Six ethical cases from SPJ

An Inside Look at Six Ethical Issues
This time each year, about 1,000 journalists get together to discuss journalism ethics at the SPJ Conference. This year, SPJ's top ethicists are releasing their findings on some of the past year's biggest lapses.

By Christine Tatum

NEW YORK (October 04, 2007) -- This time each year, about 1,000 journalists get together to discuss journalism ethics.

Yes, journalism ethics.

As humorous as that may sound to some, these news gatherers — attendees of the Society of Professional Journalists’ annual national conference — are serious. SPJ, the nation’s largest journalism-advocacy organization, is the guardian of an ethics code widely considered the news industry’s gold standard.

The code is a guide aimed at helping journalists practice their trade ethically and responsibly. Those who honor it do so voluntarily. They believe trust in journalism starts with journalists’ commitment to ethical news production, which is, above all, accurate, fair and independent of special interests.

The Society doesn’t conduct hearings about code violations, much less issue sanctions. Its leaders believe everyone is qualified to interpret the code — not just journalists.

It was in the spirit of educating the public and helping journalists make more ethical decisions that SPJ’s top ethicists — a committee composed of members representing a variety of media, journalism specialties and experience levels — reviewed ethical lapses that occurred since September 2006 and stirred some of the most passionate debate within the industry.

The committee grouped lapses into larger categories where journalists appear to have had the most trouble. For the first time, the committee is publicizing its findings. The categories, supported by specific examples, are listed here in no particular order and may be viewed fully by clicking here.

Political Activism
A commendable MSNBC.com investigation revealed that at least 140 journalists contributed to political parties, movements or candidates. SPJ’s ethics code states that journalists should “remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.” The code also encourages journalists to shun “ political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.”

Journalist/Source Relationships
Journalists must maintain a healthy distance from people they cover.

A former Telemundo anchorwoman reported about Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s marital difficulties without mentioning that she was dating him.

Getting too close to sources sorely compromises a journalist’s ability to “act independently,” as SPJ’s code instructs.

Plagiarism
It’s unclear whether the number of violations of this fundamental of responsible journalism is on the rise — or if technology is making plagiarism easier to find. In a video segment on her blog, CBS News anchor Katie Couric read an essay after it was ripped off from The Wall Street Journal. A CBS producer wrote the item for Couric, who read the piece as if sharing her personal thoughts. That’s worth questioning, too.

News/Advertising Relationships
Times are tough economically for the news industry, and many organizations are responding with problematic news-advertising hybrids. For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer runs a business column under a Citizens Bank label. Though the paper says the bank won’t have a say in the column’s content, the appearance suggests otherwise. “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived,” the code states.

Fairness
Last year, SPJ awarded several journalists at the Santa Barbara (Calif.) News-Press an ethics award for resigning in protest of co-publisher Wendy McCaw’s influence on news content. That battle reached a new low when the newspaper ran an unsigned front-page story implying that the paper’s former editor downloaded child pornography on his office computer. The story fell far short of an airtight case and appeared to be bent on attacking the former editor more than serving readers with truth. “Test the accuracy of information from all sources, and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error,” the code instructs.

Photo Manipulation
After the shootings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, news organizations may have thought they were doing the right thing by altering photos that appeared to show a wounded student’s genitals. They weren’t. The image organizations edited out was actually a tourniquet. Photographs should be respected as a form of truth. “Never distort the content of news photos or video,” the code instructs. “Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible.”

The blur of news and entertainment. NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” series is fraught with ethical problems, such as the hiring of a crusading nonprofit group to set up stings. “Avoid staged news events,” the code states. It also urges journalists to “deny favored treatment to special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.”

While these problem areas are cause for concern, they are, thankfully, exceptions to the rule. Thousands of journalists make ethics a top concern, and we commend them.

---

Christine Tatum is national president of the Society of Professional Journalists and an assistant features editor at The Denver Post.

Links referenced within this article clicking here http://www.spj.org/ethics

Now you see it, but you don't.

It's always been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. News writers are often condemned if even a single world in their article is proven to be a lie. But how much worse is it (or not) if the accompanying photograph is a fake?

More often than not, a photograph is used in conjunction with a news story to illustrate in visual effect what words alone cannot express: humanity. They can illicit a variety of emotions that can color a reader's perspective well before they are able to delve into the article itself. We should all be familiar with these scenes as they all have, at one point, graced the covers of newspapers nationwide: the low angle shot of a plane a split second before colliding with Tower 2 during 9/11, the picture of a military airplane dropping a massive load of bombs and missiles in the middle of Beirut, the burnt carcass of an Iraqi baby being pulled from the ruins after an American air strike.

Out of those pictures, one of them is a fake, or least has been misrepresented to the point where it has detracted from the truth and the reality of the matter. A Lebanon reporter named Adnan Hajj doctored his photos of an Israeli F-16 dropping more bombs than what was actually dropped and described the flares it let off as an additional payload of missiles. He also blatantly (and poorly) doctored a photo of a post-bombed out Beirut to show thicker and blacker smoke than in the original photograph.

In cases like that, it is obvious that trickery was involved to obscure the truth.

But with the advent of digital photography and the dreaded Photoshop, where should the line be drawn that clearly establishes the line between cleaning up and doctoring. After all, for the sake of saving space, pictures are often cropped and cleaned for dust or smudges. Certain angles, shutter speeds, apertures, and light manipulation techniques are often used by photographers to capture the emotion of a certain situation. Where should the clear difference be established?

Personally, I am under the belief that no sort of post-processing technique should ever be employed by photojournalists. What is taken in that moment in time should be observed from that perspective and not by any jaded views that would later alter the spirit of that photograph. Photojournalists have that added responsibility now to make sure their photos are in tune with the spirit of the moment it is taken in. Anything else is a lie and a discredit akin to a reporter falsifying a news source in order to get a story pushed through.

Anchor Reports on L.A Mayor's Extramarital Affair- She's the Other Woman

The story is an update to a news story that broke in July. Reporter Mirthala Salinas had the political beat and was fill-in anchor at KVEA-TV in Los Angeles, which is the Spanish Language Telemundo affiliate. She was assigned to cover L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. During the time she was covering him, Salinas and Villaraigosa began having an intimate relationship. Salinas said she told her superiors at KVEA and Telemundo that she was in a relationship with Villaraigosa and asked to be reassigned. She said her bosses told her to continue covering him. Salinas even had to break the story that Villaraigosa and his wife were separating due to his extramarital affair. She did not mention on air that she was the one having a relationship with the mayor. That part of the story leaked out over the next few days. After an investigation by the company, she and her News Director were given two month suspensions and Salinas was to be transferred to another Telemundo affiliate. The president of Telemundo was also reprimanded. Salinas was suspended for a flagrant violation of the network's ethics guidelines. This follow-up says that rather than show-up to her new station this week, Salinas resigned.
Salinas has been linked to others she has covered in the past, including Speaker of the California State Assembly Fabian Nunez. Having personal, intimate relationships with important people she covers seems to be a habit for her. She has to know that this violates the ethics of almost every major news organization. Knowing that she is attracted to powerful politicos, at the very least she should make sure that she is not assigned to cover them. If she does have to report on them, then she should use self-restraint and not become involved with these men. In this case she did tell her superiors at KVEA and Telemundo and requested to be reassigned. Her bosses insisted she keep covering Villaraigosa. Did they think it would give them the inside track to Villaraigosa? It seems like it would be difficult to do the right thing as a reporter in that situation when company management is encouraging the unethical behavior. Their behavior is more reprehensible because instead of dealing with the issue correctly when they were informed of it, Salinas' bosses had her continue to cover the mayor. It seems as if the entire KVEA and Telemundo organization need a primer or refresher course on the ethics of journalism.

Library Employee's Illegally Overbill

This story details the controversy surrounding the Sacramento Library's security chief, James Mayle. Mayle, whose wife runs two companies who were billed for extensive library maintenance, is being audited. While the subject matter is of public concern the ethical matter at hand is whether or not the Sacramento Bee should have dug into records. It is reported by the Bee that "the library called for the probe after The Bee submitted a public records act request in May to inspect the company's records". After this request was submitted it was discovered that the library maintenance director was also involved in the controversy. While it was believed that Mayle and his wife were running the scam it's been discovered that Dennis Nilsson, the director, was the one directing the bills to Mayle's wife instead of the library, as is customary.
I believe that as a journalist one has every right to venture into an area that is of public concern. While it is controversial as to whether or not it was necessary to bring embarrassing matters to the attention of the public, I believe it is necessary. It is a journalist’s responsibility to report to the public what is going on under their nose. Many believe that the Bee should have allowed matters to come into light at their own time, but I disagree. When a reporter finds a lead that can potentially bring about a positive outcome, in this case less money being billed to taxpayers for unaccomplished work, they should report on it, no matter the embarrassment it brings to the community.

Ethics and Idaho

The pre-packaged, glossy images presented to the public often are the antithesis of the real people under that shiny topcoat. The men and women constructing legislation and voting on issues that affect everyone’s life in some way or another have private lives that, at times, counter exactly what they object to publicly and politically. Recent news outlets have seen a rise in gray area ethics stories. Some interesting stories have been presented about the recent case of Sen. Larry Craig and his sexual escapades in Minnesota airport bathrooms. Morals and ethics are the core of every person’s being, and politics affect every person’s life in some way. The ethical question arises after reading these stories: Is it any of our business if a politician is a closet homosexual? There seem to be five reasons why these stories are ethically sound to publish, according to Kelly McBride’s article on ethics.
The first reason why someone’s sexual orientation can be “outed” is if the person in question is a hypocrite. Because Craig publicly proclaimed the “sanctity of marriage”, he is a hypocrite. McBride says that it’s “fair game if a certain politician has consistently voted on public policy issues that appear to undermine the rights or the political agenda of gay and lesbian citizens and if there is evidence that he is gay himself.” In Craig’s case, this seems to be one of the main reasons the story was published.
The resounding reason his story came to the public’s eyes and ears seems to be the alleged, and later claimed truthful, restroom game of footsie with an undercover copper in a Minnesota airport bathroom. Under McBride’s reasons is a section on criminal behavior. “If a politician is engaged in or charged with behavior that is deemed to be against the law, then we usually care.” Here we go, Statesman; here is your “GO!!!” The case against The Statesman doesn’t seem viable considering the fact that they chose to publish their story only after Senator Craig pleaded guilty to the airport bathroom incident. Their integrity was held up at that point. They took the ethical approach of waiting until they were sure the story was accurate before publishing it.
When we talk about Senator Craig, we are dealing with a public figure that built his career “on a platform of morality and family values”, according to a Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz. Tarnishing his career would be a pleasure for some journalists. There is nothing more irritating and disappointing than a politician that hides under a veil of lies. This also happens to be one of the most predictable things for politicians to do.
Something to think about in regards to stories like these is the difference between the acceptability of infidelity in society. Would this story be newsworthy if Craig was soliciting a call girl? Probably. But, it would not be nearly as shocking. Thomas Patrick McCarthy wrote a riveting article for The Nation that questioned the hypocrisy of straight versus gay affairs. Congressman and Evangelical Reverend Ted Haggard “--named as one of the nation's "25 most influential evangelicals" in a 2005 Time cover story -- stepped down as head of his 14,000-member mega-church after a gay prostitute claimed the pastor had repeatedly solicited him for sex and drugs.”
He contrasts what happened when Louisiana Senator David Vitter who was named on the list of a “multi-million dollar escort service in Washington, DC”. Vitter has once before been accused of affairs with prostitutes. Vitter is still in office and he remains “a proud supporter of "mainstream conservative principles"’.
What does this tell society? Is it possible that one day we can live in a world where public figures, including politicians and celebrities, can live their lives and be who they are without having that glossy veil? Perhaps we must always retain that veil. Perhaps that veil is a safety net society needs. If we are going to have it, and there is no way around it, McCarthy brings to the table is the idea that “If you're going to be a hypocrite, it pays to be a straight hypocrite.” All sarcasm aside, McCarthy is making a valid point.

Sources
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=67&aid=129197
http://www.sacbee.com/325/story/366740.html
http://www.sacbee.com/breton/story/368436.html
Kurtz, Howard. “For Idaho Paper And Reporter, Craig Story Posed a Moral Dilemma”. Washington Post. 30 August 2007

Ethics of News post October 1, 2007

A confidential report leaked

This article discussed a confidential incident report detailing the events that took place on the September 16 Blackwater attack that was released. The report included a maps, witness statements, documents and a police video and was obtained by Newsweek. Although the report was made accessible to US military and civilian soldiers, it states that it is meant to be confidential.

Although I believe that we as civilians have the right to know what is going on in the war in Iraq, I can't help but wonder if it was ethical of Newsweek to release it to the public when it so clearly says confidential.

While this issue may test the ethics of some, I feel that Newsweek is in the right. American citizens are often denied the real truth and I think it is appropriate that we are entitled to know exactly what goes on.

MSNBC News