A reporter for a local paper whispers in my ear, “Did you hear about the deal with the photog?”  I hadn’t so the reporter filled me in.  As a member of the SPJ ethics committee it’s not rare for journalists to whisper in my ear, call or e-mail me about ethics issues.

Here is the story:  A reporter was covering the local school system and shows up at an event at one of the schools.  There he/she finds a photographer for the paper taking pictures.  The reporter is surprised because no newspaper photo coverage had been ordered for the event.  “Hey, I didn’t know they were staffing this.” the reporter said.  The photog said, “They’re not.  I’m taking shots for the school.”  Hmmmm? thought the reporter.

It turned out the photog had a separate contract with the schools to take pictures for their newsletters and website.

The story got around and the newspaper, to their credit,  asked the shooter to end the relationship with the school system.

If you’re a serious journalist, it’s clear that a private deal with an entity the journalism organization is covering is a conflict of interest.  Journalists, obviously, should not be taking money from newsmakers to take photos, write press releases, plan strategy or anything else.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is clear about this:  “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.”  …“Shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.”

Other codes, including the National Press Photographers Association code, make similar points.

There are significant financial pressures on many journalists.  Often pay, particularly for early career journalists, is poor and the rent has to be paid, children fed, and car payments  made.  But we should be very careful about what we do for extra money or even on a volunteer basis.  It’s probably okay for a photographer to do wedding photos, portraits or art.  It clearly not okay to be employed by a public or private organization about which the journalist might be called upon to write stories or take pictures.  At the end, the principal thing we offer the public is our creditability.  We need to guard that jealously.

News organizations should make it clear in their own in-house codes that such practices are not permissible.  They should make sure all employees are reminded of potential conflicts of interest on a regular basis.

Jerry Dunklee is a member of the SPJ Ethics Committee and professor of journalism at Southern Connecticut State University

The Connecticut SPJ Pro Chapter, the Southern Connecticut State University campus chapter and the Journalism Department here, held a Project Watchdog event on Sunday, March 18th.  We invited a cross section of local and statewide news people, community and political leaders to talk about their views of the quality and quantity of local and state news coverage.

At first glance, this was not an ethics discussion.  But when you consider the role of journalists under the First Amendment, and when you read the Preamble to the Code of Ethics you realize that this may be the “mother of all ethics questions.”  The preamble reads:  “Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

Can we achieve that goal when local and statewide issues often go uncovered?

Let’s stipulate that there is some very good journalism being committed everyday in Connecticut and around the nation.  But the other truth is real.  Many important stories go uncovered or covered by press-release journalism.   Staff cuts, the pressures of the “bottom line,” and increased use of syndicated material have affected almost every news outlet in the country.

Just a few Connecticut facts:  The number of  reporters covering our statehouse has dwindled from about thirty 20 years ago to about ten now.  New Haven City Hall is covered by one daily print reporter.  The Connecticut Post and the Hartford Courant have just reduced or eliminated their free lance budgets.  The sports staff at the New Haven Register has been reduced by about a third. They also cut their photo staff.  Local radio news was eliminated completely at WELI in New Haven in January.  That station, historically, was a radio news leader and at one point had 12 full and part-time news reporters.  The station also has no real local talk shows.

A reporter friend just quit his job at a Connecticut daily after fifteen years because, he said, “I was being asked to do so many stories, to just get them done, I couldn’t take pride in my work anymore.”

A former state senator told me that 20 years ago when he first ran for office there would be seven or eight stories each in several area papers about the campaign.  He said the last time he ran for re-election there were two and both were basically re-writes of campaign press releases.

I know the problem exists everywhere and those reading this have their own stories of woe to offer.  It’s not pretty.

Last term I taught a class on the future of news.  A student asked one of our guests, a former head of the state’s Freedom on Information Commission, if you could “run a democracy this way?”  meaning with such large cuts in news about government in the local papers and in radio and television.  He said, “You can run one, just not a very good one.”

When citizens are not informed about the basic issues in their communities by an independent and active press how do we maintain a modicum of real democracy not controlled by and informed elite?

The community and political leaders who attended our discussion were all concerned about that problem.  None of them, or the many editors and reporters who came, had a solution.  There is a sense that none of us has control over the forces of the bottom line or the other relevant factors in the equation.

We called our program “Doing More With Less.”  But we know what we are usually doing is “less with fewer.”

I know I am one of many who believe the situation has eroded the “…foundation of democracy.”