Trust But Verify

Ethics Codes Revisted

My OJR colleague JD Lasica writes that the SPJ Code of Ethics "isn't really applicable to bloggers or citizens media." This comes up as he heads the standards committee of the Media Bloggers Association. JD, forget the small print -- although, based on years of walking through ethics questions with professional journalists, students and members of the general public, a lot of the bullet points are more applicable than you might think. Heck, skip the preamble, too.

Focus, instead, on the core principles:

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

Not applicable to bloggers or p2p journalists? (The term "citizen journalism" suggests that professional journalists are not citizens.) I'm not saying they apply to all bloggers because I'm not sure there's a code or set of principles that could but they can be cornerstones for those who choose the responsibility of publishing news and information beyond their own daily activities.

I'm not suggesting that the MBA adopt SPJ's code as its own or that the 1996 revision that took so many of us so much time to achieve is the be all and end all when it comes to codes of ethics. But it was designed to offer core principles and I hope the MBA, which includes a lot of people I respect, will take that into consideration as it forges ahead.

JD says he'll be writing more about this soon. I'm looking forward to it.

Related: Too Many Codes? | Changing Linguistic Gears 

Sloppy journalism

Memo to CNN and any other news outlet or journalist tempted to repeat "details" without checking:

A reference this morning to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' volunteer work for a group called Exodus Ministries left some people -- including journalists -- leaping to conclusions and assumptions. A few minutes ago,  CNN anchor Kyra Phillips said she heard on NPR and from "a number of people" that Miers was involved with the Exodus Ministries that says gay people can go straight with the help of Jesus. Even when her guest, constitutional law expert David Oblon, suggested she was talking about the wrong group -- that Miers volunteered for a similarly named group in Dallas helping ex-convicts -- she insisted on talking about how this might affect rulings on gay issues and Oblon actually started to talk about how "if it's true that she was supporting the ex-gays, well, that tells you a little bit about her."

Actually, the whole thing tells me a lot more about the people making these statements. If you don't know, don't speculate. Find the answer. Don't assume something you hear is gospel. Check it out. In this case, while they were babbling, I managed to find the right web site for Orlando-based Exodus International, where a press release clearly states:

"Harriet Miers, nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, served on the board of directors of Exodus Ministry in East Dallas, an organization that assists ex-offenders in finding jobs and places to live. The organization is in not related to Exodus International, the world’s largest educational and informational outreach dealing with homosexuality." (The emphasis is theirs, not mine.)

This is not rocket science. I've been part of covering the nomination of a justice -- Clarence Thomas worked in Missouri and had strong ties here, which made me part of the Time team looking into his background. If we'd gone around mentioning every piece of information we heard or came across without checking it a lot of misinformation would have been in the public record.

The ability to send words around the globe instantly via digits or satellite doesn't mean you have to cut corners. If anything, it means you should be even more careful.

Coda: Find out more about the Exodus Ministries where Miers did volunteer.

Criticism Of Crime Coverage Criticism

Criticizing coverage of Natalee Holloway's disappearance in Aruba has turned into a sport. It's not hard to see why it is this generation's "Francisco Franco is still dead" story or why it's easy to criticize much of the coverage. But anyone who forgets grief, tragedy  and quite likely death lie at the heart of this story only makes matters worse. Try putting the name of someone you love in place of hers as the punchline and see how funny it feels. It's possible to criticize coverage without diminishing the victims --  maybe a little harder, but doable.

Coda: An ongoing missing-person's story here in St. Louis has me thinking about the potential harm of what has become a campaign against "missing white woman syndrome" using national media frenzies as examples. Amanda Jones, a nine-months pregnant single white woman,  disappeared Aug. 14. Her story has been in the news here since soon after her car was found abandoned that day -- and rightly so. After 20-plus years in this market, I truly believe the attention level  would be the same for a woman in similarly vulnerable circumstances with any color skin -- particularly one  whose family or friends can sound the alarm.  I hope no one whose life might be saved by shedding a little light is ever kept in the dark because a news organization thinks covering the story is politically incorrect.

USA Today Trusts -- But Doesn't Verify

USA Today relearned a tough lesson this week when large chunks of a feature story published Aug. 8 about a businessman turned out not to be true.  A quick search or two might have saved the paper from a great deal of embarrassment  -- not that search engines are infallible but they are a good place to start, especially when the details being offered include being a Boston Bruins' draft pick, a Harvard hockey player and a number of other items likely to be logged in multiple places. Instant red flag if the name doesn't turn up anything close. Instead, the inconsistencies came to light after publication; the paper published a follow-up today including an apology from a publicist but no apology of its own.

Steve Outing posted a correction today -- and a mea culpa -- for a post he made on Wikipedia based on what turns out to be a flawed Reuters' article based on a German-language newspaper report based on an interview in  English with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. He wasn't the only one to pick up the story that -- erroneously, according to Wales -- said a change in policy was on the way that would freeze some articles. (Though, as far as I know, he's the only one to correct it.) I saw the same story and put it aside until I could find out more but I just as easily could have popped it online without doing any legwork. After all, it was an interesting report from a trusted source; I post items on that basis all the time. 

It's almost tangential but I might as well bring it up before someone else does. Both of these cases are about mainstream media making mistakes. I can hear the comments now -- I've seen enough of them -- how can they complain about bloggers getting it wrong when they make mistakes like this? I'll go back to kindergarten for this one: two wrongs don't make a right. Sloppiness or mistakes in one category don't excuse similar behavior in another. The difference here is that while it would be morally and ethically nice if everyone checked out everything before they post it -- and, in most cases, a quick check or a moment's thought would be deterrent enough -- it's the journalist's job to do it. Even so, anyone who abuses the reader/listener/user/viewer's trust will lose it no matter what they call themselves.

How far do we go in checking something out? How much do we challenge? How do we use information that should be shared but may not be provable? How do we decide when not to include information we know to be true? We hold a story back if it doesn't ring right. We make judgment calls. We attribute. Inevitably, we have to take some things on face value. We correct our mistakes. And we try very hard not to make the same mistake twice.

Coda: I was about to post this when I did another search and found this story by Mike Eidelbes at InsideCollegeHockey.com, who saw the original USA Today piece and then started seeing red flags as he went from resource to resource without turning up Larry Twombly. He contacted USA Today reporter Stephanie Armour and was told they'd found discrepancies. 

Matt Cooper's Latest Scoop

Just saw Matt Cooper's comment following his grand jury testimony today -- the one  about not scooping himself by holding the details for a future issue of Time.  The magazine has a web site now and is no longer held hostage to weekly news cycles; if he put the pedal to the metal, we could read about it tonight.  Withholding that information any longer than logistically necesssary at this point will not help anyone.

Beyond that, I wonder if Cooper or his editors realize that answer sounds like Time is trying to capitalize on a sorry situation. Guess it makes some sense given the way it's been handled up 'til now but I sure hope that's not the case.

See also Not Above The Law -- Not Below, Either  | Time Inc. Folds In First Amendment Case

 

Time Inc. Folds In First Amendment Case

This is tough. Time Inc. announced this morning that the magazine will "deliver the subpoenaed records" -- ie turn over reporter Matt Cooper's notes and source about Valerie Plame -- in the hopes that the move "obviates the need for Matt Cooper to testify and certainly removes any justification for incarceration." Later, on sibling CNN, Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine explained that he believed this was the best way to respond to the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the cases of Cooper and Judith Miller, that the First Amendment does not mean journalists are above the law and this is the rule of law.

But, he said, Time would continue to use confidential sources  and assure confidentiality because this is an unusual confluence of circumstances, the shield laws offer some protections and most cases wouldn't end up with a Special Prosecutor. That's if sources concerned about anonymity still want to be involved with Time, of course.

I'm sitting here with a small, blue three-ring binder labled "Time Editorial Guidelines" that I once consulted like a bible, back when I logged serious hours as a Time stringer. I still use the July 1987 memo from then-Time Inc. Editor in Chief Henry Grunwald as a bookmark; that's Grunwald as in the late father in law of Matt Cooper.

On rare occasions, I had to promise confidentiality to sources. I did so with these words behind me:

"It is Time Inc. policy not to reveal the identity of a confidential source, even if an edit staffer is questioned about the source of the identity in litigation. The senior person, who may be required to testify with respect as to why the source was considered reliable, must be prepared to protect the confidentiality of the source."

That language and the rest of the section is aimed primarily at the use of confidential sources in what might be derogatory stories. And, Grunwald made it clear in that memo, that these were only guidelines, "not absolute rules of conduct." He wrote:

"There can be situations in which good journalistic judgment will indicate proceeding differently. The important point to remember is that Time Inc. journalism must continue to adhere to the high standards that have always prevailed within our organization."

According to an interview with Pearlstine in Folio, the company rewrote the most recent confidential source guidelines to make it clear to reporters and editors that protecting sources could lead to jailtime. I don't know if the rewrite included a warning that confidentiality would be breached if Time Inc. lost in litigation -- or that it would make that decision over the objection of the reporter.  Cooper told the  Wall Street Journal:

"A corporation is not the same thing as individual. They have different responsibilities and obligations and there is no dishonor obeying a lawful order backed with the force of the Supreme Court of the United States. I prefer they not hand over documents that disclose the identity of my sources, but that's their decision to make." 

I understand Pearlstine's concern that journalists not appear to think they are above the law. But that doesn't leave compliance as the only course of action. Arthur Sulzberger Jr. understands that. So does Judy Miller. (Disclosure: I also was a very active stringer for the Times for years and Miller was one of my editors.) Sulzberger's statement from this morning via the Times Online:

"We are deeply disappointed by Time Inc.'s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records. We faced similar pressures in 1978 when both our reporter Myron Farber and The Times Company were held in contempt of court for refusing to provide the names of confidential sources. Mr. Farber served 40 days in jail and we were forced to pay significant fines. Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time."

Pearlstine referred to the Supreme Court's non-decision as limiting "press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society." But it's his decision, not that of the Supreme Court, that's turning Time Inc. into an ice house.

Brrrr.

Harry Shearer's Riff On Defining Journalists

Harry Shearer, who's already had an honorable mention here, uses his Huffington Post blog for a riff on the definition of a journalist. He suggests reading it in your best Casey Kasem voice -- whatever you do, read the whole thing. Some of it rings true; we might wish some of it didn't. It's a tad long but that tends to be the case with riffs.  Just a taste:

Journalists like:

deadlines.
bylines.
a bigger news hole.
free food.

Journalists don’t like:
deadlines.
editors.
cramped press facilities at major news events.
media whores.

Journalists can be Anchors, but never Sales. They can be reporters, or just repeaters. A journalist looks down on celebrities until the day he becomes one.

A journalist spends too much time covering a story that gets too little space so it can be skimmed by a reader who has too little time.

Newsweek changes sourcing policy, strengthens publication guidelines

Newsweek editor-in-chief Richard M. Smith used 985 words of this week's magazine to apologize again for publishing what turned out to be an unconfirmed report about mistreatment of the Quran -- and then he went  a very big step further by explaining the changes being made as a result. His goal: "to share my thoughts with you and to affirm—and reaffirm—some important principles that will guide our news gathering in the future."

One of the more frustrating things for me as I've watched the coverage of Newsweek has been the assumption by many that this was a cavalier, thoughtless, possibly rash move on the newsweekly's part. It wasn't. It was a bad decision based on a faulty foundation but it wasn't like one reporter got a tip and it was rushed into print. One of Smith's frustrations is that "we seem to have taken so many appropriate steps in reporting the Guantanamo story." They did push beyond a single source as they vetted the story; they thought they had confirmation. It's happened before and, I hate to say, it will happen again whenever the reporter and sources aren't completely clear with other other. (Anyone else remember the scene in "All The President's Men" when they go with a story they think has been been confirmed but  wasn't?")

The important aspect here is that Newsweek understands not only where the story went wrong, but what must be done to strengthen reporting and editing. As Smith writes, "if our traditional procedures did not prevent the mistake, then it is time to clarify and strengthen a number of our policies." The review process continues -- also important --  but these are the immediate changes:

• "... only the editor or the managing editor, or other top editors they specifically appoint, will have the authority to sign off on the use of an anonymous source."
• "The cryptic phrase "sources said" will never again be the sole attribution for a story in NEWSWEEK."
• "When information provided by a source wishing to remain anonymous is essential to a sensitive story—alleging misconduct or reflecting a highly contentious point of view, for example—we pledge a renewed effort to seek a second independent source or other corroborating evidence."
• "Tacit affirmation, by anyone, no matter how highly placed or apparently knowledgeable, will not qualify as a secondary source."

Beyond sourcing, Smith underscored guiding principles:

• holding stories for as long as necessary in order to be confident of the facts, regardless of competition.
• ensure that sensitive stories receive appropriate refelection and discussion.
• mistakes are inevitable but must confronted, corrected quickly, and treated as a learning experience. (Smith doesn't say it but I will, once is a mistake, twice is a bad habit.)

Read the full letter.

Too many codes?

Jeff Jarvis wonders if we have too many codes of ethics.

"Methinks the volume of codes of ethics is, itself, a symptom of a problem. Doth we protest too much? Are we overcomplicating it? Are we overcompensating? Doesn't it pretty much add up to this: Don't lie. Don't sell out."

Nice idea but it's a little more complicated than that. (If I were going for a one-liner I'd borrow from Hillel -- "do not do to others what you would not do to yourself, the rest is commentary.") I offered the SPJ Code of Ethics guiding principles during the "Committing Journalism" session at BlogNashville this weekend, for a couple of reasons: 1) I was one of the hundreds or more journalists involved in the creation of this version, which was approved in 1996 after much debate and a year's postponement.  The ethics listserv I've operated for the past decade began as a place to discuss the proposed changes. 2) I still believe that the four  principles -- especially when combined with the preamble but even on their own -- form one of the simplest, best guides for ethical decisionmaking. You can go through all the steps and still come out with a decision others might question -- see the Spokesman-Review for an example -- but it's a good, solid foundation.

1. Seek Truth and Report It: Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
2. Minimize Harm: Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
3. Act Independently: Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
4. Be Accountable: Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

It wouldn't hurt to read the full version, linked to above,  every now and then. You don't have to agree with everything in it but thinking about ethics won't hurt.  It also doesn't hurt to talk to colleagues or others when you're not sure about the decision you're making. I was called by a student reporter a few weeks ago, who wasn't sure his publication was going in the right direction. I tried not to answer it for him, instead asking the kind of questions I hoped he would be able to ask himself next time. Then I gave him the url for the SPJ code.

Usually, the problem isn't too many. It's the lack of one.
 

Tags: BlogNashville JEthics CommitingJournalism

Wired News Report On Michelle Delio Raises Issues With 24 Stories

This hits close to home as a contributor to Wired News since August 2003, albeit a much less prolific one than Michelle Delio, who wrote more than 700 articles from 2000 through March 2005. Wired News asked columnist and NYU professor Adam Penenberg (who unmasked Stephen Glass as a fabulist) to review Delio's work after the MIT Technology Review Online removed two of her articles from its web site following questions about the existence of a source. The results of the first part of the review are in: Penenberg and his grad students could not find all or some of the sources for 24 stories  -- approximately 15 percent of the 160 articles reviewed. Delio stands by her work; she was interviewed by AP.

Unlike MIT, Wired News will not remove the articles: "By keeping these stories posted and clearly marked, we hope that our readers can help identify any sources whom we cannot track down, opting instead to append them and leave." The remaining  Delio articles will be reviewed, with notes added to the archived versions "as appropriate."

As a result of the questions surrounding some of Delio's work, Wired News will require all freelancers to submit contact information with every story and will allow anonymous sources only with "justification."

Wired News managing editor Marty Cortinas told me via IM that staffers will be held to the same anonymity standards but will be required to provide contact info only "on demand." When I expressed concern about presenting an image that freelancers are somehow more prone to problems than staffers, Marty replied: "They are not. But we have less control over what they do and how they do it."

The bulk of this was posted first on paidContent.org, then deleted and moved here.