Do You Trust Rolling Stone?

“Do the two of you trust what you read in the magazine now,” Ravi Somaiya of The New York Times asked Columbia Journalism School Deans Steve Coll and Sheila Coronel at a Monday press conference about their Rolling Stone report.

“We’re empiricists,” Coronel replied. “Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we would judge each story on its merits.”

Less than 24 hours before the press conference at Columbia University in New York City, people devoured the 13,000-word report that called the magazine’s November 2014 story about an alleged gang rape a “journalistic failure that was avoidable.”

The report’s authors suggest several areas where stronger policy and clearer staff understanding may have prevented the original story from being published. Yet, the report says Rolling Stone’s senior editors “are unanimous in the belief that the story’s failure does not require them to change their editorial systems.”

Instead of blaming the editorial process, which is largely cited in the report that Rolling Stone commissioned, the magazine’s managing editor says the staff simply has to not make the same mistake again. The magazine’s fact-checking chief is quoted as saying the editorial process isn’t the problem. Instead, the process was bypassed because of the topic – rape.

Rolling Stone Publisher Jann Wenner told The New York Times in an interview that the story’s problems began with its source, who was a girl referred to as “Jackie.” Wenner clarified in the interview that he was not trying to blame the girl, “but obviously there is something here that is untruthful, and something sits at her doorstep.”

In other words, Rolling Stone’s leadership believes there is enough blame for these failures to go around, but there’s not enough left for themselves.

As Jack Shafer rightfully points out in Politico Magazine, no news organization is immune from “crimes against journalism.” He cites several well-known cases of pure fabrication and deception, including The Washington Post’s Janet Cooke and USA TODAY’s Jack Kelley.

Admittedly those cases rank higher on any scale of journalism malpractice, but there is another difference. In the cases of Cooke and Kelley, there was some acknowledgement – either through changes in staff or editorial policies – that the organizations learned a lesson.

There will be no changes in staff or editorial policy at Rolling Stone following the release of Columbia Journalism School’s report. Even the author of the now-retracted story will continue to write for the magazine, according to its publisher.

No news organization is immune from “crimes against journalism,” but the measure of an outlet recovering from an offense should be the response of its leadership.

Perhaps there is no need for any of Rolling Stone’s staff to lose their job, but surely there is at least one change that can be made within the magazine’s editorial process based on the report’s findings.

For example, Rolling Stone could implement new and stronger policies in the three areas that “might have changed the final outcome,” according to the report. Those areas are the use of pseudonyms, checking derogatory information and confronting subjects with details.

Another possible change would be a system to ensure the magazine’s fact-checking staff is not timid when confronting editorial leadership with possible problems.

Yet, there are no announced changes within the magazine. The lack of change signals that Rolling Stone’s leadership didn’t learn even one lesson from the 13,000-word report it asked Columbia Journalism School to produce.

Whether people trust Rolling Stone may not be the correct question to ask. Instead, the question may be whether people should trust someone who hasn’t learned any lessons from their mistakes.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Columbia J-School Issues Rolling Stone Report

A screenshot of the editor's note attached to a Rolling Stone story about a 2012 gang rape at the University of Virginia. (captured 12/5/2014)

A screenshot of the editor’s note attached to a Rolling Stone story about a 2012 gang rape at the University of Virginia. (captured 12/5/2014)

Systemic problems within Rolling Stone allowed for the release of a story that the Columbia Journalism School called a “journalistic failure that was avoidable” in a new report of the magazine’s editorial processes.

“The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking,” wrote Columbia Journalism School Deans Steve Coll and Sheila Coronel in the lengthy report, which was published Sunday night on the websites of Rolling Stone and the Columbia Journalism Review. Derek Kravitz, a researcher at Columbia, is also an author of the report.

Rolling Stone reported the events surrounding an alleged 2012 gang rape of a freshman woman named “Jackie” on the Charlottesville campus of the University of Virginia in a November 19, 2014, story. Subsequent reporting by journalists and investigation by local police questioned the accuracy of the story.

In addition to pointing to an overall failure of the magazine’s staff to prevent the story from being published, the report highlights several actions that were especially egregious:

  • The magazine did not seek comments from the person accused of orchestrating the rape.
  • The magazine relied on “Jackie” for most of the information for the article.
  • The magazine did not attempt to verify the information even when “Jackie” did not request restrictions.
  • The magazine did not provide a full account of what “Jackie” described to the university or the fraternity at the center of the story.
  • The magazine did not make clear what was known and what was unknown.

As a result of the report, Rolling Stone removed the original story from its website. The magazine now directs people to the report instead of the story. Sabrina Rubin Erdely, freelance journalist and the author of the story in question, also issued an apology on Sunday night.

“I hope that my mistakes in reporting this story do not silence the voices of victims that need to be heard,” Erdely wrote, according to The New York Times.

Journalists should take note of the report, because it shows that sloppy journalism causes harm. In this case, the failures of a reporter and Rolling Stone caused harm to “Jackie,” several men, a fraternity, so-called Greek life, the University of Virginia and all victims of sex crimes.

What’s more, the failures of Ms. Erdely and Rolling Stone likely harmed journalism as a whole. The situation may force ethical journalists to work harder to gain the trust of sources and readers.

As I wrote on this blog in December, it’s important for people to know that the blame for harm caused by the November article falls on the shoulders of Rolling Stone, which the magazine’s managing editor Will Dana also admitted on Twitter.

“Jackie” nor any other source forced Rolling Stone to publish an unverified article in a magazine that reaches about 1.5 million people. The magazine’s leadership is solely responsible for that decision.

Without question, one of most egregious errors committed by Rolling Stone’s leadership was not requiring Ms. Erdely to get a response from the men accused of rape.

In a note added last year to the story by Mr. Dana, he said the magazine respected the wish of “Jackie” not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack.

Ethical journalists attempt to be respectful to the requests of people who are victims of sex crimes, but those journalists are also responsible for verifying their work. It’s simply irresponsible for any news organization to not seek comments from people accused of such serious crimes.

Also, as exhibited by the excellent reporting by The Washington Post and detailed in the report, there are other sources that questioned the reliability of the information provided to Rolling Stone, such as activity and work logs.

Without a doubt, the Rolling Stone story on the alleged 2012 sexual assault at the University of Virginia will be considered as one of the great journalism failings in modern history – alongside the scandals of The New York Times’s Jayson Blair scandal and The Washington Post’s Janet Cooke.

Following the report, I assume the public will be hearing about several changes within Rolling Stone. Many of those changes are detailed within the report. No changes in staff will be made based on the report or the failure of the magazine.

Additionally, Rolling Stone should publish an accurate and thorough report about sexual assaults on U.S. college campuses. The topic, which is known to be a significant problem, was lost among the discussion of the magazine’s failures.

Until then, people looking for information or resources can check the website of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center here: http://bit.ly/1IhuXqZ

The Society’s ethics committee will continue to follow the events that occur in the wake of Columbia Journalism School’s report, and will update the blog as necessary.


Andrew M. Seaman is the Society’s ethics chair.

* An official statement from the Society will be released separately. When available, it will be posted here.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Toronto Star Fails in Vaccine Investigation

Photo Illustration (Photo Credit: Flickr/ El Alvi)

Photo Illustration (Photo Credit: Flickr/ El Alvi)

Two days after I published a post on this blog about the importance of using data to report on medicine, the Toronto Star published – what the paper called – an investigation into Gardasil, which is one of the vaccines used to prevent the human papillomavirus.


While the Star’s story included medical experts defending the vaccine, the paper relied on anecdotal reports to support a hypothesis that the drug has a “dark side” that includes undisclosed complications, including death.

As I wrote in my post on February 3, journalists have a responsibility to prevent people from being harmed by incorrect information. In this case, one can make a strong argument that the Star’s failure to adequately report its story may lead to future cancers and even deaths.

The human papillomavirus – better known as HPV – is a sexually transmitted infection responsible for a number of cancers and other complications, including genital warts. Most importantly, HPV is responsible for the vast majority of cervical cancers.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says on its website that almost all adults who are sexually active will be infected with at least one strain of HPV during their lives. Most infections will clear up on their own, but about one in 10 will persist.

There are two vaccines currently approved to protect against HPV in the U.S. Cervarix, which is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, and Gardasil, which is manufactured by Merck. Gardasil is the only vaccine approved for use in males, who can also get HPV and suffer from its complications.

While the CDC says the vaccines are safe and effective, the agency reports some people experience side effects ranging from pain at the injection site, headache, nausea, dizziness and fainting.

The U.S. recommends vaccination for boys and girls from ages 11 through 12 years, and teens who were not previously vaccinated. Specifically, females can get the series of three shots through age 26 and males through age 21. Gay men, bisexual men and other men who have sex with men can also receive the vaccine through age 26 years.

If people reading the Star’s story are persuaded to not be vaccinated, some may go on to develop cancers that would have been prevented by the vaccine. Additionally, some of those cancers may ultimately cause people’s deaths.

While the Star – as of right now – did not retract its story, the paper’s publisher said the publication failed in its job. Additionally, the paper’s public editor Kathy English wrote a comprehensive report on the matter on Friday.

“It’s too bad there isn’t a vaccination to prevent journalistic misstep. I suspect we’d all line up for that shot about now. The fallout here has been devastating for the newsroom,” wrote English.

English places a lot of blame on the story’s presentation, such as the accompanying headline and pictures. While those elements didn’t help, the article itself would lead a reasonable reader to assume the vaccine may cause serious complications.

Dr. Yoni Freedhoff told CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that he suspects the Star’s story will lead some people to not be vaccinated, and ultimately develop cancers.

“And that’s really a horrible thing for the Toronto Star to have done,” he told the CBC.

The Star already took some steps to reduce the harm its article caused, including admitting the paper failed in its responsibilities and adding several notes to the online publication. My hope is that the Star will report the story again, except with a much more critical eye.


 On a personal note: I think it’s important to say that I’m currently in the middle of receiving the HPV vaccine – as recommended by the CDC.


Andrew Seaman is the chair of the Society’s ethics committee.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Covering the Transgender Community

Photo Illustration

Photo Illustration (Original Photo Credit: Flickr/George Kelly)

A very bright magazine cover caught my eyes one day as I waited to pay for a few items at a grocery store.


The magazine In Touch edited Bruce Jenner’s face into another picture of a woman. For effect, the magazine added bright lips, thin eyebrows and rosy cheeks.

Unlike the magazine’s name, the cover was out of touch, distasteful and offensive. The Society’s Code of Ethics is clear that journalists should treat sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

The cover and other recent media coverage of Jenner is based on reports that the reality TV star and Olympic athlete is transgender. Jenner did not make any such public claim, however.

While U.S. journalists are increasingly familiar with transgender people in public roles, they likely haven’t reported on a high-profile person’s gender transition.

In response, the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), of which I am also a member, published an open letter about covering transgender people.

We are not an advocacy group. Our mission is to ensure fair and accurate coverage of issues that affect the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities.

In the letter, NLGJA offers sound advice and terms for covering transgender people. The advice also covers how to approach the unconfirmed reports about Jenner’s transition.

The letter can be found on NLGJA’s website. Additionally, the organization offers a comprehensive stylebook on LGBT terminology.


Andrew Seaman is the chair of the Society’s ethics committee.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

What We Should Ask About Williams’ Mistake

(UPDATED: February 6, 2015 at 3:13 p.m. EST and February 10, 2015 at 8:12 p.m. EST )

Brian Williams aired a heartwarming story the other night on NBC Nightly News.


He talked about a tribute he arranged for a retired soldier, who protected his NBC News crew during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Since then, Williams’ version of events was called into question by a report appearing in Stars and Stripes, which is a publication of the U.S. Department of Defense. Williams admitted he made a mistake by confusing whether the helicopter he rode in during the invasion was hit by ground fire.

As it turns out, Williams’ version of events changed over the years. For an excellent summary of what happened and how Williams’ story changed since 2003, I suggest you read Mike Sisak’s Tumblr post here.

Of course, people are now debating whether Williams should be fired from NBC. Also, people are debating if Williams intentionally changed his story or simply misremembered.

At this point, the public doesn’t know enough to say what Williams’ intent – if he had any – was to change his story. NBC should investigate how and why his story changed since 2003. More importantly, NBC should ask how the incorrect version of the story made it to air.

The medical

As many people pointed out over the last few days, it’s very possible Williams simply messed up the facts while remembering what happened 12 years ago.

Dr. Ford Vox, a brain injury specialist based in Atlanta, makes a compelling case on CNN.com about why people should give Williams the benefit of doubt.

“Williams has told his story many times before, and each time he tells it, he is retrieving it. Errors happen during memory retrieval all the time, just as errors happen in cell division; biology isn’t computer science. Furthermore, he is subtly modifying his memory with his every retelling. Revisions occur as the memory is re-encoded based on what’s going on at the time he tells the story. Circumstances like a gabby, friendly free-wheeling interview with David Letterman.”

I, too, will give Williams the benefit of doubt — because there is simply not enough information to know whether or not the newsman meant to deceive his viewers.

The ethical

There is enough information to say NBC News should review its editorial practices, however. Any news organization should have checks and balances in place to prevent the false memory of one person from being broadcast across the United States.

What are those checks and balances? It depends on the medium and outlet. In this case, someone had to mine the NBC News archive for video footage. Additionally, someone had to produce the package. Perhaps they can fact-check the story.

News organizations practicing due diligence is important to all journalists and society.

Monica Guzman, the vice chair of SPJ’s ethics committee, expressed these concerns during an interview with Roxanne Jones, the founding editor of ESPN The Magazine, for CNN.com:

“We know the difference between when the WWF wrestler says, ‘I’m going to kill you…’ and what Brian Williams says on a newscast. We have an expectation of accuracy and it needs to be credible. If we don’t have sources of information that we can trust, we cannot be an informed society.”

While people may be able to forgive Williams for forgetting key details of his time in Iraq, we should still ask how his confusion made it to air on one of the United State’s highest-rated news shows.

We’ll keep following the developments of this story and update the blog as needed.


UPDATE 1

Richard Esposito, the head of NBC’s investigative unit, will head an investigation into Brian Williams’ statements, according to the Associated Press.


UPDATE 2

Politico’s Dylan Byers is reporting that NBC News suspended Brian Williams for six months without pay. Byers included a memo from NBC News President Deborah Turness:

While on Nightly News on Friday, January 30, 2015, Brian misrepresented events which occurred while he was covering the Iraq War in 2003. It then became clear that on other occasions Brian had done the same while telling that story in other venues. This was wrong and completely inappropriate for someone in Brian’s position.

In addition, we have concerns about comments that occurred outside NBC News while Brian was talking about his experiences in the field.

As Managing Editor and Anchor of Nightly News, Brian has a responsibility to be truthful and to uphold the high standards of the news division at all times.


Andrew Seaman is the chair of the Society’s ethics committee.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Ask for Evidence and Data When Reporting on Health

My childhood doctor vaccinated me against measles, mumps and rubella as recommended by the U.S. government. A quarter century later I sat in another doctor’s office asking if the shots still protected me against those diseases.

Photographed early in 2014 in the Philippines capital city of Manila, this baby was in a hospital with measles (rubeola).  (PHOTO CREDIT: Jim Goodson, M.P.H.)

Photographed early in 2014 in the Philippines capital city of Manila, this baby was in a hospital with measles (rubeola). (PHOTO CREDIT: Jim Goodson, M.P.H.)

In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need to ask whether effective vaccines still work as intended. Even if someone’s immune system isn’t working properly, the rest of the vaccinated population should still keep the disease at bay.

We do not live in an ideal world, however.

Measles, a once-eradicated virus, is spreading across North America. Health experts put most blame at the feet of people who refuse to vaccinate themselves and their children against diseases because of unproven fears about side effects.

While journalists aren’t to blame for these parents’ refusals, we do have a responsibility to minimize harm from incorrect information. Unfortunately, news reports continue to feature doctors and others who provide unchallenged anecdotal evidence that vaccines do more harm than good.

No substance, natural or manufactured, is free of risks. But the best available medical research shows that the vaccines recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are extremely safe and effective.

Because the weight of evidence is so heavily stacked in favor of vaccines, people who are against vaccinations – so-called anti-vaxxers – should be challenged by journalists to provide data to support their claims.

As always, balanced reporting is important, but not all arguments carry equal weight.

One of the most popular myths is that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism spectrum disorders, which are a collection of developmental disabilities. This myth gained momentum when it was supported in a 1998 article in a medical journal. Since then, the 1998 paper and its author were proved incorrect time and time again.

For example, a study reported in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine, involving more than 500,000 Danish children from 1991 through 1998, found that 82 percent – or roughly 410,000 – received the MMR vaccine. Overall, 738 children – or less than two-tenths of one percent – were diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. There was no increased risk of a child being diagnosed among the children who received MMR vaccines.

There are also reports of kids having seizures and other developmental delays after a vaccination. Research shows that many of those children have Dravet syndrome, a rare genetic condition triggered by fevers and stress. Research also suggests that outcomes among kids with Dravet syndrome are similar with or without vaccinations.

People who suggest a link between vaccines and developmental conditions or severe injury should be asked to back those claims with the same quality evidence that supports vaccinations.

Especially with health issues, journalists must realize that their stories have consequences. Infectious diseases are only whispers from the past to modern U.S. parents. A 35-year-old father may choose not to vaccinate his children if a news report suggests they may be left disabled from a shot that protects against an eradicated disease.

Measles causes flu-like symptoms and a rash across the body. It’s spread through the air and is highly contagious. One measles virus infection may lead to 12 to 18 secondary infections.

About 30 percent of measles patients will have complications such as ear infections (sometimes with permanent hearing loss), diarrhea, pneumonia, brain swelling and death, the CDC warns. There’s also a risk for complications later in life.

The CDC says children should receive one dose of the MMR vaccine between 12 and 15 months of age and a second dose between ages four and six.  Most people will become immunized after the first dose; the second dose will likely protect those who didn’t respond to the first shot.

Babies younger than 12 months can’t be vaccinated against measles; they’re protected only by whatever limited immunity they may have inherited from their vaccinated mothers. Also vulnerable to measles and its complications are people with compromised immune systems, as from cancer treatment.

While a blood test confirmed that I’m still protected against measles thanks to my MMR vaccines, I continue to worry about my friends and family who are too young to be immunized or have weakened immune systems.

The Society’s Code of Ethics says journalists should seek truth and minimize harm. To me, that means we should do due diligence to make sure people have the most accurate medical information to protect themselves, their loved ones and society. As of now, the evidence says people should be immunized according to the CDC’s schedule. If others disagree, they should be required to present equally compelling evidence.


Andrew Seaman is the chair of the Society’s ethics committee.

 

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

The Other Side: Rolling Stone’s Note

A screenshot of the editor's note attached to a Rolling Stone story about a 2012 gang rape at the University of Virginia. (captured 12/5/2014)

A screenshot of the editor’s note attached to a Rolling Stone story about a 2012 gang rape at the University of Virginia. (captured 12/5/2014)

The managing editor of Rolling Stone added an editor’s note earlier today to the magazine’s bombshell campus rape story that was published online November 19. The story described a 2012 gang rape of a woman called Jackie at a party in the house of a University of Virginia fraternity.

“In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced,” writes Will Dana, the magazine’s managing editor, in the note, which does not specify the discrepancies.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post  published a story today detailing its own investigation into the events described in the original Rolling Stone report.

“Several key aspects of the account of a gang rape offered by a University of Virginia student in Rolling Stone magazine have been cast into doubt, including the date of the alleged attack and details about an alleged attacker, according to interviews and a statement from the magazine backing away from the article,” writes Post reporter T. Rees Shapiro.

Many news organizations and journalists are calling the Rolling Stone editor’s note added to the story a retraction. The magazine does not use that specific word, however. Instead it’s up to the reader to proceed with the caveat that some of the 9,000-or-so-word story may be inaccurate.

Dana emphasizes in his note that the magazine decided to honor the source’s “request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her.”

Some journalists experienced with reporting on rape are quoted as saying it may be acceptable to not reach out to the accused in some cases.

Most – if not all – sets of journalism standards emphasize the special care and compassion reporters must take when dealing with certain sources. The Society’s Code of Ethics is no different. “Journalists should use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent,” says the Code.

Ethics and responsible reporting are balancing acts, however. In this case, it’s easy to argue the seriousness of the crimes described in the Rolling Stone story warranted reaching out to all accused parties.

Additionally, investigations are typically not considered complete until all information within a story is thoroughly examined and substantiated. As I’ve been taught, sources and subjects should not be surprised when an investigation is published – it’s how a reporter knows all involved parties had the opportunity to have their responses included.

Perhaps the inability to reach out to the accused meant Jackie should not be included in the magazine’s story.

The Post also reports Jackie asked be left out of the Rolling Stone story altogether. The Columbia Journalism School’s Darte Center for Journalism and Trauma says journalists should respect an interviewee’s right to say no. The Center offers journalists a comprehensive sexual violence reporting tip sheet , which can be found here.

Obviously, there are exceptions to most rules in journalism. Still, Rolling Stone and its editorial team owed – and still owes – its sources, subjects and readers thorough reporting and verification of whatever information made its way to publication.

What’s especially upsetting about today’s development is that the controversy created by poor editorial management overshadows a very real problem. The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) cites a December 2000 U.S. Department of Justice report that found “a college with 10,000 students could experience as many as 350 rapes per year.”

Instead of those rapes being the focus of public discussion, the conversation turns to the decisions made by a magazine. The investigation into the story is likely to only create a more traumatic experience for Jackie, too. Her friends tell the Post that “they believe something traumatic happened to her.”

Rolling Stone’s Dana took a step in the right direction on Twitter earlier today, when he wrote the “failure is on us – not on her.”

Ultimately, whatever doubt Rolling Stone has in its story is its own creation – not that of sources, subjects or readers. As a result, it’s up to the magazine to make this situation right.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

#Pointergate Revisited Revisited

The chairman and chief executive officer of Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., which owns KSTP-TV in Minneapolis, responded to the #Pointergate statement made last month by the Society’s Minnesota Pro Chapter.

In the letter dated November 26, Stanley Hubbard stands behind the controversial report that aired last month on the ABC affiliate.

Much of what Hubbard writes is covered in previous posts to this blog (here and here). However, it’s important to point to Hubbard’s comment at the beginning of the letter’s third paragraph.

Putting aside the question of whether it is an appropriate role of the Chapter to decide whether any particular new story should or should not air, we acknowledge that our reporting resulted in a great deal of criticism.

The Society’s Code of Ethics says journalists should “expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.” Journalists and news consumers should be active in raising concern over news coverage that does not adhere to the profession’s best practices. There is no question about that.

Here is Hubbard’s full response via the Society’s Minnisota Pro Chapter, which will co-host on Monday “a panel discussion on the recent Pointergate issue in our local community.” Click here for additional details.

View this document on Scribd
Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

#Pointergate Revisited

(Updated on November 21, 2014 to include information from a statement made by the Society’s Minnesota Pro Chapter.)

On Tuesday night, I published a blog post about a report that aired last week on KSTP, the ABC affiliate in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area. The story became known as #pointergate on Twitter. On Thursday, the station aired a report defending the original story.

In the original report, Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges is posing in a picture with an unidentified man flashing “known” gang signs, according to KSTP.

The new story is reported by Stephen Tellier, who is not the reporter of the original story – Jay Kolls.

“5 EYEWITNESS NEWS admits, and reported, that the poses struck by Hodges and Gordon appear to be playful — simple pointing — and it’s hard to understand why such a seemingly innocuous photo could be potentially dangerous,” Tellier writes on KSTP’s website. “But police say the mere existence of it could put the public, and possibly police, in danger.”

As I asked in my original post, if KSTP believes its sources that the picture can cause violence toward police and the public, why would the station continue to broadcast it across the Twin Cities?

The new report is somewhat more specific on the source who brought the photo to their attention. Tellier writes that it’s a “local law enforcement source — outside the Minneapolis Police Department.”

The report says KSTP has “taken the picture to eight active police officers with multiple agencies.” Those officers – along with a retired officer – all “strongly agreed the picture was problematic,” Tellier writes. Yet, none of the active police officers are named or appear on camera.

Additionally, Tellier reiterates that KSTP concealed the identity of the man posing with the mayor and the name of the community organization that put on the event, where the photo was taken, because he “nor the group were the focus of the story — Hodges was.”

Tellier writes that other organizations made the man the focus of the report, and “5 EYEWITNESS NEWS feels it necessary to provide additional context on his recent history.”

The report then launches into a detailed description of the man’s arrest record and pictures lifted from his Instagram account.

While the man’s identity has been made public since KSTP’s original report, the question remains: Why is his arrest record, court documents and personal pictures relevant to the story? The station already established in its first report that its sources say the man is not in a gang.

The fact that a person has a criminal history does not give journalists license to publish or broadcast that information across the Internet – unless appropriate. “Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort,” according to the Society’s Code. “Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.”

KSTP may say the man was not the focus of the first story, but the beginning of the original report includes a detailed description of the man’s court records.

Last Sunday, I sent Jay Kolls, the reporter of the original story, a list of questions. On Monday evening I resent those questions to him and the station’s news director, who is currently out of the office. I did not receive a response.

I can’t say what response I hoped to see from KSTP after its original report, but I know it wasn’t what the community received on Thursday.

In all likelihood, the Twin Cities will move on and #pointergate will fade to the pages of case studies. Stories like this tend to leave a stain, however. KSTP will be wearing it for a long while.


 

UPDATE

The Society’s Minnesota Pro Chapter and other local journalism groups released a statement on November 19 “expressing their concern and calling for KSTP to disavow the story.”

In addition to issuing its statement, the Minnesota Pro Chapter and other local journalism organizations “will host a public forum on the ethical issues raised by this story at Cowles Auditorium on the West Bank campus of the University of Minnesota — on Dec. 8, 2014 at 7 p.m.”

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Some Points on #Pointergate

KSTP, the ABC affiliate in Minnesota’s Minneapolis- Saint Paul metropolitan area, got skewered over the past week thanks to a story about a photo it says shows Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges standing next to a convicted felon while they both flash a “known” gang sign.

The story and the controversy it caused became known as #Pointergate on Twitter. Twitter users – myself included – criticized KSTP for airing a story based on questionable evidence and ethical decisions.

The story is available here.

(video from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFwb8z0A5nM)

The mayor and the man, who is not in a gang according to KSTP’s police sources, posed for the photograph as they were knocking on doors for a get-out-vote even in Minneapolis. The gesture, KSTP anchor Bill Lunn said, concerned law enforcement officials, who “think the mayor has put the public and police at risk.”

In the video report, a retired police officer says gangs can take the photo and say “even the mayor is with us.” The president of the Minneapolis Police Federation also questions in the report whether the mayor will support “gangs in the city or cops.”

“The allegation was so ludicrous that two reporters at the Star Tribune ignored it after it was pitched to one of them by someone in law enforcement,” wrote Joe Tevlin, a metro columnist Star Tribune, in a column posted online about the story on Tuesday.

Since the initial backlash to the story, several websites reported the organization that put on the get-out-the-vote event also posted photos and a video on its blog that shows Minneapolis Police Chief Janeé Harteau, Mayor Hodges and the man at the event together.

The initial report raises several questions about the ethical decision made during the reporting and airing of the story.

Specifically, how is the hand gesture a “known” gang sign? If the hand gesture is a gang sign capable of inciting violence, why did KSTP broadcast it across the metropolitan area? Why is the criminal record of the person in the picture with Mayor Hodges relevant to the story? Who are the law enforcement officials that are outraged?

I emailed Lindsay Radford, KSTP’s news director, with my concerns and questions on Sunday. She is out of the office and forwarded my email to Jay Kolls, who reported the story.

“I am not the story,” Kolls replied to my email. “We did everything ethically. But, fine. Put them in writing and I will respond to each one.” He also responded to some of the concerns I mentioned in my first email.

As of press time (abuot 9:00 pm. EST on Tuesday) Kolls did not respond to my additional questions.

It’s safe to assume – based on the video posted by the organization behind the get-out-the-vote event – that the sign Mayor Hodges and the man are making in the photo is not a gang symbol. Instead, it’s more likely a spur-of-the-moment gesture.

Additionally, a simple Internet search does not show that hand gesture as the sign of any large gang.

An attempt at independent verification, which is included in one of leading principles within the Society’s Code of Ethics, should have at least made KSTP’s editorial leadership question whether or not that specific hand gesture is a “known” gang sign.

Additionally, if KSTP trusted its sources and believed the sign is capable of inciting violence against the police and public, it leads to the question: Why would they broadcast it across the Twin Cities?

The Code speaks broadly about “potential harm.” Violence against police and the general public would fall under that language.

“He posted the photo on Facebook,” Kolls wrote in his original reply to me. “It was already publicly available, so broadcasting it was not releasing it.”

The picture may have been publicly available on Facebook, but it’s safe to assume the number of people navigating to the man’s profile is less than KSTP’s viewership.

In the same vein of minimizing harm, one of the tenets of the Code, KSTP should have questioned whether the criminal record of the man in the picture with Mayor Hodges is relevant to the story.

Yes, criminal records are public documents, but the  Code is clear that the legal right to information does not justify the ethical decision to publish or broadcast that information. Also, “private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures.”

Kolls wrote to me in his original reply that they “went out of our way to not identify him or his organization to not make him the focus of the story. Others did that; not us.”

The video story flashes the man’s court records across the screen toward the beginning of the report – although they appear anonymized. The accompanying print story also details the man’s criminal records in its second paragraph. Clearly KSTP made this man is a prominent figure in the story.

Lastly, the fact that no named law enforcement official associated with the unit that discovered the picture came forward to air their concerns should raise red flags – as it apparently did at the Star Tribune.

Sources should be identified clearly, according to the Code. “The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.”

What’s more, the Code is clear that journalists need to consider the source’s motive for requesting anonymity. The journalist also should explain why anonymity was granted.

While these concerns should – hopefully – cause editorial teams to reconsider publishing or broadcasting a story like this, KSTP aired an additional report and issued a statement following its initial story.

While the Society’s Code may not answer every question journalists may encounter, it can at least provide sufficient guidance in publishing or broadcasting reports that at least meet basic best practices: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently and Be Accountable and Transparent.

In this case, KSTP’s report fell short in many places.

 

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest


Newest Posts

Chicago Headline Club award banquet May 8 April 18, 2015, 5:58 pm
Congratulations to all our Region 11 2014 college journalism award winners April 18, 2015, 4:00 pm
As Buzzfeed might say: 23 things from the SPJ board packet for this weekend April 17, 2015, 4:56 am
Learning from Chicago’s social runoff April 16, 2015, 1:07 am
North Wind responds April 15, 2015, 2:32 am
North Wind responds April 15, 2015, 2:25 am
Best in Indiana Journalism banquet tickets on sale April 14, 2015, 2:01 am

Copyright © 2007-2015 Society of Professional Journalists. All Rights Reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ