Do different kinds of journalists experience different ethical restrictions?

It appears that there are two kinds of journalists: the objective ones and the subjective ones. They perhaps experience ethical restrictions in different ways
because of the different styles of their practice.

Most traditional journalists are objective-style journalists. They act as unbiased observers and objective reporters. Even though they know that pure “objectivity” is hard to attain, they do their best to be as neutral and balanced as possible. They provide factual information and other people’s opinion but hide their own opinions and feelings. Another type is subjective-style journalists, also known as opinion journalists. More often, they play roles such as commentator or advocate. They are opinionated, emotional and act as individuals. They do not pursue objectivity and do not pretend to be neutral.

When choosing journalism as a profession, in order to avoid conflict of interests or harming their news organization’s credibility, journalists’ personal rights, especially the rights of free expression, is limited. I wonder whether or not the objective-style journalist experiences more ethical restrictions than the opinion journalist does. Usually, journalists should not participate in politics, should not join institutions that may make the headlines, and have to be cautious when giving speeches, accepting interviews, or writing freelance articles and books, etc. However, who would criticize Bill O’Reilly when he published several books to express his personal beliefs? Who would care if Rush Limbaugh attended a Republican’s political event or speak out in other people’s shows? Because they are subjective-style journalists, their “bias” won’t harm their news organization. Generally speaking, when journalists portray themselves as opinion journalists, they probably get a special pass. They may experience less restriction and enjoy more free expression than the objective-style journalists do.

Annapolis: not quite the worst

The class' recent focus on error correction in the news reminded me of a disillusioning experience I had a few years ago, as an undergraduate journalism student at Northeastern University.

My class was assigned to write a story about our hometowns, based on U.S. Census figures. I had recently read a two-part feature in my county newspaper that explored the long-standing socioeconomic disparities between whites and blacks in Annapolis, Md. The first installment introduced Annapolis as the nation's leader in per capita population living in public or subsidized housing,

Such a striking statistic seemed ideal for my assignment. Despite hours of playing around with Census and HUD data, I couldn't reconcile the numbers with the story. Even Maryland town-by-town comparisons were fruitless; Annapolis' surrounding Anne Arundel County has only one other incorporated municipality. Comparison between state capitals only, however, revealed that Annapolis did have the second-highest per capita population in public housing, just behind Harrisburg, Penn.

I was still curious as to where the paper had obtained its statistics , so I e-mailed the authors of the piece, both staff writers with names readers recognize. One of them replied that he couldn't think of any documentation of the public housing statistic, but that the assertion had appeared in previous stories in the paper, and that it is frequently referred to by local activists. He e-mailed me again days later to apologize that he had been mistaken: Annapolis had "the greatest amount of subsidized housing per capita in Maryland, not nation-wide." Again he cited no source. As far as I know, the newspaper has not printed a correction.

I've saved the e-mails as a reminder that sometimes, a piece reveals more about the news-gathering operation than its purported subject.

Lack of Journalistic Ethics and Carelessness of CNN

Monday, CNN commentator Lou Dobbs went live on his radio show and claimed that a bullet hit his Sussex, New Jersey home, and that the attack was motivated by his conservative views on immigration. Dobbs stated that in the weeks leading up to the attack, he had received numerous death threats that he did not report to authorities because “it’s become a way of life…. They’ve now fired a shot at my house.”

Today the New York Post has reported that law enforcement did not receive any reports of death threats against Dobbs. The bullet may have been a stray round from a near-by hunter. Sgt. Stephen Jones said, "At this time of year, hunter complaints go up" and that “With hunting season starting up, such incidents are not at all uncommon.” Today's Huffington Post provides more detail of law enforcement’s investigation. With further tests pending, Jones did not give an opinion on the cause of the bullet incident.

CNN has demonstrated a lack of standards by allowing Dobbs to proclaim on air that he is now under literal fire from liberals, when the investigation is ongoing and there are obvious benign explanations. To what extent did CNN allow unsubstantiated, sensational attack claims on-air to fire up audience and ratings?

Adam Hamilton

http://http//www.huffingtonpost.com/isabel-macdonald/nj-law-enforcement-appear_b_339696.html

Interesting Speaker

It seems that Jason Blair has been invited as a keynote speaker in the beltway to speak about ethics in journalism. I will admit at first blush that he is a strange choice. He was after all swept up in a huge scandal of plagiarism and fabrication, but on further thought...I think that is might not be that bad of an idea. Here is a guy that has cheated, been caught, and suffered immense professional losses for it. It is almost an interesting demonstration of the system working correctly and policing its own.

I will admit that Jason Blair must be a pretty bold guy to take that stage, considering his past. But there is a possibility that he can shed some light on just how easy it is to get caught up in this kind of behaviour, and ways to look for it in the future. I will be interested just to see what he has to say for himself.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574501583043791054.html

Media crowning off -duty officer who shot and killed a hospital Psychiatrist 's 'stabber' "Hero" ?

One can see the how biased the media is in handling this incident where a mentally ill man was shot and killed by  an off-duty security officer, Paul M. Langone, with a license to carry a gun. One wonders why a security officer with all his training, (and on his way to becoming a Boston Police cop, according to today's Boston Herald story, page 4 ),armed with a destructive weapon( a gun) did not aim at the hand with the knife , but the head area?  His judgement in the use of such a powerful weapon  is pathetic! The media has overlooked the fact that the deceased was a mentally ill patient and that he also left a  family towhich he was a father, a husband and a provider and highlighted the plight of a psychiatrist? The media has not put hospital (Mass General Hospital) on the spot for not having security in place for their staff and patients to the extent that this poor psychiatrist was only lucky that an off duty officer happened to be there to rescue her!!! All this shows how conventional wisdom and being biased could taint the image of the profession of Journalism.
   *This incident took place on Tuesday, October 27th 2009. This is the story....
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20091027shooting_in_medical_office_building_leaves_2_injured/

Take a stand: How journalism can regain its relevance.

Ever since the town criers of history began doing their rounds and announcing recent events, there was already a conflict brewing whether listeners to these forerunners of journalists should just listen to what they say or also ask them their opinions. Fast forward to the modern ages and we still have the same problem. Does objective journalism only mean the news reporters and writers are only there to report what happened or should they also report the issue on the matter? If we dwell on this, it is going to be a chicken and egg matter of which is which first. If we go by the premise that journalism is there only to “keep the record of events and tell” the event, then they are nothing more than an audio and video recorder capturing what is. Now if we insist on public service journalism where they report the issue and offer opinion on what is being reported, then they are not only audio or video recorders but avenues of reporting that captures not just the news but the essence thereof.

Then again a conundrum exists because journalists should be as objective as possible and the moment they start talking about the issue, then their objectivity wavers. As what Cunningham writes: “This equation leaves far too little room for the press’s other, more important, roles: investigator, explainer, and, I would add, arbiter of our national conversation (2009).” Personally I find this a non-issue considering journalists can still be record keepers and news reporters. But when they get into the public service part, then that should also be considered journalism albeit on a specialized role. In the same manner as other professions have specialization and have redefined their roles, journalists should also start redefining themselves to keep up with the tides of time.

Bibliography:


Cunningham, B. (2009) “Take a stand: How journalism can regain its relevance.” Columbia Journalism Review [Internet] September/October, Available from: <http://www.cjr.org/feature/take_a_stand.php?page=all> [Accessed 27 October 2009].

Ownership and its influence (real or imagined) on coverage

It was interesting to re-read the Ombudsman editorial about the Globe's stake in the Red Sox and how that affects both the reality and perception of the coverage. I remember when that all went down. I take the word of Joe Sullivan (a great guy and a great journalist, but I'm biased) when he says: ''We're uncomfortable with the relationship, but that's never been a factor in our coverage of the Red Sox."

The reality, though, is that sometimes ownership or publishers do influence coverage. I've seen it at the local level. The wall between editorial and advertising is not as rock-solid as it should be in many places, and with the economic woes most media outlets are experiencing, that's more of a danger than ever. It's also very subtle, more often than not, making it all the more insidious. As bad as it is, at least Fox News is pretty blatant about its capitulations. We probably aren't privy to most of the ways in which owner interests influence coverage. The article on Chiquita hinted at a little bit of that, saying how The Cincinnati Enquirer declined to take on its powerful company head prior to the controversial series. But I digress.

In the case of the Times/Globe/Sox, there have been some changes since that column was published in 2005. For one, I no longer see the corporate disclosure about the connection in all Red Sox stories that contain opinion. And I thought it was especially dubious that the connection wasn't mentioned in this recent Globe article about similar potential conflicts with the Patriots and ESPNBoston. It certainly could have been an honest mistake, an accidental omission. But in the context of this article it seems hard to imagine that no one made the connection.

Protecting Sources, Deadspin edition

Unless I somehow missed it, there was no real examination of what happens when a source misleads you in the Citizen Media Law Project readings we were assigned. I bring this up because in that whole Deadspin/ESPN saga, Gawker Media (which owns Deadspin) honcho Nick Denton had this to say: “When an unnamed source misleads, as far as we’re concerned, they lose the right to remain in the shadows.”

What do you guys this of this stance? I think there is actually some validity, if the source knowingly misleads. But it's a slippery slope, and if you've promised a source confidentiality, as our reading points out, you could be sued if you violate that agreement, no matter the reason.

Is the Conventional Wisdom Wrong Again?

Many if not most of the talking heads on the weekend talk shows have declared the White House's attacks on Fox News Channel to be self defeating. There have been comparisons to Richard Nixon's hostility to NBC. Fox has enjoyed increased ratings by attracting defiant viewers. Though there may be some superficial similarities, the differences are important. Fox News clearly violated the long accepted standard of journalistic independence when they participated in the Tax Day Tea Parties last spring. Despite Nixon's paranoia, NBC never engaged in any activity that crossed the line as blatantly as the actions of Fox certainly did. Furthermore, the White House's strategy has shown some signs that it is working. Fox has, so far, toned down their coverage of Tea Party II. Since they have been called out, they have to be aware that their credibility is at stake. This is a potential long term problem that will not be offset by whatever short term bump they get in their ratings. They run the risk of being prisoners of the zeitgeist of the times and, therefore, irrelevant when faux populism becomes passe. The White House would be well advised to keep the scrutiny on Fox, at least as long as Fox continues to provide such easy targets.

Are student journalists protected like professionals?

Prosecutors for a 31-year-old murder case have recently tried to subpoena the grades, emails, and notes from student journalists, under the guise that they needed to determine if the students (who worked for the Medill Innocence Project) "believed they would receive better grades if witnesses they interviewed provided evidence to exonerate Mr. McKinney." Northwestern University is fighting the subpoena, stating that these demands far overreach what is customarily requested.

Likewise, professional journalists are appalled--they see the students as having the same protections as the pros, and should not be asked to reveal their notes. The debate has stirred up what it means to be a professional journalist (as far as many state laws are concerned, bloggers do not count--but what about students?) and what rights go along with that role.

David Protess, director of the Medill Innocence Project, reinforces that the student journalists should have equal rights to be separate from the government and retain independence. He vouches for their quest to find the truth, and fears the prosecutors are looking to dismantle the project.

I can't help but agree with the professionals here; the student journalists' notes should not be available for government review. Whether this falls under the same protection that journalists receive, or for some other reason, the prosecutors' request seems highly unethical. It sounds like a dicey political move instead.

"White House Escalates War of Words With Fox News"

The White House may be criticized for engaging in  war with a Fox News to the extent of saying it is not a recognized news network, however hasn't Fox News taken it too far by engaging in this war? Fox News could  be in danger of being regarded as partial in its reporting which could hurt its reputation and  affect the size of its audience. The White House has alleged that Fox News network is more biased in favor of the  Republicans and  against the Democrats. According to this article found at   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/
Anita Dunn,White House communications director, on CNN is quoted to have said, "What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party."  "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

 In response, Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente is quoted saying, "It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming," Clemente said. "It seems self-serving on their part."

This is a war that Fox News Network should handle very carefully to avoid falling through the cracks and compromising its reputation and objectivity, although it is agreeable that the White House is not embarking on a worthwhile strategy by waging war on the network.

*More about this article can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/

Who’s The Guilty Party?

As a journalist I learn that a local high school girl’s basketball coach has been repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct and has left previous schools under a cloud of suspicion. The teacher is pressured to leave the school and plans to move on to teach somewhere else. There has been no police involvement with the coach and he pleads with me to not write a story because he may kill him self over the potential scandal it may cause.

At first I thought writing the article would not be a good idea. I would not want to be responsible for the death of an innocent man. However something peaks my interest about this story. Why is this individual being accused not once but on several occasions? If he is being wrongly accused there should be an outlet for this coach to profess his innocence. If students are wrongly accusing this man of misconduct then they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, the schools that are pressuring the teacher to leave should also be held accountable. Is it possible rumors are following this coach from his first school to all of the others he goes to? If so the rumor and the individual who started it should be exposed. If this man is truly innocent I know if it were me those who are making my life a living hell should be held accountable.
The fact that there has been no police involvement makes me want to find out more about the possible innocence of this individual. So at the very least as a journalist I would want to sit down and talk to the coach. The coach at least owes it to me to explain his side of the story. I would do my best to convince him that ignoring the problem will not make it go away. He has every right to defend himself from these accusations and I could be that person who could help him clear his name.

Journalism Oversight

Journalism is in dire straights. Newspapers are being decimated and bloggers are taking over the internet with their own interpretation of the news. As an individual I can trade my own stocks without a license, stock brokers cannot. As an individual I can sell my own house, however if I use a Realtor, they must be properly licensed as well. As an individual, I can post my interpretation of the news, but as an official reporter that wants to work with the New York Times, or Boston Globe, why shouldn’t I have a license to report the news? Finding those who are true professionals in the field of journalism is going to be more and more difficult as the news transfers completely to the internet. I know what you are thinking; the news can’t possibly completely transfer to the internet! I believe it will and it makes it that much more important to differentiate from opinion to true news reporting. Some will say that this takes away from the freedom of the press. I would say it does not. The licensure of the press is simply to police those who do not adhere to ethics already put in place by the industry. Not to take away the freedoms afforded by the Constitution. The regulatory decisions would be made by journalists, and held accountable by their peers. This would avoid the possibility of the government in Washington controlling the press or giving such an impression. Journalism must be regulated to a degree. Self regulation has not worked and will never work. An unregulated Wall Street is a perfect example. Even Alan Greenspan admitted he underestimated human nature and it’s inevitability to cheat and cut corners. While the majority plays by the rules, there are a few who just can’t do the right thing and ruin it for everyone else.

Rick Sanchez

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091023155829.aspx

Shariah vs. Free-Speech Journalism

A Saudi female journalist was recently sentenced to 60 lashes for conducting an interview on Saudi television where a male guest spoke of his sex life. Anyone living in Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, or anyone that knows a bit about Islamic Law knows that this is about as smart as hitting your big toe with a hammer. While most of the world may disagree with the fundamental structure of an Islamic state, is it fair to judge another country's goverment just because our laws differ? Being Saudi citizens, both the journalist and the guest speaker knew the consequences of such an explicit interview. Is it their fault for blatantly taunting their government? Is it the government's for not being as open-minded as we deem ourselves to be? When is it more important to consider the ethics of a country's laws versus the ethics of journalism as a global practice?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/24/saudi.sex.braggart.journalist/index.html

Of Blogs, Sources and Ethics

Yesterday, popular sports blog Deadspin.com rocked the sporting news world with divulging what amounted to little more than rumors about the sexual exploits of a few people at ESPN. What happened, in brief, is this: ESPN commentator (and former Mets GM) Steve Phillips was suspended after an affair with a staffer turned ugly. The New York Post broke the news. Police were involved, charges were filed.

Deadspin (Motto: "Sports News without Access, Favor or Discretion") had heard rumor that this was coming but got no comment from ESPN PR folks. In his rage at being scooped by the Post, and misled by ESPN, Deadspin editor A.J. Daulerio went forward with a handful of stories about other ESPN employees' exploits. The "sources" were negligiable, the people at the heart of the posts barely qualified as public figures. Dauelerio admitted as much, saying, "And since the tenuous connection between rumor and fact for accuracy's sake has been a little eroded here, well, it's probably about time to just unload the inbox of all the sordid rumors we've received over the years about various ESPN employees."

Now, this is precisely the kind of thing that blogs are admonished for, exactly the type of decisions that journalists use to dismiss bloggers. As much as Deadspin is known for dirty jokes and little deference to media powers, this seemed a surprising call.

All of this is very interesting and brings up questions of blogger ethics. But to me the most interesting part is that just last week I read a story about Gawker Media (which owns Deadspin) head honcho Nick Denton saying in the past his family of sites had been too hesitant to publish certain items. Clearly Deadspin's decision to publish what they did seems to be related to Denton's comments.

I have tried to play the devil's advocate in class, saying the decision to sit on something is much easier to make that the decision to run it. But even I would be hard-pressed to justify Deadspin's actions. I don't think it's realistic to expect blogs to conform to the ethical standards of old media, but this is something else entirely.

With Regard To Balloon Boy

Adam has a post on this below so I'll try to focus on other things. I have found the reaction almost as interesting as the story itself.

On NPR the other day, they were talking about the coverage. It was less a critique of CNN -- indeed, this was compelling footage whether the boy was in the balloon or not -- and more a criticism of the aftermath. The little kid threw up on not one show but two. The commenter from Salon pointed out that after the first time, the other network should have pulled the plug. They were too concerned with ratings to do this.

This person also said something interesting, that the reason they should have pulled the plug was due to "their obligation to the child." I thought this was interesting just because it was framed in the way we've been talking about these issues. What I wondered, though, is whether this outweighed the public's right to know the truth --- not that's what The Today Show was getting, but in theory. Definitely feel for the kid, but at what point do you grab the ratings and take the bait, and at what point do you realize this family and whole situation smells foul? She drew the line at the kid puking on himself. Few ethical scenarios have so graphic a tipping point.

Shield Law and “National Security”

Should journalists have the privilege of not testifying in court so that they can protect their sources’ identities? Should network providers have the guts for not revealing their clients’ information when facing the pressure of losing some business?

The current version of shield law which has been reviewing by Congress sounds reasonable. It provides journalists absolute protection when facing a legal demand. However, there is an exception: when involving “imminent and actual harm to national security”, the public interest would outweigh the free flow of information. So, the real issue here is how to decide whether a case meets the criteria of involving “imminent and actual harm to national security”. When a federal prosecutor raised the “national security” issue, Time magazine turned over its reporter Cooper’s notes even though Cooper refused. Time’s action is highly controversial. A more infamous case was the Yahoo and Shi Tao case in 2005. Even though Yahoo is not a traditional media outlet, it is a network which provides news, blogs, and facebook, etc. It is relevant to this discussion.

Mr. Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist, posted a message to a US-based Chinese news website. The information was about how Chinese officials safeguarded social stability during the 15th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. When the Chinese state security department claimed that this message leaked China’s state secrets and harmed the country’s national security, Yahoo provided Shi Tao’s email account information to the Chinese government. Shi Tao was arrested and then sentenced to ten years. Yahoo said it had to obey the law of the country with which it did business. Mr. Shi Tao is still in prison now. (Please see Yahoo and Shi Tao’s case at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4221538.stm; http://ar.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070506140024AAFycoR)

Generally speaking, journalists, the media, and the network providers should balance their professional duties and their civil responsibilities. However, it is always wise to exercise caution about whether the claims of “public interest” and “national security” are used to serve a government’s interest.

I was having my coffee in London this morning and overheard that the infamous "salon" is back to haunt the washington --- post. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/20/marcus-brauchli-washington-post-salons --- This has seemingly evolved into a flash-point, and is referred to as yet another way that the print media is taking a financial dive. I will point out that a blogger discovered to info, which is in line with my last few blog entries. This essence of this issue seems to be whether or not these "salons" were truly "off-the-record." I have the feeling that where there is smoke there is fire, and that there was some shady tendencies going on by management at the post. But I have to limited experience in the field to say for sure. I will keep my eye on this one for sure.

A Nation of Experts

As I edge closer to my graduation next June, I have been surveying the job market with a growing sense of doubt. I confided my feelings to a friend over the phone last week and something he said came to mind as I read the material for this week's class. He said, "We are a nation of experts." There has been a trend toward specialization that makes people experts at one thing and completely ignorant in all other matters. Those of us who are doing undergraduate work at the Extension School are bucking that trend. From a corporate perspective, it may be a good thing to have people that are focused on the tasks they are paid to perform. As a society, this condition makes everybody dependent on the media to provide good information about subject matter on which we, as individuals, lack expertise. Chapter four presents a strong argument for reporters to have enough expertise in the subjects that they cover to provide a service to the public.

As we look to the future of on-line media, the instantaneous and participatory nature of it may offer a way to mitigate this problem by tapping the knowledge of a wide range of "experts." The potential risk can already be seen. That is when experts disagree and the consumers are left to choose the side that is the most consistent with their prejudices. The debate over global warming is a good example. Whether the future scenario looks like the former or the latter depends on journalists being able to make critical judgements on the quality of information being provided by conflicting experts.

Econ-101 for reporters?

A very interesting and fortunate coincidence happened on Monday. Shortly after reading chapter 4 of our book, about journalistic errors, I was reading that day's Boston Globe and noticed an Op-Ed piece that was directly relevant to that topic, called "Understanding Business Aids Journalists' Bottom Line"

(http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/10/19/understanding_business_aids_journalists_bottom_line/)

It's written by a professor who teaches a course for journalism students about basic business and economic principles. He describes how important it is for these future reporters to have a strong knowledge of these important concepts and how challenging it is for many of the students, at least initially. In addition to covering some essential math/numeric points, he gives them some important insights and perspective about the interdependence of private business (corporations) and public interests (government).

These are things that all of us should understand well, but for various reasons many don't, including journalists at all levels and formats. It's especially crucial to understand these topics at our present point in time, after our economy nearly fell apart due to financial markets getting out of control. Economic issues have always been relevant to everyone's life, but the complex interconnections reach even deeper now into our lives, from our jobs to the goods we buy and money we (try to) save for future needs, including retirement. We should expect that reporters covering the "business beat" to have a firm grasp on the subtle factors that influence economic conditions and market trends.

The Globe piece does not address the ethical issues covered in the book chapter (see page 64), but it underscores the fact that ignorance of business issues is no longer a valid excuse for errors or misunderstandings in economy-related news stories.

Blogs vs. Journalism

I'm not that old but I'm about to sound like my grandmother. I remember back in the day when you turned on the news and actually got - wait for it - news. Not opinion, not he said she said, not "look what Joe Smith from Upper Rubber Boot has Twittered us" ...... just news. Have we gotten to a stage in programming that we are so desperate to fill up time that the media now turns to 140 characters of thought from everyone and their dog? Maybe it's some budget cutting measure because it certainly doesn't take much to read aloud opinions. It reminds me of the when Hallmark came out with the card that was blank inside... it was like "hey we just don't have any cute sayings left in us - it's up to you now".

When a recent poll came out that showed that the most trusted news person in America today is Jon Stewart you have to wonder where all the Walter Cronkite's of this generation have gone.

http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html


At their best, blogs are a beginning point for an idea, concept, or thought. When you Google "best blogs" you come up with a list of subjects and their associated sites. http://www.blogtopsites.com/

Not withstanding the ones in languages I don't understand, it was clear to me that the "best" were free flowing ideas and information by the user community. Nothing wrong with that in the least. But it's not journalistic researched unbiased fact.

Shield laws exist in all states (except Wyoming) for good reasons. As a journalist, it is important to have the legal cover to protect sources that help out in uncovering rights and wrongs. Researching and producing a story that is well rounded takes ethics. Borrowing others thoughts and opinions and repackaging them doesn't - it's just lazy.

Lack of Basic Knowledge of the Finance and Banking Operations or Sheer Sloppiness?

It is hard to believe that the story alleging that the Madison National Bank had declared and issued dividends on its shares of common stock had successfully made its way to the news rooms and past the editorial boards of the concerned news agencies. It’s appalling that none of them reviewed the basic Federal Banking laws and regulations under which the Madison Bank operates which do not permit the bank to declare or pay dividends on its shares on common stock. (“Madison National Bank Corrects Erroneous News Reporting Regarding Dividend”  http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS241358+21-Jan-2009+BW20090121 )


It reflects two possibilities- lack of knowledge of the operation of the Finance and Banking industry or sheer sloppiness of the news agencies in question. At least their reporters should have tried to verify with the Bank’s authorities on the contents of the story before publishing it, for purposes of education.

The result of this error was embarrassing on the side of the concerned news agencies!

Balloon Busted on the Media

The media ran an unsubstantiated story on October 15th regarding a six year old boy who had been whisked away by a balloon-based experimental aircraft. This was such ‘breaking’ news that CNN interrupted live coverage of President Obama to follow the balloon adrift.

People around the world followed this story and balloon, transfixed over the fate of the "balloon boy." The balloon made its way back to earth, the boy was not there. Was he alive? Did he vanish? Did he break a toy and hide from his parents? More importantly, did journalists probe the parents’ credibility with a simple Google search? (Answer: no, and that search would have revealed the father’s hunger for publicity.)

Today in a Press conference, authorities called the incident a hoax by the boy’s father, Richard Heene. After learning details of this publicity stunt, some reporters delayed coverage of the hoax in order to help law enforcement continue investigating without tipping off the family.

If the press is not an arm of law enforcement, why were the two working so closely together? Was it payback by too easily duped press?

It’s a good thing live car chase coverage still needs a driver.

Adam Hamilton

Al Gore Unplugs Dissent

Al Gore has always avoided debating his theory of climate change, and now he has environmental journalists and their group, the Society of Environmental Journalists, to help him fend off tough questions.

A journalist had his microphone turned off after asking Mr. Gore what he proposed to do after a British High Court found nine "significant errors" in his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," at the SEJ's annual conference on October 9.

After Mr. Gore refused to answer any of the journalist's questions, conference moderators quickly intervened in the brief exchange and physically surrounded Phelim McAleer. Mr. McAleer is the director of his own documentary film, "Not Evil, Just Wrong," which challenges the scientific claims of Mr. Gore's movie.

Later, in the hallway, moderators told Mr. McAleer that he had been cut off for trying to "monopolize" the Q & A session, telling him, "You got as much as you were gonna get."

One of the moderators, a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, related a consistent account of the event on the SEJ blog.

Despite his claim that moderators observed standard SEJ practice in dealing with Mr. McAleer, it is unseemly for an organization that purports to represent journalists to silence one of their own, particularly during a contentious exchange with a political figure.

In the video, Mr. McAleer does not appear to receive any support from fellow journalists. He says later that the reaction of those in attendance, including Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, "was to shut down the journalist and protect the politician."

In short, environmental 'journalists' and the SEJ did nothing to disprove that they are merely uncritical "cheerleaders for environmental causes."

Government, War and the Media

After reading the assigned articles on the topic of “the press goes to war”, and watching Frontline’s program Obama's War, I feel that the US government did a very good job of using the media before invading Iraq, but have not done enough to use the power of the media to help solve the problem in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq after the war began.

Looking back, it is obvious that the Bush administration used journalists, such as Ms. Judith Miller of New York Times, to be their microphone. This case reminds us of how important it is for the media to be independent, and be on guard against the pressures of “patriotism”.

Frontline’s Obama’s War reveals the difficult situation the US is facing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan turned out to be a hard task of nation-building. Based on the “Counterinsurgency Plan”, the rank-and-filer US soldiers become public ambassadors. They walk into the local villages to win over the population from the Taliban. This action is not very effective and increases the casualties of the US army.

The good news is there are alternatives. I believe that the best way to win a war is to win people’s hearts, and the best way to win people’s heart is through non-military actions. Instead of just shaking hands and talking to people in the Helmand province of Afghanistan, US soldiers should give candies and books to local children, and distribute some foods and short-wave radios to local people. In towns and cities, the US and Afghanistan governments should build schools and civic centers, so people can watch TV, kids can watch Disney films, and young people can listen to modern music and use the internet. Instead of sending more troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, the US government should invest more on our international radio and TV stations. Currently, the US owns a Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN), which includes Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television (www.radiosawa.com). They are funded by the US Congress and governed by Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) (http://www.bbg.gov/about/index.html ). Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty have made great contributions to the collapse of communism in the Soviet and eastern Europe; Radio Free Asia and Voice of America are making a profound impact on Asian countries who do not have freedom of the press and freedom of speech. I expect that the Middle East Broadcasting Networks play a big role in changing the situation in Iraq and other Middle East regions. I hope the US will invest more in the radio and TV programs which are tailored to Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think the US government has not exploited the media's advantages to the fullest extent in the war zones.

Almost all the US-based international broadcasters claim that they are independent and objective. However, some people, and some countries they broadcast to, criticize that the US government uses international broadcasting to produce propaganda. It is an issue worth a good debate. Regardless, I believe that during a war, using the media is better than using missiles.

Annie Liu

Blogging Business

Last week I was looking into blogs and found an interesting article that I posted on. After letting that information settle, I found that my appetite was still fairly ravenous on the subject. I came across a very interesting interview in Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1930315,00.html) with a long time White House Insider, Helen Thomas. This is a woman who has dedicated her life to Journalism, fair and direct journalism, and her view on blogs was strictly unfavorable as they exist today. I think that she was right on the money when she says "we're at a crossroads," as the blogosphere fills up with millions and millions of words and opinions that are not subject to any kind of editorial verification; the tendency for real harm to be done to people continues to increase. I will continue with my former mantra that there needs to be some kind of regulation of blog's and there content. I am not saying that freedom of speech should be hindered, but there should at least be a disclaimer to the fact that the positions expressed are personal and that true diligent research has not been done. If these blogger's do not view themselves as journalists, and therefore feel they don't need to meet journalistic standards, they should at the very least have to come clean with that fact.

Tales of a Mafia Mistress

This Village Voice piece was fascinating in and of itself, and reading up on the the fallout was even more interesting. Robbins never wanted to become part of the story, clearly. His decision to go public with the inconsistencies in Schiro's testimony brings up several important questions about the reporter/source dynamic. (Here is another VV article where Robbins explains more about the sequence of events.)

Ten years before the DeVecchio trial, Robbins and his writing partner made a promise to Schiro to shield her identity to the best of their ability as they wrote their book. But it became clear during her testimony a decade later that she was lying -- then or now, it wasn't clear. She completely contradicted her earlier statements with regard to DeVecchio's activities and involvement in crimes. And because her testimony seemed to be the lynch-pin for the prosecution, Robbins gave up the tapes, and the case fell apart.

I think it's easy to understand Robbins' decision. But I can't help but wonder if Robbins was motivated, at least a little, by a sense of betrayal. Schiro either lied to him then or was lying on the stand now -- in either case, screw any promises he might have made a decade prior.

Similarly, I wonder if he'd have gone forward if the situation had been reversed -- Schiro was a defense witness making exculpatory statements that contradicted what she had told Robbins. I think I know the answer to this one: No. It's one thing to clear a man's name, another to be to his executioner. Is this not ethically inconsistent, though? Hard to say. The answer would be the same for me, I think.

A Perversion of Confidentiality

The spirit of any shield law would be to protect whistle blowers. By protecting whistle blowers, we gain important information that allows the public to fulfill the oversight role of an informed citizenry. The Valerie Plame Case is one in which the media was being used not to expose wrong doing, but as a tool of revenge. Ironically, the target of this revenge was a whistle blower. Protecting the source amounted to abetting the obstruction of justice in this case. Should someone who is using the media to commit a crime have a reasonable expectation that their anonymity will be respected? The criminal act was itself the disclosure of someone's confidential information. It is a further irony that neither Richard Armitage nor Robert Novak suffered any consequences for their actions. I find it difficult to believe that Novak failed to understand how he was being used by the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, it seems naive to think that journalists will take a stand against this kind of treatment since they tend to be in a week position relative to their sources. Some may even be eager to to such dirty work. I doubt Mr. Novak lost any sleep. The outcome in this case is rather absurd. A few minor players spent time in jail while the principals went free. Judith Miller kept her word, but lost her credibility with her readers. Matt Cooper learned a lesson about keeping control of his information. Scooter Libby lost his license to practice law, but succeeded in "taking one for the team." The American public got taken for a ride.

Obama's War

The 24-minute preview for the Frontline piece Obama's War was gripping and disturbing. Producer Martin Smith plunks us right onto the front lines of war in Afghanistan, and he gives a chilling account of the futility of our current counterinsurgency efforts.

The show--if it takes the same tone as the preview--will certainly present the debate through the liberal lens. For me, this documentary segment further cemented my frustration with this war. It shows the insurmountable task the US military faces, and will leave most viewers with the questions: Why are we still there? How can we possibly win this? And I'm okay with that liberal bias--I choose to get my news through public media instead of Fox News for a reason.

First off, in an ideal world, the public should be presented with all sides of a conundrum so that they can come to their own decisions about what is right and wrong. However, so little of what I read/see is presented without any sort of bias or filter. Some pieces convey opinions that are stronger than others, to be sure, but most often there is a particular viewpoint behind it all, however subtle. Even if a journalist hopes to remain neutral, the facts that they deem worthy to present (or not) will color their article to some degree. So I suppose that I should clarify and say that I'm not always okay with bias, but that I expect it.

Documentaries strive to teach their audience about a particular topic, and they all do it with a certain amount of bias. Michael Moore epitomizes one extreme, where even his avid followers can recognize some of his material as propaganda. But other documentaries face the same charge. I was listening to a recent On the Media podcast (September 25, 2009) where a woman was recounting the outright lies many documentarians told. One of the examples she gave concerned the making of the film Winged Migration, a popular documentary about migratory patterns of birds. Apparently the film leads you to believe that the birds were raised in nature and then filmed, but it turns out that the filmmakers raised all of the birds themselves. Things are not always what they seem.

Likewise, in this Frontline documentary, we may not notice the absence of the other side of the story--those who push for more troops. Sure, we hear a bit from General Petraeus and his ilk, but it was only enough to make me shake my head at the gall of requesting 600,000 troops to be deployed. The tone of the film really pushes me to feel that way, even if I might already.

Deja vu All Over Again

The JonBenet Ramsey case is a tragic one. Not only is it still unsolved, but after so many years her mother tragically died of cancer without her knowing what really happened to her daughter. I feel for John and Burke Ramsey the two left behind in the wake of this terrible event.
If I were a journalist and was presented the dossier of a suspect being questioned repeatedly about JonBenet Ramsey's murder, I would need to know a few things before I would report it. I would want to know what kind of evidence the police had. Most importantly if they had DNA evidence. We know that the last person arrested for her murder, John Mark Karr, caused a media fiasco and tests ultimately showed his DNA did not match the evidence found at the crime scene. Without DNA this is a story that simply should not reach the light of day. It has become over the years such a media spectacle and to report it without hard evidence such as DNA would be an embarrassment to the journalist as well as the paper. Most importantly, the family has been through enough tragedy to where journalists owe it to the family to get the story right this time.

Foreign Prejudice

In regards to police seizing barrels of chemicals of young foreign men living in town and then their subsequent questioning, I think this is a tough one to report on. If the lawyer asks that I do not report based on anti-foreign prejudices, I would have to take that into serious consideration. I go back to my earlier post “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”, where reporting a story with the names of arrested individuals without conviction can lead to devastating results. If the police are simply questioning these young men, I believe the story should still be written however without the individuals’ names and locations. Without a formal charge or indictment I would find it difficult to release the names of these young kids and have the public unduly treat them as terrorists. Without absolute proof of guilt of the group the lawyer representing them is correct in that individual's prejudices would convict them in the court of public opinion rather than a court of law. There is simply too much to lose.

Challenges Of Working with Sources....

Chapter 7 in our class  text book "Ethics and Journalism" is about working with sources.  There are several issues that are addressed in this chapter that a journalist should be cautious of- from selecting sources, to avoiding biases, to getting reliable sources  and to being wary of overdependence on sources. The movie, "The INFORMANT" (by Matt Damon)  opened my eyes to a scenario where a journalist or journalists could easily fall victim of a manipulative, dishonest , unreliable, over-ambitious, self-seeking source like the  main charactor in this movie, Mark Whitacre. I do not wish to discuss the entireity of the movie for the sake of those who might be planning to watch it, but I realize how an initially promising story- idea, from a voluntary source with insider access, could put an unsuspecting journalist and the media agency they work for  into a very dangerous situation , considering the way events in this movie unfold and end up. In this case, the FBI agents are the victims, but such a situation would happen to a journalist. Note that this movie is based on a non-fiction book, "The Informant" (by Kurt Eichenwald).
As for now, given such a  complicated situation, I would recommend that a journalist or the media agency faced with a similar case first gather as much information  as possible from various sources, but hold out on publishing the story until the investigation comes to a close.

*The New York Times has articles about the Archer Daniels Midland Company conspiracy with competitors to fix prices  investigation, archived from as far back as 1996 in this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/22/business/4-archer-daniels-executives-to-leave-board-for-outsiders.html and the entire listing of stories about this investigation at http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/michael_d_andreas/index.html?offset=20&s=newest.) I intend to read through them to see how the New York Times and other media handeled this story at its different stages and whether or not journalistic ethics were complied with or compromised.

Thoughts on NYT /J.Miller 2002 reporting

I'm still thinking quite often about the issues discussed in class last week regarding Judith Miller and the NY Times reporting of Iraq's weapons programs. The primary conclusion that sticks in my mind is how the Bush administration rigged a perfect scenario for getting the public to accept the official line about Iraq's supposed WMD's -- get the New York Times to publish stories about the "threat", which will carry a lot of weight with the American public and mute criticism from the left. They deftly used the most highly regarded newspaper in the country to plant distorted intelligence reports purporting to show Iraq actively working to create nuclear weapons (the aluminum tubes, etc.).

By getting the paper that typifies the so-called liberal media to report on supposed weapons programs, the administration and it's supporters could convey a message that essentially said, "hey, even the New York Times says that Saddam is trying to build WMDs, so it must be true..." They were fortunate also in having Miller as the main defense correspondent, as she apparently was very willing to believe what the Pentagon hawks were claiming, and not probe too far to find the flaws just under the surface. From things I've read about her history at the Times and the low regard many editors and other reporters had for her, this was a case of an insecure and highly ambitious reporter looking to gain some respect and envy from colleagues by getting a high-profile story published, along with others on the WMD issue. In addition to Miller pursuing these stories for personal reasons, I sense that there might have been a feeling among some NYT senior editors that they wanted to publish her pieces as a way to show objectivity - a way to signal that the Times wasn't always or only critical about the Bush administration.

When the truth was discovered that Saddam did not have a working nuclear weapons program, Miller was quite surprised and understandably on the defensive about being so credulous about reporting on the inside information she had been given by her administration sources. In the Frontline documentary, she tried to explain herself by falling back on the common excuse that she had just reported the information provided by her sources. Unfortunately for her, and us, the intelligence summaries she saw were not the normally objective and reliable reports. As Seymour Hersch and others later found, the administration demanded that only data supporting the view of WMD efforts be put forward, and that they should ignore conflicting signs. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other war advocates in the administration were forcing the CIA and other intelligence bodies to tell them what they wanted to hear about Iraq's apparent bomb-making activities.

There's so much that has been and can be said about the whole co-opting of the media leading up to the Iraq invasion, but I'm still amazed to see just how thoroughly Miller and the Times were manipulated. It remains one of the long-term negative legacies of the W's presidency.

'Stakeholders' Must Have Slipped His Mind

The Washington Post's new policy of discouraging staff from blogging on social networks is good journalistic and business sense.

The conduct of individual employees can positively and negatively affect the public's perception of a company. This is just as true of the Post as it is of Enron, Countrywide, or the Philadelphia Phillies.

Informal "tweets," even when intended only for close friends, can, and as the case of editor Raju Narisetti shows, do leak. Politically tinged messages, such as Mr. Narisetti's tweet about health care reform, confirm perceptions of an impartial press and open the paper to easy attacks on its objectivity.

The inherent informality of "micro-blogging" often lends itself to poor taste. Mr. Narisetti's public comment on Senator Robert Byrd's physical and mental fitness was equally out-of-line, if not as professionally risky, as his later grousing about his co-workers.

For a more politically vocal publication, such as the Boston Phoenix or the Weekly Standard, such a tight-lipped policy is perhaps less necessary. But for the Post, a premier national newspaper with no stated political orientation, the new policy is a prudent move.


Not "Knews;" or, Paging H. L. Mencken

The Post's policy is also a breath of fresh air for a media enamored with social networking sites. Building a newscast around Twitter, Facebook and MySpace, (I'm looking at you, CNN's Rick Sanchez), is a travesty of journalism and cable television.

Why should a paying cable subcriber be subjected to the uninformed, unsupported, uninsightful, unsigned commentary of the uneducated, apparently underemployed Internet at-large? Why must it be read aloud on national television, when the same disjointed rants and raves can easily be found at their source, the social networking sites themselves? Do they really have any news value? Did I mention that I'm paying for this stuff?

How about telling me something I don't know. Computer time is over, let's go out and do some real reporting.

Comments on Mr. Kristof’s three Hypothetical cases

Mr. Kristof provided three hypothetical cases to exercise journalist’s ethical judgement. Our professors and classmates made many good points in discussing the cases. I agree with classmate Bill Hall’s comment (“Walking through the minefield”) on the Ramsey case. Here I want to add some points for another two cases.

For the basketball coach case, it is very important to get the story right and treat all the people related in this case fairly. Before the story runs, reporters should do a thorough investigation and get detailed stories from all participants, including co-workers from previous schools and the girls who accused the coach of misconduct. At the same time, the reporters should also give the couch an opportunity to defend himself and provide his side of the story. If the reporters try their best to give a balanced and fair account, they should not feel particularly responsible for anything the coach might do to himself.

As for the three foreigners’ case, the best approach is reporting the whole story and putting it in a big context. If I covered this story, I would mention that the suspects were three foreigners and identify their nationality. However, I would also try to interview some people who came from the same country as the three men did and ask their comments on the story. I remember when the Virginia Tech shooting happened, initially, the shooter was just identified as an Asian male, and his name and nationality were not revealed. At that time, all the Asian communities were nervous and hoped that he was not from their community. When the perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, was later identified as an immigrant from South Korea, the Korean community in the United States, and even people in South Korea, felt quite ashamed for what Cho had done. Many Korean-Americans were also quite concerned that this event would affect their image in main stream society. I believe that the best way to cover a story related to race, ethnicity and nationality, is to report the whole story. If the subject's background is an issue, the story should include responses from others who share the same background. When reporting in this way, the media not only provide a multi-angled story, but also avoid creating tension, or a backlash toward a certain group of people.

Annie Liu

To Tweet or not to Tweet

I'm really surprised by The Washington Post's new policy discouraging their reporters from the use of social networks, such as facebook and twitter. In an age where reporters demand transparency and real-time information from other institutions, it only seems fair that newspapers should open up too. It's a great way to get feedback tips from their readers, but the Post's Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli, fears it could harm a reporter's impartiality. “When using these networks, nothing we do must call into question the impartiality of our news judgment. We never abandon the guidelines that govern the separation of news from opinion, the importance of fact and objectivity, the appropriate use of language and tone, and other hallmarks of our brand of journalism," he said. (It's also interesting to note that the full policy isn't available on the web for readers to see.) If you're a working reporter, do you use twitter or facebook as part of your reporting? Is it a threat to a paper's credibility?

Obama's "BFF".............

Former radical Bill Ayers told some people he had ghost-written Obama's autobiography. Is William Ayers setting bombs again, or are our journalists too eager to print a story?

Some were taken in and repeated this. This proclaims a need for Journalistic ethics and professionalism, especially in this time of polarization.


Dangers of blogging: Anne Leary a/k/a "Backyard Conservative"

http://www.blogger.com/profile/05213195213590452257

Wrote that Bill Ayers ghost wrote Obama's book:

http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/2009/10/bill-ayers-no-dream.html

Googling "bill ayers" "dreams of my father" obama shows it's heen picked up

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/from-blogs/bill-ayers-i-wrote-dreams-from-my-fa
ther,73125

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTlkMTdmNDRkMTM1ODZkNGNkZmRiNDFjMDE
4YzRjMjg=


http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html

http://www.lesjones.com/2009/09/25/new-obama-biography-confirms-bill-ayers-g
hostwrote-dreams-of-my-father/

Etc.

And debunked by good journalist at NYT today:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/stalking-william-ayers

But bloggers fell for it:

http://washingtonindependent.com/62842/which-bloggers-feel-for-the-bill-ayer
s-prank


Recall Ayers was a radical, probably didn't know Obama well, and the right
e.g. Sarah Palin said Obama was "pal-ing around with a terrorist."

Ayers himself wrote this after Obama was elected:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/opinion/06ayers.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_ayers

Walking Through the Minefield

Each of the Kristof examples provides an opportunity for a reporter to do great harm by the choice of which information should be made public. The first two examples are fairly easy to negotiate. In the case of the seized chemicals, the link to terrorism is inferred, so presenting the event as a story would be a disservice to the community as well as an injustice to the men being questioned. In the second example, there is obvious manipulation on the part of the "friendly officer" who is providing the information.  A responsible reporter should be wary of taking the bait in a case like this. Again, there is no story beyond the fact that police are still investigating this cold case without a breakthrough.

The third example presents a real dilemma. It is reminiscent of the scandals in the Catholic Church that drew so much attention in the 1990s. Priests under suspicion were moved around without being charged, similar to the way the coach is moving between school districts. If there is such a cover up, students in other districts could be harmed. It is also important to maintain the assumption of innocence for the coach. The real story needs to be established. There could be a cover up, or an innocent man may be suffering unfair persecution in an environment of suspicion. The reporter must sift through the information carefully and present this story with the right amount of sensitivity. 

Billing the Blogosphere...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/05/technology/AP-US-TEC-Bloggers-FTC.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Now this is an interesting wrinkle. All of a sudden there may be some actual regulation on blogs and the information and insights that they provide. There are parts of me that are hot and cold on this issue. There are certainly free speech implications, but some of these blogs reach thousands and thousands of readers daily. At what point are these people to be held to account in terms of the information they present, and wether or not that information has been validated. I personally have seen gross distortions on blogs (as I am sure that everyone has), and that seems fairly mild for someone's personal blog in a dark corner of the web, but there should be some ethical regulation out onto those that seek to present themselves are reporters of the news.

Absence of Malice Video Clips

I was sharing with a friend the fundamental issues of ethics that were discussing in class and he mentioned a movie that he recently saw. I could not find that movie but I found two video clips from the 1981 movie, "Absence of Malice", with Sally Fields and Paul Newman.

In the first scence Fields is discussing with the newspaper's attorney if Newman could be classified as a public figure and if the paper could be sued if the story proved to be false. This reinforces what we have been discussing in class for the past two week.

Here is the YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SGe-IywHXg


The other is a courtroom scene when Fields is asked to describe how she came by the information she used in her story. It became a question of if she broke any ethical rules by reading a file that was left unattended on a District Attorney's desk. This reminded me of Professor Ryan's comment about the symbiontic relationship between the media and government agencies.

Here is the YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV5JWOU7sqs

I look forward to reading your comments.

Focusing on the "gotcha"?

A month into my first job my boss gave a speech to the team and said something I have always remembered.

"Work hard. But if you screw up, I'll remember your gotcha moment more." Not what you would call highly inspirational.

As we read the Kristof examples it is important as journalists to report on the laws that have been broken and the circumstances surrounding the investigations. We shouldn't focus on any personal "gotcha" moments in an effort to give a story more profile and oxygen with the masses. Presenting stories on a "guilty until proven innocent" basis instead of the other way around only serves the flashy headline moment of now.

Words do matter and they can change lives. This weekend a man in my city committed suicide by jumping in front of the subway train. A couple of days ago all the national papers ran a story about how this popular teacher had been released on bail after being arrested on two counts of child exploitation charges.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/colleagues-grapple-with-suicide-of-troubled-but-popular-teacher/article1311728/

Most seeing the suicide headline assumed he was guilty. But what if he wasn't? What if, as the article suggests, he was overwhelmed with proving his innocence in the face of such intense public scrutiny.

Few of us have been under the media lens and can only imagine what the scrutiny of the public eye feels like. Anonymity should be treated as a right not a privilege and journalists should think long and hard before taking that right from someone.

Some days I think we are all just exhausted by the barrage of bad news coming our way. We have become like M.A.S.H units - we triage the information rather than exploring the details of a story. The quicker we try to get through the onslaught by categorizing events, the harder the news outlets have to try to hold our attention. It's a case of competing priorities.

One of the strengths of a program like Frontline, is that it is a single event presented in a long format. The general expectation is that when you sit down to watch a show like that, you are going to have the benefit of a 360 degree point of view.

Today it was reported that 8 soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. I will take a point of personal privilege here. One of them was the relative of a good friend of mine. Watching the preview of "Obama's War" was particularly difficult but I admired the thoroughness of the piece and will watch it in its entirety when it airs.

Journalistic programs such as this make you crave a similar format on a continuous basis. It is not speculative nor opinion driven and it opens our eyes and minds to bigger questions.

This particular subject is a difficult one and my hat is off to the Frontline team for putting themselves in harms way to bring it to light. No "gotcha" moments - just hard hitting reporting.

The Kristof Hypotheticals

I'm inclined to agree with a couple of points that our classmate Van made about the Kristof hypotheticals: I think naming anyone before an arrest is made is unethical, and I don't think reporters should let the pleas of the suspect or the suspects' lawyer/family/coach be the deciding factor about whether or not to publish their story.

That said, I'm not sure I would avoid publishing something about a few of these stories. Although for me, the JonBenet Ramsey case is a non-starter; it's an old case that seems to drum up new potential suspects fairly frequently. But the other two stories are more difficult to resist because they could directly involve other members in the community getting hurt.

I might attempt attacking these stories from a different angle. For example, in the first scenario we know the police have seized barrels of chemicals from foreign men in town. Since these men are still being questioned for poisoning the local reservoir, I would not include that in the story--it isn't fact. But the barrels of chemicals DO exist, and I would feel responsible to report that. I would not name anyone, and I probably wouldn't even mention that the men were foreign. Perhaps I would just include the information I knew as a little sidebar, and note that investigation was ongoing.

The third hypothetical situation gives me the most trouble. While there has been no arrest (the police aren't even involved at all) and the coach should not be named, the fact that he has left three schools with a shady reputation should not be overlooked completely. I wouldn't feel comfortable bringing this particular coach into the public eye without more proof, but I might suggest writing a story in general about how often sexual misconduct happens in schools. Perhaps making more parents (and thus hopefully their kids) conscious of this issue would allow this story to bubble up on its own.

Can You Change A Flat Tire With A Box of Hair?

Los Angeles, CA – While hosting an event in my home last weekend, I received news on my BlackBerry about the recent arrest of Roman Polanski. My jaw dropped, my eyes widened, and I exclaimed: “Roman Polanski has been arrested!”

“Who is Roman Polanski?” asked one guest—age 22, educated, male, from a privileged background. I was shocked that he was unaware of the film director, and his admitted crime and over 30 years as a fugitive.

I have since monitored news reporting about Polanski’s unexpected arrest. Ongoing coverage expanding in detail and outlet, from the Times of London, Los Angeles and New York to theWall Street Journal, Washington Post and USA Today. Collectively, it seems that every published newswriter has demonstrated regard for journalistic standards without reciting any detail other than substantiated fact.

Needless to say, that coverage has not been easy to critique from an ethical standpoint. ………

Enter Anne Applebaum, writing a lopsided opinion piece for the Washington Post:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html

The Pulitzer Prize winning professional’s writing glosses over the details of accusations against Polanski and his plea bargain on reduced charges. In Polanski’s defense, she writes “He has paid for the crime in many, many ways.” Further, she never gets around to answering her initial question: why Switzerland? Although she does recount the horrors inflicted upon Polanski and his family during the holocaust, after lobbing criticism at Swiss banks for coddling criminals and corrupt dictators. Is she hinting that Switzerland’s WW-II neutrality and throwing Polanski under the bus are parts of the same picture?

Applebaum’s piece displays blatant contempt for the law and the court system, including innuendo of unspecified misconduct by the judge in the case. She has no right to insinuate, without more, that readers should judge the judge. She goes on further to plea age—of Polanski, advanced. Oddly, the age that matters here is the age of Polanski’s victim: underage.

Facts are facts. Law is law. Appelbaum’s defense of Polanski is as sensible as changing a flat tire with a box of hair.

For an opinion piece more balanced on the facts, and hence less likely to mislead impressionable readers, see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/opinion/03iht-edsokol.html and even his friend and collaborator’s piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30harris.html .

Adam Hamilton