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

Not the last word on CSU editorial

Even after a week of the infamous headliner, "F--K BUSH" people are still talking about. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with the article. People have been very dissatisfied with his performance in the oval office.

In addition, the editor should not be reprimanded for using free speech. He had approval of other newspaper constituents. Therefore, if he is being held in contempt so should they. It can only be fair.

In the end, I believe that CSU got the notoriety that they wanted. Even though they lost 30,000 in advertising they received more fans in the long run!

Don't be too friendly with sources

By: Charles Glover

Sources are a journalist's best friend, but they could also could bring into question the neutrality of those said journalists. Reading an article entitled "Drawing the line between the press and the source" which featured an example of the problem and solution through The New York Times and its refusal to attend the White House Correspondents Dinner.

What the story points out is something that every journalist, at least in my mind, should remember at all time when dealing with a source. They are great, but a journalist must be aware of how to interact with them. If said journalist becomes too cozy, that journalist is not serving the public so much as his or her self, or the business that they represent.

It doesn't look good in the public eye if a journalist is seen as being too friendly with the source, and this in turn can hurt the credibility of both the journalist and the establishment that a journalist works for. So, I agree with the idea that is presented in the article, with keeping a source at a distance. It's just the right thing to do.


_Charles Glover_


To see the article click HERE

University Fences In a Berkeley Protest, and a New One Arises

By: Andrea Richardson

The controversy at the UC Berkley campus is going on between protesting tree lovers and the university. Since December people have been living in the trees on the school campus to protest against the university who wants to cut down the trees to build a $125 million athletic center. The university built a fence around the trees in August, that cut off the tree dwellers from supllies. The university is doing everything they can to get the people out of the trees, including getting a court order and involving police. Michael Kelly, one of the protesters against the buliding of the stadium said, "I am appalled. I cannot believe that the institution that gave birth to the Free Speech Movement had done this."
I believe that they can come up with some sort of compromise. If the best spot fot the athletic center truly is where the trees are, then many the university can agree to plant the same amount of trees elsewhere on the campus. Whatever happens, I'm sure the tree dwellers probably want to get down sometime soon to take showers.

Journalist not seen as superheroes

In the defense of the press media, Ken Paulson, editor of USA Today steps up to redeem the villification of journalists by referencing the First Amendment.

Not the last word on CSU editorial

A student editor will defend students' actions that published slander about President George Bush, but could his lose job. Rocky Mountain Collegian at Colorado State University printed an editorial that referenced a University of Florida student who was shocked with a Taser after disrupting a forum featuring U.S. Sen. John Kerry.

"The four-word editorial stated only: "Taser this . . .. Fuck Bush."

The college newspaper editor, J. David McSwane defends his newspaper and is risking his job in the process. The Collegian, is a self-funded, student-run publication. Under state law, university officials are prohibited from censoring or regulating its content. CSU's Board of student Communications claims that the editorial violated student media policies.

The article was supposed to spark students thoughts about free speech; mission accomplished. The editorial did exactly what it was intended to do, make people think. However the editorial did not need to include profanity to accomplish its goals.

Editor defends actions
Story in Rocky Mountain News

Conflict of Interest

In response to the blog "Reporter Leaves NBC 5 amid Stebic Controversy" its believed that a female reporter was involved in foul play. Apparently she went to a suspects house who was still under investigation for the disapperance of his missing wife.

This is obiously a wrong doing by the reporter. It doesn't matter if there was foul play or not, it's simply a conflict of interest as stated in the blog. She shouldn't have been over there meddleing with someone who was in the public eye in a negative way. It makes the reporter look bad, and more importantly the news station for whom she works. It is definatly unethical and if I were her boss I would have let her go too. The breaking news put some kind of a strain on the station. They were left no choice but to fire her because the company didn't want their name tarnished.

Reporter Leaves NBC 5 amid Stebic Controversy

By: Tim Wheeler: September 20 2007

A story involving a Chicago reporter’s seemingly unethical visit to a suspect in a disappearance case’s house drew critical media attention in mid July. Amy Jacobson was caught on video at the home of Craig Stebic, whose wife recently disappeared, dressed in a bikini top and beach towel. Since the leak of the video Jacobson has received a significant amount of negative media attention regarding her ethical conduct. After a short time Jacobson’s resignation was received and she is no longer a member of the channel 5 NBC news team of which she was previously employed.

Whether or not foul play was involved or not Jacobson had no business, as a distinguished reporter, socially meeting with a suspect of an ongoing investigation. The argument can be made that Stebic and Jacobson had developed a relationship, but this argument is overshadowed by the idea that the scene is a primary example of a conflict of interest. In Jacobson’s case she is caught on video meddling in the like likes of an open and serious investigation. An action like this not only damages the credibility of Amy Jacobson as a reporter but casts a negative light on WMAQ-TV channel five news as an organization.

A Newspaper Defends Naming Jurors

By: Jo Blaine: September 19, 2007

This New York Times article reports a conflict over a recent Connecticut newspaper's front page publication that identified jurors on a high profile murder case. Unless judges specifically order that jurors' identifications be withheld, no law prohibits making the information public. The judge in the reported case did not specify that jurors' anonymity be protected. Those on the Connecticut newspaper's staff responsible for the published information claim each juror understood what the article's drift would be.

Since the publication, one juror and one alternate have been excused after expressing concern for their safety. The New York Times reports that reason for such concern may be validated by the nature of the murder case. The jury must decide whether to sentence the defendant to life in prison or to death by lethal injection.

The possibility of passionate responses by members of the public combined with information exposing the jurors to that public drives the criticism of the Connecticut newspaper's conduct.

The defendant's lawyer, journalism professors, involved jurors, and now, even the newspaper's editor understand the better choice would have been to shield the jurors from the public, regardless of the legal green light to do otherwise.

A scenerio like this poses good question(s) for those entering the journalism field as there may be times when we'll have to gauge the appropriateness of releasing certain information. Even when our sources have given their permission, even when the law technically allows it, we have a responsibility to use discretion by considering probable dynamics that could be set in play by publicizing the information. Like the mental rule concerning plagiarism that suggests 'when in doubt, leave it out,' perhaps it's wise to exercise the same caution before reporting questionably sensitive information. The main question is: Is it worth it? If it's unethical, then by definition it should not be worth it to a news reporter. Potentially endangering others is an unethical move if made willingly. While your information might really add to the substance in your story, the downside could be more profound. Another question is how you might use the information alternately in a professionally ethical manner. The scenerio with the Connecticut paper allows for some creativity in understanding what alternatives might be. The names, hometowns and occupations of the jurors were shared. As suggested by a journalism professor referenced in the article, describing the jurors from a standpoint that preserves their anonymity but allows the public some general insight into the demographics of the jury is a possible way to use the information.

MEDIA SKIRMISH

This article in the Sacramento Bee is about the alleged theft of two free Natomas Publications (Natomas Journal and N Magazines) by members of their respective staff. The Natomas Journal publisher Will Craig was caught on videotape picking up a stack of N magazines discarding them and replacing them with the Natomas Journal. Allegedly Craig has done this more than once and although there is a video of a man disregarding and replacing the N magazines a second time he face is concealed from the camera. Craig said he was responsible once but that the second time it wasn't him. He also said that he did it because he someone from the N magazine staff has been stripping the Natomas Journal racks for 21 months and he wanted to send a message. He claims the theft of their papers stopped 24 after he replaced and discarded the N magazine. The law in California prohibits taking more that 25 copies of a freely distributed paper to sell, barter, recycle for cash, harm a competitor, or deprive others of the enjoyment to read.I think that this story shows why the journalism community is not respected. I have read both publications and its inconceivable to think that either staff members would stoop to stealing papers. If they don't have the integrity not to steal how can you trust that their publications have integrity in the stories they write. The publisher from the Natomas Journal said he suspected his papers were being stolen my question is why didn't he take it the police? All in all,I was very disappointed in his response to accusations of stealing it shouldn't have mattered what his suspected his competitors of . Integrity, in my opinion should be the ethic that a journalist should value the most.

Ethics of News: Tuesday September 18

University, Professor named in lawsuit

The State Hornet

By: Hillary Geiger: September 18, 2007

This story is about the lawsuit filed by Judy Aguilar against Professor Wilfrido Corral and the University. Aguilar claims to have been sexually harassed by Corral beginning in the fall of 2005. Aguilar also claims that the California State University Board of Trustees did not take action to prevent this harassment. This is not the only time this has happened. Another student came forward and claimed to have been asked out several times by Corral in March of 2006. If found guilty, Corral will receive a punishment ranging from a counseling memo to a dismissal.
Corral went against University policy. I can feel no remorse for him on the media attention he has received. This incident should not have even occurred in the first place. Not only did Corral go against simple ethics, but he created an unsafe environment for students. It strictly states in the California State University, Sacramento Policy on Sexual Harassment that professors cannot date or engage in sexual affairs with students who are enrolled in their classes. I do not feel that the paper broke ethical rules. The point is that a well known professor broke a vital ethical rule. Those who have all the power use it on those who have none in the situation. That is unethical.

Ethics of News: Monday September 17

The Public Editor: Of snakes, nudity, and the varied tastes of readers

The Sacramento Bee

By Allison McCurdy: September 17, 2007

The article discusses recent outrage over the print of a near-naked woman's body in the "Names and Faces" section of the Sacramento Bee. The picture was of a nude Mary-Louise Parker only covered by a snake. The picture served as publicity for the third season of Parker's comedy series called "Weeds." There was a large volume of complaints that the picture was offensive and demeaning to women. The first round of complaints sparked a backlash from other readers. V. Venable, a female reader, emailed to say: "I am in my 70s and I find it rather surprising anyone would find the image offensive in this day and age." Armondo Acuna, author of the article, speaks of ethics and audience. He justifies the publication of the picture, because the last time the Bee published a near-naked picture was of a pregnant Demi Moore in 1991. He also says that journalists struggle to engage younger generations of readers. If they do not make the news interesting and eye-catching, they will loose their audience to online sources like Google and Youtube.

The article examines the ethics of news and how important it is to understand ones' audience. The controversy over the publication of a near-naked woman illustrates the differing views of what readers deem "printable." This article made me realize how important it is to exercise ethics when choosing printable news. I further understand how journalists need to be sensitive to their audiences. Personally, I do not think the Bee crossed any line by printing the picture. If it had been in the front section, the Bee could stand to loose some "serious news" credibility. However, it was on the back of the Scene section and intended to advertise a TV show. Furthermore, it was not explicit; Parker's body parts were covered. The public is subjected to more provocative visuals by Victoria's Secret ads on public television.