed sends an e-mail update under the subject line, "Thumping My Melon?"). If anyone can take charge, craft a smart game plan and wage one helluva battle against cancer, it's Terry. He and his family are in my thoughts and prayers -- and I hope they'll be in yours, too.
• Julie Grimes, Chris Vachon, Joe Skeel, Heather Porter, Mary Morgan, Shondra Price, Andrew Farkas, Billy O'Keefe, Beth King, Linda Hall and Jake Koenig don't get the credit they deserve -- and sometimes the respect they deserve -- from SPJ members. I daresay that it's not until a member holds the office of president that he or she can fully understand and appreciate just what these people manage to pull off in a year. It's not easy to work with journalists -- a noisy crowd that can be entirely too focused on finding fault, failure, imperfection and problems in just about everything. I salute their professionalism and patience.

SPJ makes some journalists squirm. I had a good laugh during a newsroom visit in Washington, D.C., last week.

Then President-elect Clint Brewer and I headed to several news organizations specializing in congressional coverage to encourage journalists to support the Society and to use its experts when sourcing stories about matters affecting the press.

An investigative reporter at Roll Call told us he considered SPJ's work -- particularly in the realm of lobbying -- "creepy." I understood what he meant. He covers Congress and shouldn't be caught dead asking elected officials for anything.

At the same time, I don't consider it much of a secret that journalists believe strongly in the First Amendment generally -- and in the rights of free speech and a free press specifically. It's going to be one very sad day when journalists fail to argue publicly and aggressively for these rights because they're more in love with the illusions of objectivity and aloofness. (Yes, illusions. Objectivity is a noble goal for which we should always strive. However, we all know we have opinions about what we report and biases we bring to every table. The best journalists are those who know how to keep theirs out of news coverage.)

Speaking of Roll Call. A sharp reporter there broke the story of disgraced congressman Larry Craig. Let's just say that poor journalist has been subjected to bad potty jokes for months -- and there's no sign of them letting up anytime soon.

SPJ makes some politicians take notice. I wrote a column about ethical lapses that was based on some interesting thoughts that came from SPJ's National Ethics Committee. U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) found that column -- and SPJ's Ethics Code -- and mentioned them during the Senate Judiciary's markup last week of the federal shield law bill. THAT was rewarding.

Few things are more fun than watching lawyers go head-to-head over the need for a federal shield law. I must say that Randall Eliason, an American University law professor who opposes a shield, was a good sport. The former prosecutor compared his appearance at SPJ's conference to picketing for gun control at an NRA convention. He said journalists aren't -- and shouldn't be -- above the law. They should testify when ordered to do so. He also essentially said that journalists have gotten all worked up over nothing. There haven't been that many instances of subpoenas -- and certainly not enough to merit a shield, he claimed.

Bad move.

Eve Burton, the hardcharging general counsel for Hearst Corp., pounced. I think she even licked her chops before launching into what was a blistering rebuttal. Burton explained that her company alone has expanded its legal team just because of the number of subpoenas that have been issued to Hearst Corp.-owned news organizations.

During the debate, which started at 10 a.m. EDT, Burton reported that the company had received 162 subpoenas in the last two years -- 80 of them since January. After the debate, she raced out of the hotel to hit Capitol Hill to speak with some legislators. She returned to SPJ's conference to appear at another program that started at 3:15 p.m. "Make that 164 subpoenas," Burton announced to the room. "We received two more since this morning." They were "out of Texas," she said.

Tom Henderson rocks. I felt terrible that the Region 10 director couldn't make it to this year's conference -- and I know he did, too. I gave Tom one of the President's Awards announced Saturday. I have worked with him for years on SPJ Leads, and he has been consistently gracious, good-humored and faithful in his service. Tom is a model volunteer. Does that mean he's perfect? Nope. Does that mean he's never cranky or bossy? Uh-huh. Does it mean that people agree with -- or even remotely like -- everything he says and does? Of course not. But Tom undoubtedly loves SPJ. He loves what the organization stands for and actively works to champion its mission. He volunteers when he's needed, and he steps back when he knows he can't follow through (if only more members understood the importance of letting their yes be yes and their no be no). He is creative (not many people have figured out how marry their passion for comic books and journalism). And he's a doer. When Tom moved to Idaho and found no SPJ chapter there, he helped establish one. Tom has also had a difficult year personally. He didn't attend the 2007 national conference largely because he's a single father of a son with autism. "But let's talk when you get back," Tom told me just before I took off for D.C. "I want to know more about how to be involved next year."

SPJ has the power to do much -- and more. I explain what I think along these lines in my final presidential column in Quill magazine. I particularly hope we'll see renewed discussion about an old topic -- one member/one vote -- during the 2007-08 national conference.

I see brilliant leaders on the horizon. As immediate past national president, I'll be responsible for shaping the slate of officers who run for executive leadership next year. I hope you'll review SPJ's bylaws and seriously consider a go at it. Call me early and often with questions if you're even a tiny bit interested in stepping up to this very, very important plate.

Again, it has been a pleasure and privilege to serve you. SPJ has given me tremendous new opportunities to pursue. My profound thanks.

Shield Law progresses -- and SPJ was there!

This morning, a proposed federal shield law that would help journalists protect confidential sources sailed out of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 15-2.

One of the dissenters: Sen. Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican SPJ members also known as "Senator Secrecy." The other? Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

Some things to note:

• Several people deserve credit for this important legislation. I have been referring to this Senate version of the shield bill as the Specter Schumer Lugar Dodd Leahy Bill. I commend each of these senators for their work to ensure the issue of a shield law remained a priority for discussion.

  And let's not forget the people who voted to support the measure:

  Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin, Cardin, Whitehouse, Specter, Hatch, Grassley, Graham, Cornyn

  For what it's worth, two senators abstained: Brownback and Coburn.

• Sen. Kyl tried to sink this bill by saddling it with 46 -- yes, 46 -- amendments. While Sen. Kyl said misdirection of his staff was to blame, I'm not so sure ... Fortunately, such silliness didn't reign supreme.

• Look for more discussion about the definition of a journalist. Yes, this is where things will become sticky. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who has been a true champion of reform of the federal Freedom of Information Act (he'll be speaking to SPJ members this afternoon ...), said that he wants to ensure "journalists" to whom the shield would apply are more clearly defined. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, agreed. Right now, the bill's language is very broadly worded -- as we hope it will remain. However, it's clear that politicians aren't comfortable with my favored definition of journalist which boils down to this: "Anyone gathering information for the purposes of distributing it."

  As you would expect, similar conversation is happening in the U.S. House of Representatives, where another version of a shield law is still being worked on. Sponsoring Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) are crafting definitions that run along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing wildly here): "Someone who practices journalism regularly and derives his or her primary source of income from that practice."

  posted by christinetatum | 0 Comments
  Filed Under: Federal Shield, SPJ Matters

Come to terms with the trouble we're in

MarketWatch's John Dvorak's Sept. 22 column is a must-read. It's harsh, but his assessment of the newspaper industry is dead on. These are snippets I particularly appreciate:

"As more newspapers make the mistake of eliminating reporting jobs, they fall into the pit of redundancy with nothing special to offer."

"The only papers or news organizations that can expect to survive will be those with lots of original content available only at their individual sites. The operations that rely more on universally available news feeds will be at the mercy of a fickle public ..."

"Once the Internet arrived, this model (of using more wire than original content) was dead, as the Net revealed that many newspapers weren't actually contributing anything new or unique."

"Now all papers are global, and they must complete globally whether they like it or not. This sort of competition can only result in shakeouts and consolidation. This process needs to go a lot faster before the bleeding worsens.

"More importantly, the publishing companies need to understand their dilemma. I don't think they do. I'm not sure they can."

Then there's this recent comment from Seymour Hersh in the Jewish Journal:

"We are eventually -- and I hate to tell this to the New York Times or the Washington Post -- we are going to have online newspapers, and they are going to be spectacular. ... We have a vibrant, new way of communicating in America. We haven't come to terms with it."

Well, many of us have come to terms with this massive and necessary transition from print to digital media -- but we're just not the folks who call the shots and control the money. Many journalists are working hard to innovate, but they're working in newsrooms that are woefully hobbled by bad, broken or nonexistent technology and by bad business decisions.

Compounding this mess are journalists who simply can't -- or who are afraid -- to think and act differently. They cling to their titles, which no longer even accurately reflect what the newsroom needs them to do. They cling to their very tired newsroom-management structures, which are no longer the wisest deployment of limited resources. They cling to what they know and lash out at innovation and change, which are, of course, often messy and uncertain. They refuse to believe their precious enclaves -- and even their specific jobs -- need to be restructured, reorganized and rebuilt. 

But, hey, don't take only my word for all of this. Drop me a line, and I'll be happy to connect you to literally hundreds of journalists who have expressed these sentiments to me in the past year.

Michael Wolff, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, gets all of this and much, much more. Check out his wonderful October column, which is a potent look at how more news organizations -- and newsrooms specifically -- would benefit from adding software engineers to their staffs. Wolff's brilliant Newser.com is an outstanding example of what is possible when editorial and math types collaborate. I contacted him recently -- and he graciously agreed to meet with me so that I can provide a more upclose look at Newser and his work there for the benefit of SPJ members. Be on the lookout for that profile, which we'll post on SPJ.org.

 

 

 

 

Free speech, Responsible journalism NOT synonymous

I have watched with great interest two controversies spinning in the last week out of college campuses. One is practically in my backyard -- Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colo. -- and the other is at Central Connecticut State University in New Britain, Conn.

Obviously, different publications, different students and different journalism are involved -- but both conflicts illustrate why I firmly believe that free speech and responsible journalism are not synonymous. I’ll be explaining this very concept – and touching on the campus brouhahas – when I speak to students at the University of Wisconsin this week.

Please allow me to be clear. The First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy, and the rights it guarantees every American absolutely must be protected at all costs. Freedom of assembly. Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Freedom of religion -- and the practice thereof. Freedom to petition the government for the redress of grievances. I thank God that I live in a country where everyone has these rights.

The First Amendment creates what I often describe to journalism students as "one big, glorious mess that makes this nation great." It flings open the doors to expression we cherish -- and expression we abhor, find utterly revolting, consider completely nuts and/or often wish we could ship to other solar systems. We know – or at least we should – that the best way to combat repugnant or bad speech is with more speech, not less. We're a very noisy bunch here in the United States -- and we're all better for it.

Then there's responsible journalism -- the fundamental tenets of which are outlined in SPJ's ethics code. "Minimize harm," the code states. "Show good taste." "Show compassion ..." "Be accountable." Those are honorable and noble limitations that good journalists – responsible journalists – impose on their work every day.

In other words, just because you can say or write it doesn’t mean you should.

I wish someone had convinced student journalists in Connecticut and Colorado to rethink (as in not publish) the content that has created such a stir. The Connecticut student paper decided to roll with a comic strip that jokingly referred to a “14-year-old Latino girl locked up in a closet” who has been urinated on and, apparently, starved by her captor. The Colorado paper’s editorial board published a four-word editorial: “Taser this … F--- BUSH.” (I’m not even willing to spell out the f-bomb in an SPJ blog – but know that the students did, along with a tagline stating that the column “represents the views of the Collegian’s editorial board.”)

Yup, we’ve got free speech on our hands here – the result of a constitutional right I fight long and hard to protect -- but these are not examples of responsible journalism.

For what it’s worth, my stance on these matters is identical to the one I took when helping to draft SPJ’s statement about cartoons that mocked the Islamic prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper. Some SPJ members were aghast that the statement didn’t state something more along the lines of, “The journalists have the right to do what they did. Leave ‘em alone.”

I just pointed the critics to SPJ’s ethics code. Why bother to have the code, I asked, if SPJ truly stands only for free-speech and free-press rights – and not also the responsibilities that go with them?

What to do about the campus papers’ missteps? That’s always interesting – and I hope university administrators will act in ways that respect the First Amendment and foster great student journalism. I am very concerned about the newspapers’ oversight – particularly in Connecticut, where the student government is the publisher of that newspaper and has the power to dictate the process by which student editors are selected or elected (such managerial structures are just nuts – and smack more of North Korea than the United States). The Colorado State paper is editorially independent – although the university retains some control of the publication through a Board of Student Communications composed of students and faculty. That group has the power to fire the paper’s editor-in-chief. I have written extensively about problems associated with student-publication governance, management and administration.

While I’m thinking about it, this would be a great time for administrators at both universities to review and support SPJ’s Campus Media Statement Program.

Still laughing at FOX lawsuit ...

The next time you need a video MP3 player to help wile away all those hours you anticipate being stuck in the car, on the train or in the airport, you must download "The First Amendment Project."

This 2004 production from the Sundance documentary collection (and co-produced by Court TV) is priceless if for no other reason than the 20-minutes-or-so segment titled, "Fox vs. Franken."

Some quick background: Fox network filed suit against Al Franken after network commentator Bill O'Reilly's angry-looking mug appeared on the cover of Franken's 2003 book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. The network clearly didn't have a lot on which to hang its legal hat: its lawyers actually argued that Franken's use of the phrase "fair and balanced" infringed on the network's copyright and was a delibrate attempt to mislead people into believing that Fox was responsible for the book.

Take a look at the book's cover -- and you be the judge.

Then watch a profound reminder of the beauty and importance of the First Amendment through one funny lens.

 

It is ethical to question the news business

Amen, Amy Gahran!

I, too, am sickened by layoffs of highly qualified journalists when it's clear -- crystal clear -- that many news organizations actually could afford to boost their editorial ranks (and, in turn, deliver more great journalism) if only they had a better handle on technology.

Gahran is absolutely correct that many news companies are losing out on big bucks because they haven't built -- or bought -- the systems that would allow them to make the most of online ad sales.

C'mon. How sluggish have these people been already? They watched -- for years -- as classified ad sales in their newspapers virtually disappeared (Craig's List, anyone?), and they still haven't mustered a decent comeback.

(Side note: I also have ranted this year about how newsroom leaders just about everywhere should wake up and understand how awful their news organization's content-management tools are. One reason so many news orgs have less-than-inspiring Web sites is because they have cruddy, cruddy, cruddy tools with which to build and maintain them. It's really not much of an exaggeration to write that you could build a more sophisticated news Web site using the tech you have in your house. Let's just say that the sophomoric approach to Web site-building isn't going to help even the nation's oldest and most respected news organizations survive.)

And I just loved Gahran's kicker: "Many, if not most, journalists are disinterested in or disdainful of the ad side of the business and so might wonder why I'll be covering it. I figure a paycheck can help anyone be a better journalist. How's that for relevance?"

You tell 'em, sister.

While I believe sponsorships and targeted ad sales can go too far, I also believe journalists need to study the business of our business and tech trends before they bash new approaches to ad placement. For some reason, people freak out about ads from a dry cleaner showing up online next to stories about clothing. Where were these same journalists when their newspaper released a special section -- or even a regularly themed section (such as, oh, say, technology) -- filled with ads that jived with the content? That has been going on for years ...

If journalists truly want to fight for good journalism, the answer isn't always going to be to write a better story or air a more compelling newscast. Sometimes, we're going to have to speak up about the bad business decisions that are affecting our ability to perform an incredibly important public service. We take other companies to task for their missteps. We pick them apart for their failures. Perhaps it's time for more of us to band together and start asking much tougher questions of the "business folks" who run the companies we work for.

Help push SPJ into exciting, new territory!

Video-conferencing technology isn't new -- but it's new to SPJ. And wow, does it have the power to help this organization do amazing things.

On Sunday afternoon, I visited with SPJ members in Knoxville, Tenn. While sitting in my home. In Denver. I even got a chance to show off my 2-year-old daughter, Tatum Elizabeth, who insisted on saying, "Hi, Tennessee!"

A small camera built into my MacBook Pro laptop was trained on my face (very carefully trained because I didn't want everyone to see my messy desk). I'll spare you the technical talk and simply leave it at this: the folks in Knoxville and I could see and hear each other. They were watching me on a large screen in a computer lab, and I could see them on my trusty laptop.

For about a half hour, we discussed pretty much whatever was on everyone's minds. A student asked about graduate school. A chapter leader asked about dues payments. An educator asked about the technology I think journalists should know more about.

It wasn't earth-shattering conversation -- but it was a thrilling moment in the history of this organization.

"You have helped open our eyes to some other opportunities involving this technology," John Huotari, president of SPJ's East Tennessee chapter wrote me in an e-mail today. "After the chat, a few of us talked about how we might use a similar setup to have a long-distance chat with another speaker or chapter."

Aww, shucks. Music to my ears. Here's a portion of what I wrote back:

"If you'd like to have an exchange with the top gun at The Denver Post, I could arrange that in a snap. If you want our graphics editor to deliver hands-on instruction concerning Flash or some other software, it shall be done ...

"You see where I'm going with this.

"And just FYI: the new Mac operating system will be released in October. It's called Leopard. One of the coolest features about it is the ability to make long-distance presentations. Sooooo, instead of seeing just my big head on that screen, I could, instead, beam you a PowerPoint-like presentation (in Mac, the presentation software is called Keynote). I could illustrate it with all of the bells and whistles -- including video and audio -- and "present" it to you on that big screen. You'd see the presentation AND me beamed to you from Denver. How cool is that?

"Obviously, I get excited about this stuff -- and I'm delighted that you are, too. Please drop me a line anytime. I'll hand over my SPJ tiara and sceptor in early October -- but that'll just free me up to work with you more directly if you'd like."

That offer stands for every SPJ member who'd like to push a chapter, a committee, a group of leaders, a workshop -- you name it -- into exciting new directions. I'm happy to help you.

Will Owen Wilson get to heal in private?

The breathlessness of many of today's stories recounting actor Owen Wilson's reported suicide attempt has made me cringe. (Full disclosure for the Us-Weekly-magazine conspiracy theorists among you: No, not because I have a secret crush on him. No, not because I secretly hope to interview him one day. And no, not because I want to use Mr. Wilson to win the affections of actor Vince Vaughn.)

Today, I'm seeing anonymous sources dishing this, that and the other about a Hollywood star who clearly has serious personal problems needing serious medical attention. I'm seeing the time stamps of police reports dutifully and meticulously noted as if to underscore the media watchdog's savvy and vigilance ("And hey! Look! Click here to see a PDF of the officer's actual handwritten report for yourself!"). I'm seeing the more official "business angles" exploring the impact this sad event might have on films either in the works or the midst of promotion (such angles are often little more than clumsy, high-brow excuses to cover what is essentially a very personal matter).

If only more journalists pounced as quickly and diligently on matters of true public importance.

I completely get the public personality-or-official lecture delivered in Media Law 101. Heck, I even get the far more advanced versions gleaned over the course of my career. You cast yourself into the limelight or get yourself elected to public office, and you ask for the scrutiny. You ask for the criticism, the leering, the praise, the fawning, the constant flashbulbs, the boatloads of letters and e-mail and the stupid guy begging for an autograph while you're in a public restroom. Once you enter that white-hot public spotlight, you can't leave it whenever you choose.

But journalists. What's their responsibility when an Owen Wilson has a breakdown and asks the media (and, by extension, the general public) to allow him to heal in private? He's no Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan or Nicole Ritchie driving under the influence on public streets. He's not even a Britney Spears, who has an incredible knack for taking her wackiness public.

Might this be a time when we let a prominent person who apparently struggles with depression have the solace and privacy he needs? I certainly hope so. And if, for some reason, a news organization feels absolutely compelled to report every detail of Wilson's recovery, perhaps it could do so within the context of actual public service. Of all the news accounts I checked before sitting down to write today, not one mentions a word about how to identify, treat, recover from or otherwise deal with debilitating depression.

Anchorwoman: More bomb than bombshell

Fox has pulled the plug on "Anchorwoman," one of the dumbest reality shows concocted yet (and that's really saying something).  

This reaction arrived in my e-mail inbox from Michael Drudge of San Antonio: "Amazing. How refreshing to see there IS a limit to the depth of low taste in this country."

Indeed.

 

 

The Bourne Ultimatum and Journalism

The hubby and I watched "The Bourne Ultimatum" last night, and it reminded me of discussions swirling in journalism/newsroom/SPJ circles.

We're buffs who love to discuss over dinner a film's every detail. For years, without fail, my husband always has gotten the conversation rolling with one simple question: "Why did they make that movie?"

I'm no spoiler, so I won't recount too much here, but the final(?) installment of the series about a young black-ops CIA agent included themes journalists typically love to contemplate:

• The reporter-source relationship. A reporter for The Guardian in London gets close, oh-so-close, to blowing the lid off a controversial CIA program. He's courageous and diligent. And even in the midst of what is clear and present danger, he has the presence of mind to protect his source's identity.
• Blind loyalty. Whether it's to a government, to any other institution (such as, oh, say, a newsroom, news organization, news company or journalism-advocacy organization) or even to an individual, blind loyalty is always dangerous. This movie is a potent reminder of the need to ask questions, to challenge authority and "group think," to speak up and act when others don't, to reject what is politically convenient/popular/savvy for what is right. And yet there's a balance to be struck between such protest and respect for authority -- a very important concept with which journalists often struggle. It is also possible to challenge with respect -- another approach to debate often lost these days. The movie touches on these delicate, but crucial, balances.
• Privacy. We don't have nearly as much as we'd like to think.
• Government secrecy. How far will our elected officials go? How much will they try to hide under the guise of "national security?"Real life already tells us pretty darned far and pretty darned much -- but The Bourne Ultimatum is a thrilling (OK, even fun) reminder of that.

Don't trust my recommendation that this film is worth dropping $50 for a ticket, tiny bag of popcorn and sippy-cup-sized soda. See the review from my all-time favorite film critic.

I'm also paging SPJ member and Region 10 Director Tom Henderson! He has a great list of movies every journalist should check out. Here's to hoping he posts it here.

 

Go ahead! Plug your blog!

Certainly no news flash here: a blog can have serious reach.

I launched Freedom of the Prez in September 2006 with hopes that SPJ national presidents for years to come would log on occasionally to document important issues/events, generate discussion and generally connect with SPJ members and the public. Perhaps, over time, this blog's archives will help inform everyone's perspective about where SPJ is, how it got there and where it needs to head next.

It's also my hope that Freedom of the Prez is just one more hub where SPJ members can make their own voices heard. As you'll see on the left navigation rail of this page, there is a list headlined "Members Only." If you've got a blog to share, by all means send me the URL. I'll add it to that list pronto.

I was delighted this week to see mention of Freedom of the Prez on Rifftides, where SPJ member Doug Ramsey writes mostly about jazz for ArtsJournal.

Just a snippet of what Doug wrote:

"If you think an unimpeded flow of information is vital to the survival of democracy, rummaging around in the Freedom of the Prez archives will be enlightening--and sometimes infuriating. (Tatum) can be as tough on the news business and wayward journalists as she is on their enemies and detractors."

Awww, shucks.

But what really made me smile was a subsequent post on Rifftides that was generated as a result of that mention of Freedom of the Prez. One Rifftides reader -- Devra Hall of DevraDoWrite -- wanted to explore the "Bush administration's relationship to press freedom and journalistic responsibility, particularly in regard to the Joseph Wilson-Valerie Plame episode." She mentioned a conversation Bill Moyers had with two Constitutional scholars and concluded with the following graph:

"Having watched the program, I realized how little I know about the Constitution, the intentions of those who wrote it, and the predictions they made. I was fascinated by the discussion, and heartened that it took the subject of impeachment out of the realm of Bush bashing, or even partisan politics, and placed it in a solidly historical, impersonal perspective."

That comment gave Doug Ramsey another interesting in. He followed up:

"I wonder how many of us know as much about the Constitution as we think we do. I keep a copy on my desk and one in my laptop case, but I don't look at them nearly often enough. I'm making a resolution to brush up. We all should. With civil liberties under attack (as they always are) and a crucal election on the horizon, we need the understanding. For the price of shipping and handling, you can get a free copy here."

Might Doug's post inspire someone to study up on the Constitution? If so, that's quite an accomplishment.

Join the fun. Send me that URL today.

Global attacks on journalism: Do you really care?

The news this week out of the International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX) was especially depressing. Journalists worldwide are literally fighting for their lives.

I have written about how checked out American journalists can be where matters of global press freedom are concerned.

A few new connections might snap more of us out of our complacency. Speaking with journalists from foreign countries never ceases to amaze, disturb and inspire me. During a recent SPJ event, I chatted with an Iranian journalist who is wrapping up a fellowship in the United States. The journalist described the time spent here as "working in heaven." I also learned more about how the journalist's colleagues have learned to deal with government edicts concerning news they will and will not present to the public. "You learn what not to say," the journalist told me. "You become very good at self-censorship."

One very helpful way to learn more about global-press issues quickly is through "IFEX Communiqué," a weekly e-newsletter. IFEX is a global network of 71 organizations working to defend and promote "the right to free expression." The network is managed by Canadian Journalists for Free Expression.

SPJ's International Journalism Committee is also well versed in global press-freedom issues. This committee is particularly focused on helping American journalists find opportunities to work abroad and better understand how a stronger command of international issues improves journalism right here at home.

Need a little nudge to get more involved? Here are just a few of the headlines from this week's IFEX newsletter that prompted me to write:

• Two Radio Journalists Killed in Wave of Violent Attacks in Somalia
• Central Asia: Network Revs Up Press Freedom Campaigning; Kazakh Journalist Dies
• Germany: Numerous Journalists Face Criminal Investigation
• Democratic Republic of Congo: News Photographer Shot Dead
• Kenya: President Urged to Reject Law Requiring Journalists to Reveal Sources

And from alerts IFEX has sent in the last week:

• Senegal: Newsroom records threat to journalist made by minister
• Mexico: Four journalists detained by military while trying to cover drug raid
• Democratic Republic of Congo: Photojournalist shot dead near his home in Goma
• Colombia: Staff of television news programme harassed for reporting on bridge construction
• Turkey: Journalist convicted of "insulting" lawyer, faces possible imprisonment and compensation fees
• Israel/Palestine: Cameraman badly injured by Israeli gunfire unable to leave Gaza Strip to get artificial legs in Egypt
• Serbia: Editor of radio-television station in Bela Crkva receives death threats
• Afghanistan: IFJ condemns abduction of Kabul reporter Kamran Mir Hazar, previously detained by state security agency
• East Timor: Newspaper office attacked, media worker beaten
• Pakistan: Released after 16 months' military detention, journalist held another 30 days under police arrest
• Peru: Two television reporters attacked in Pucallpa
• Philippines: Electoral commission threatens legal action against media personalities; boxer files libel suit against journalists
• Sierra Leone: Two presenters injured in armed attack on evangelical radio station
• Colombia: Radio journalists in Arauca must read announcement on air or become military targets, FARC threatens

Andy Schotz makes a great point

If you haven't read National Ethics Committee Chairman Andy Schotz' column in this month's edition of Quill magazine, please do so.

In a nut shell, Andy challenges what is becoming a common practice: newsrooms are permitting anonymous posts on their Web sites.

He writes:

"The standards should be high. Anonymity may be granted, in a news story or for a letter to the editor, if there’s a compelling reason. We explain why.

"With online comments, we do the opposite. We let people hide behind a screen name and hurl insults, which we may or may not scrub from the Web site, depending on whether someone has noticed or complained.

"The result is a lower level of discourse. Amusement and rants replace reasoned debate. And, by setting up this process, we solicit and encourage anonymous nonsense and barbs. We’re responsible."

And then there is this sobering thought from Philip Meyer, a professor at the University of North Carolina, who recently joined a debate about journalists and certification:

"I'm not sure we can count on the Miltonian self-righting principle for truth to emerge on its own. The lies move too fast now."

Andy and Professor Meyer make great points -- and I had to laugh about the timing of their wise remarks. See for yourself some of the anonymous trash-talking that as broken out about me on a previous thread -- or two. I can take it on the chin -- or I never would have agreed to serve as SPJ's president.

But really. It's amazing how chicken some people are. And when they're supposed to be advocates of responsible journalism, their anonymous posts are downright spineless. As Andy stated, those operating from the shadows commonly throw barbs and hurl insults while also dragging down the level of discourse. Some of the rants might be funny (I cracked up after one poster used the name recallchristinetatum@corporatetool.com), but they don't add anything of true value to a debate. When facts are screwed up -- as is too often the case -- there is no accountability.

We don't stand for that kind of junk on our pages or our newscasts. Why are we lowering this bar for the online world? We should embrace instant communication. But instant and anonymous aren't the same thing.

With all of this said, there have been times when people have posted anonymously on this blog and, in the process, have added valuable insight. I still sometimes think about the women who chimed in to discuss the challenges of balancing motherhood and a career in journalism. I think about the young woman, M, who genuinely feared any questions and remarks she posted could get her in trouble at work.

Unfortunately, though, the Ms of the world are increasingly rare.

Andy's column has made me think about SPJ, of course. We should set a high standard we encourage all news organizations to follow. Perhaps it's time for us to consider being more pointed in our ethics code about discouraging anonymous posts online. Perhaps SPJ should open its message boards only to those who submit their names -- or log in through some other mechanism so that we know they're actual members. Just a thought.

What are yours? And if you post anonymously, you're a goof.