You are browsing the archive for ethics.

I know that’s what I said, but that’s not what I want you to print that I said

July 17, 2012 in ethics, General Media, Politics

South facade of the White House, Washington DC...

South facade of the White House, Washington DC, as seen from the Washington Monument. The White House is the official residence and principal workplace of the President of the United States. Located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C., it was built between 1792 and 1800 of white-painted Aquia sandstone in the late Georgian style and has been the executive residence of every U.S. President since John Adams. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yesterday, the New York Times pulled back the curtain on one of the uglier aspects of campaign journalism: source approval of quotes. It’s not really a surprise that campaigns try to do this. They are trying to win, and manipulating the truth is part of that process. It’s also not a surprise that journalists get caught up in the game as well. They are “on the bus” to get access to information, and the campaign holds the keys to that access.

The push and pull over what is on the record is one of journalism’s perennial battles. But those negotiations typically took place case by case, free from the red pens of press minders. Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.

Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House — almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.

The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.

Still, it’s a shoddy practice, and it would be nice if journalists, editors and producers would put a stop to it by refusing to participate. That will happen as soon as the Washington DC press corps stops using “an anonymous high-level administration official who was not authorized to speak” as legitimate sources in news stories.

John Robinson sums up what most of the editors and advisers I’ve ever worked with and for would have said:

They could say what every editor I’ve known would have said: “Hell, no, we won’t give you prior approval over your quotes. We’re going to tape it. If you say it, it’s on the record. Be responsible for your words, don’t say something stupid and you’ve got no problem.” The source could say no interview and that’d be that. But if your competitor gives in, well, you lose the story.

To bring this back to college journalism, this type of practice has crept into administration and athletic departments over time. The constant reliance on e-mail interview questions is a symptom of a need to control information and avoid saying something that looks stupid. College journalists should avoid the pressure to get preapproval for quotes or stories, with a caveat that I’ve mentioned before:

Every interview should be recorded on a digital audio recorder.

And, as a reporter, when you type out that quote from your notes, you should check it against that audio recording. I’ve heard far too many sources mention how they’ve been misquoted to know that too many of us, even if we record an interview, don’t check the audio against our notes afterward.

This isn’t really directly related to the Times story, other than the need to get the quote and get it accurately. But this sorry confession is a good enough reason to bring it up again.

(Thanks to Erica Perel for bringing the John Robinson post to my attention via the CMA listserv)

Enhanced by Zemanta

How to do a retraction

March 19, 2012 in ethics, industry news

One of my favorite radio programs is This American Life. Host Ira Glass is a practiced audio storyteller, and the program conveys a rich cross-section of emotional and thoughtful extended storytelling each week. Some would say that what TAL does isn’t journalism, but that’s a debate for another day.

Last week, TAL had to retract one of their most popular episodes because some of the information in the episode was not accurate.

Here’s the retraction episode:

And here’s a PDF transcript of the episode.

Here’s what Glass said to introduce the program:

I should say, I am not happy to have to come to you and tell you that something that we presented on the radio as factual is not factual. All of us in public radio stand together and I have friends and colleagues on lots of other shows who – like us here at This American Life – work hard to do accurate, independent reporting week in, week out. I and my coworkers on This American Life are not happy to have done anything to hurt the reputation of the journalism that happens on this radio station every day. So we want to be completely transparent about what we got wrong, and what we now believe is the truth.

This is a good example of an organization owning up to a story that went wrong, and spending the time to make sure the process is explained properly and, more importantly, prominently. It’s easy for a retraction or major correction to end up buried at the bottom of page 2 in the newspaper business. Or as a last minute statement at the end of the evening newscast.

The episode has generated plenty of discussion in the journalistic community, and serves as another example of the need to verify everything that appears in your publication/broadcast. The sad thing is, some in the news industry are gutting the copy desk in the name of “efficiency,” while sacrificing the very real need for fact-checking, even at the newspaper level.

I’m curious what standards others in the college media industry have for making sure the information presented, especially in long-form or investigative pieces, is accurate? Is there a fact-checking process?

I would note that there is absolutely no excuse for a reporter not to have an audio recorder along for every interview in this day and age. I’m not saying it’s a panacea, but I believe it’s crucial for verification purposes.

Here’s a great accuracy checklist (Scribd link) from Craig Silverman, the error guru.

Silverman has some more probing thoughts at Regret the Error.

What happens on the Internet (usually) stays on the Internet

September 21, 2010 in Advising, College Media, ethics, Websites

It’s a new school year, and that means a new crop of requests to student newspaper advisers and student editors to remove content from web archives. The Daily Eastern News received a request (which we honored), and I’ve talked to someone who is trying to get something taken off of another student newspaper web site.

Perhaps it’s time to revisit some thoughts I wrote about the matter previously.

I first wrote about this phenomenon for Keeping Free Presses Free back in 2007 (here’s a link to the entire article).

From my anecdotal observations so far, the requests for removal of information from college media web sites usually come in two flavors: embarrassment and privacy concerns.

1. Youthful Indiscretions: By far, this is at the center of most requests. A student is arrested for a minor in possession charge, or something more serious. The arrest shows up in the student newspaper’s police blotter, and then on the web site. Five years later, the (now former) student is trying to clean up the search engines while trying to find work.

2. The learning curve is steep: The second factor is what I might call embarrassment about youthful expression. Several advisers have had requests from former newspaper staffers who are now ashamed of the quality of their writing or arguments.

3.  privacy or personal security: Some people have requested material be taken down from the Internet because, were it to fall into the hands of the wrong individual, there would be the potential for harm.

There are probably other concerns that people voice in hopes of getting material taken out of a web archive, but those are the ones I’ve heard of most often.

I don’t have any easy answers to number 3. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, as the saying goes. But it can be difficult to predict how such situations will play out, or whether the situation is as dangerous as presented.

Number 2 is the easiest of the three to deal with. You wrote an article and submitted it to the student newspaper/media outlet for publication. Own your work. If you are a journalist and you wrote some grammatically-challenged copy in college, welcome to the club. If you wrote an opinion piece expressing an opinion you now regret, welcome to life. Many people change their minds over time about issues and events. It reflects growth (mostly). Taking down an article from an archive because you’re embarrassed by its quality is extremely hard to justify, especially for a journalist.

Number 1 is the most delicate of the three because there is a tremendous potential for future harmful repercussions if incorrect or incomplete information is available online. And, quite frankly, news media do a horrible job of following up on most of the mundane (to us) items that appear in a police blotter. A former editor at the Pitt News had an interesting approach to this: printing the police blotter with names in the newspaper, but not placing names online. Might be something to consider.

If someone was arrested, but never prosecuted, or was found innocent, where is the follow-up that would display that information on the web? Frequently, there is none.

This is my take: Err on the side of the facts. Add to them when they are available (but be sure to verify – don’t just take someone’s word that they were cleared of charges). There’s no need to antagonize a former student if the facts are on their side. That doesn’t mean take the article down, but you should add a note to the original article with additional information.

Above all, as I mentioned earlier, you should develop a policy (in consultation with student editors) so there is some kind of map to follow in handling these situations, which are bound to come up more and more.

There are very few instances where I’d counsel someone to remove an online article or archived item. Better to shine more sunlight on the situation.

Enhanced by Zemanta

One way not to do online comments (rant)

July 16, 2010 in Community, ethics, industry news, management, social media

Credit cards
Image via Wikipedia

Over the life of this blog, and in my studies of the online news business since 2001, I have seen so many efforts to rein in online comments that my eyes roll when I see a new round of pearl-clutching from news editors and publishers about how nasty commenters are on their web sites.

But of all the efforts, this effort by the Sun Chronicle in Massachusetts has got to be the prize-winner for ways to kill off a commenting community. The SC not only wants readers to register to comment using their real names and addresses, they want users to give up credit card information and pay a one-time fee of 99 cents for the privilege!

The opportunity to post comments on stories on Sun Chronicle websites will be restored this week, Publisher Oreste P. D’Arconte announced today, with posters required to use their real names.

To enforce this change, all posters will be required to register their name, address, phone number and a legitimate credit card number.

The credit card will be charged a one-time fee of 99 cents to activate the account.

Look, I can understand the desire to have a well-functioning, civil community of readers commenting on your web site. I can even understand the desire to have people use their real names when commenting (although I disagree). But demanding that readers give up sensitive financial information and then billing them just to leave a comment on a web site is … well, I can’t use the words I’m considering right now on a family web site.

Of course, if the Sun Chronicle were serious about wanting comments, they could use Facebook Connect. It’s not 100 percent foolproof, but it would tie a comment to a user’s online identity in a more meaningful way and discourage or eliminate “anonymous” comments (pro-tip: when a user puts a name – even a made-up name – in a comment box, it’s not technically “anonymous,” but “pseudonymous”).

More likely, this change will drop the Sun Chronicle’s commenting community to near zero. And if I were an enterprising web denizen in one of the paper’s communities, I’d be busy putting up a web site that allows users to comment on SC-related articles without registering. Just provide headline links to SC stories in blog posts and allow comments on those posts. No need to steal content.

I’ve often gotten the vibe that a vast number of news media professionals hate comments, and would rather not deal with them at all. After all, people on the Internet can be real jackasses when their name is not associated with what they write.

But shutting off comments on your site – or trying to get people to pay to do so – is no real solution. It just drives people to other places on the Internet where they can comment without fearing for their jobs, or their social status, or whatever.

Last year, Va. Tech’s Collegiate Times student newspaper went through a similar type of situation. A campus committee was dismayed that there were racist comments showing up in the comments on the Collegiate Times’ web site. So the committee’s solution was to try to get the news org. to stop allowing anonymous comments by cutting off university funding.

Brilliant!

No mention of, you know, actually dealing with the disgusting underbelly of racism that brings these comments out. Just sweep the problem under the rug so the campus community looks pristine.

The truth of the matter is that managing an online community of commenters is work. It’s like tending a garden. If you don’t put in the work to root out the weeds (abusive commenters), you won’t get the vegetables (cogent commenters) to flourish.

The Sun Chronicle‘s recently announced policy roots out the weeds by digging up the entire garden.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Teaching moderating comments – Poynter live chat

October 29, 2009 in CMA-ACP09, College Media, ethics, Legal Issues

comments Logan Aimone, director of ACP/NSPA, led a live chat for the Poynter Institute about teaching moderating online comments, a topic that comes up about every six months or so. There was some great discussion in the chat, which is archived here: How Do I Teach Online Comment Moderation?

Minnesota Daily’s online ethical dilemma

August 21, 2009 in ethics

Dan Reimold at College Media Matters picks up on the Minnesota Daily’s decision to remove the last name of an international student based on fears of negative implications for his statements to the Daily.

The Editor’s Note above the article reads:

Editor’s note: The last name of the main subject of this story, Ashref, and his family members has been removed from this story since its original publication. The source became concerned of the negative implications that may come from speaking critically of the Tunisian government and its programs upon his return to his home country.

link: Tunisian visitor shares philosophies, views of the U.S. | mndaily.com – Serving the University of Minnesota Since 1900

Dan thinks this is the right decision in this limited instance.

Obviously, in most cases the decision needs to be ‘no changes allowed,’ especially in respect to the most common related requests- people simply having a change of heart about something said or done or sources’ concerns over embarrassing Google results. But I do believe the paper acted properly in this instance.

I’ve discussed this issue previously, and also believe this is likely the right decision.

I’d also suggest to all college media outlets that they think about these issues in advance and develop a policy on the issue. Rather than making changes after the story has gone online, they should consider whether such semi-anonymity should be granted in advance when dealing with sources who come from areas of the world with repressive governments.


Not the sort of innovation we need

April 7, 2009 in College Media News, ethics

Update 2: another take from the Daily Cal.

The Daily Bruin at UCLA ran a “wrap” advertisement around their paper today. Ordinarily, I have no problem with “innovative” advertising ideas (well, except for those cursed roll-over web ads), but this ad went way beyond “innovative” and ventured into the area of “deceptive” and “unethical.”

Here’s the real Bruin front page:

bruin

And here’s the “wrap” that ran today:

fake front

Now, I don’t know about you, but, with the exception of the “Paid Advertisement” words below the flag, that’s a pretty close knock-off of the editorial design of the real Daily Bruin (the editorial staff did get the advertiser to change the font on the nameplate of the ad). All to market some kind of honey-related ice cream crap.

The student editors weren’t pleased, and said so in an editorial:

Many of us volunteered to forfeit our pay in order to ensure that the ad would not run, but because some of our staff members could not afford to use their paychecks to make a statement, we have been forced to go along quietly.

The reality of our financial situation is grim, and the fact of the matter is that we would have been forced to cut thousands of dollars from an ever-tightening budget if we had not run this advertisement.

We were forced to make a decision we find distasteful at best – and dishonest and unethical at worst – because of the ever-present and unrelenting reality of the economy and the downturn of the journalism industry.

Much of our staff, the members of this board especially, are invested in the Daily Bruin and the practice of journalism on a personal level, and nothing pains us more than to see the cover and name of our beloved publication sullied for the sake of survival.

Editor Anthony Pesce published an editor’s note on the real front page:

Today’s Daily Bruin was wrapped in an advertisement specifically designed by a clever marketing department to fool you into thinking – if only for a few seconds – that my staff wrote the content that appeared on the front page.

If you’re reading this, you have discovered our real front page, fully educated about the plight of the honey bee, and I’m glad you are taking the time to read our newspaper. I want our readership and our community to know that there will not be another advertisement like it for the rest of the year. We will not be selling these kinds of ads as long as I remain the editor of this newspaper – which is at least for another nine weeks. Many on my staff were vehemently opposed to this ad for a variety of reasons. Mostly, though, they were upset and concerned that our front-page news content was displaced, and that it was displaced by an advertisement designed to mislead our readers.

Apparently, financial pressures overruled journalism in this instance. I’m with the students.

Look, it’s one thing to place an ad around your content. It’s one thing to think up new ways to make money on innovative marketing ideas. Heck, I even applauded when the New York Times started running front page ads!

But this is just wrong. Shame on the marketers for concocting this sad little ploy to trade on the tradition of a 90-year-old journalistic enterprise, and shame on whoever it was who forced the issue to trade that journalistic tradition for a few pieces of gold.

In an age when newspapers are fighting for their lives and the credibility of the news industry is not that great, this type of “advertorial” is not a step in the right direction.

I welcome your thoughts.

Update: Please answer the poll question

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The online journalism ethics seal

October 7, 2008 in ethics

Pat Thornton has written a blog post explaining an idea he advanced at the ONA conference last month: an online ethics seal.

The idea is very simple —  to form a series of ethics seals that Web sites, blogs and news organizations could embed on their Web sites. I want these seals to be in the same vein as the Creative Commons.

Right now there are five seal categories: 

  1. Sourcing
  2. Objectivity/advocacy/opinion journalism or opinion
  3. Linking
  4. Copy editing/fact checking (does a second person fact check?)
  5. Conflicts of Interests

Archives and administration control

August 19, 2008 in College Media News, ethics, Legal Issues

Seattle Pacific UniversityImage via Wikipedia Adam Hemphill writes about a recent case of an attempt by administrators to control online content for a college newspaper through a somewhat unique avenue – demanding access to the newspaper’s web server if the server is purchased by the university.

Seattle Pacific University’s Falcon student newspaper is in the crosshairs in the Seattle Times article. SPU is a private university, but I wouldn’t put it past administrators on public university campuses to try the same argument.

The other twist to the story is that it is another case involving online archives of old stories – usually an arrest story involving someone who now wants the information out of their Google trail.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Hatchet online policy

March 24, 2008 in ethics, Legal Issues

As an update to the previous post, below is the online archives policy of the GWHatchet. Thanks to Howard Marshall for the info, which is in their policy manual, but also not online yet.

Read the rest of this entry →