Here’s what Ethics Committee member Jerry Dunklee, a journalism professor at Southern Connecticut State University, said about NBC’s use of the video made by the Virginia Tech gunman: “I told the reporters I would have used the material from Cho. It’s not an easy decision. These kinds of decisions require a balancing of the public’s right to know about a major news event with sensitivity toward victims and survivors. Journalists are trained to ask who, what, why, when, where and how. In this terrible story, we knew the answers to all of these questions … except Why. Why did this young man go on a killing rampage? His own words and pictures can get at part of that question. It’s an important part of this story. That said, the news media should also “minimize harm” by refusing to air or publish the same material over and over again. Particularly cable news channels should limit the times parts of the video or the still pictures are repeated in some endless loop. We don’t serve the right to know by battering people, not just the survivors, with this part of the story.”

This is NBC News’ statement about its decision to air the video that it received from the gunman in the Virginia Tech shootings. What do you think? “The pain suffered by the Virginia Tech community and indeed the entire country is immeasurable.  “Upon receiving the materials from Cho Seung-***, NBC News took careful consideration in determining how the information should be distributed.  We did not rush the material onto air, but instead consulted with local authorities, who have since publicly acknowledged our appropriate handling of the matter.  Beginning this morning, we have limited our usage of the video across NBC News, including MSNBC, to no more than 10 percent of our airtime.  “Our Standards and Policies chief reviewed all material before it was released. One of our most experienced correspondents, Pete Williams handled the reporting. We believe it provides some answers to the critical question, “why did this man carry out these awful murders?” The decision to run this video was reached by virtually every news organization in the world, as evidenced by coverage on television, on websites and in newspapers. We have covered this story — and our unique role in it — with extreme sensitivity, underscored by our devoted efforts to remember and honor the victims and heroes of this tragic incident. We are committed to nothing less.”

Is Don Imus a journalist? If he’s not, nothing about ethical journalism applies to his firing by CBS. If, however, he has a role in the larger media entity that requires him to act responsibly, then perhaps he is. At least that’s the stance CBS appeared to take in firing him for his on-air derogatory comment about the Rutgers women’s basketball team.

People have a right to be stupid and to say stupid things. That’s why the First Amendment is important. While his comments weren’t nice, they didn’t violate any Federal Communications Commission regulations; they merely reflected his poor judgment.

Yet, the public outcry forced CBS to fire the shock jock. In an Associated Press report, the Rev. Al Sharpton said: “He says he wants to be forgiven. I hope he continues in that process. But we cannot afford a precedent established that the airways can commercialize and mainstream sexism and racism.”

Excuse me, but what has hip hop and rap music done? Where’s the collective outcry against artists who make money doing the same thing Imus is accused of doing?

I’d like to think Imus’ firing represents a return to a more civilized discourse, but I suspect it doesn’t. It merely shows what happens to a white man who forgets his place.

It’s time for the news media to speak out against any discourse that shows disrespect to a group. Yes, the First Amendment still protects idiots, but the ethical thing to do is to report on all idiots.

So who cares how many rabbits and varmints former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shot? Do voters? Does that illuminate anything about his fitness for the presidency?

The Rabbitgate scandal in the news has prompted some reporters to actually spend time determining which species of rabbits can be killed without a license in Utah. While news reports are quick to point out Romney has apparently waffled on gun control, which is considered a key issue in the race for the Republican nomination, very little light has been shed on the particulars of his voting record and the legislation in question.

Journalists and even a few students in my Introduction to Mass Communications course understand that bills can become catch-alls for pet causes at the end of a session. Lawmakers who vote against a bill or governors who refuse to sign it may actually be more guilty of reading bills before acting on them than of waffling on an issue.

The 2008 presidential campaign coverage began two full years in advance of the new administration. People have a right to expect more than the snipey coverage of the past. No, I don’t know whether you need a license to hunt snipe in Utah. I’ll leave that to The Associated Press.

It’s an issue of basic accountability.

SPJ chapters sometimes invite experts to speak at professional development programs. In some cases, a speaker gets an appearance fee, or honorarium. Is this an acceptable practice? What should the limits be for SPJ chapters, especially student chapters?

The Ethics Committee took up the topic in an e-mail chat that started with a question from one of our members. This is an edited version of the discussion. We’d like to know what you think.

-Andy Schotz

—–

This issue of honoraria is something that has been hotly debated in ourchapter. It has been my understanding that National discourages honoraria, and has specified in the past that the Ethics Weeks grants aren’t to be used to paythem.

What we’ve done at the Minnesota Pro Chapter is use Silha Center money — which is not subject to these restrictions as long as the honoraria fall under a certain amount — to pay Ethics Week honoraria when necessary andappropriate. For many people, asking them to travel for two days to give a speech represents a significant loss of potentialincome, and it is — in my opinion, at least — appropriate to compensate them for that.

I would be curious to know whether committee members think that SPJ fundsshould be used to pay honoraria. And if not, why not?

Jane E. Kirtley
Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law
Director, Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law
University of Minnesota

—–

At its 1996 convention (or thereabouts), SPJ adopted a resolution that was critical of journalists who accepted honoraria. I don’t recall exactly what it said, but it seemed to get more outside attention than the adoption of the new
Code of Ethics.

In any event, I don’t remember that the resolution said honoraria should not be paid. SPJ’s policy, if we have one, is unclear. In practice, we’ve asked people if they’d consider forgoing their usual honoraria to speak to groups of fellow journalists. If they won’t, and if they’re worth it, we’ve paid them.

Fred Brown
Columnist and retired editor
The Denver Post

—–

Ideally, all journalists would speak gratis to journalism students and journalism organizations. The reality is somewhat different. How much time the commitment is going to take out of the person’s life is an excellent point. If a speaking engagement takes multiple travel days, I think an honorarium is appropriate.

Our practice has been to not pay when the SPJ student chapter is doing the asking. Our journalism department, however, offers honoraria to guest speakers. The nice speakers donate the money back to the SPJ student chapter or to the department.

Sara Stone
Journalism professor
Baylor University

—–

I don’t have a major problem with reasonable honoraria, but SPJ chapter grant guidelines specifically say the awards aren’t supposed to be used to pay honoraria.

Irwin Gratz
Morning Edition producer
Maine Public Broadcasting Network

—–

Journalists have an obligation to help other journalists. All of us have come up the ranks by learning from others, and then it’s our turn to help. I don’t think we should be charging other journalists, especially students, who are
notoriously underfunded.

At the Chicago Headline Club, we’ve paid for travel and lodging, but I don’t recall paying anyone honoraria. Maybe Christine Tatum can add her memory to this.

Seymour Hersh was our keynote speaker at an awards banquet a few years back, and he did not expect to be paid an honorarium for his appearance. I think that sets a pretty good example — from a major figure in journalism.

Casey Bukro
Overnight editor
The Chicago Tribune

—–

I remember paying a few fees for speakers appearing at Headline Club events (Poynter instructors mainly), but all were very reasonable. For the most part, speakers expected only that their travel, lodging and food be reimbursed.

I agree with Irwin: The guidelines discourage the use of Ethics Week grant money for honoraria — but we may need to underscore this in bright lines next year.

Christine Tatum
SPJ president

—–

I think honoraria should be rarely, if ever, given.
I agree with the idea of doing something to help the profession.

Speakers’ expenses — and possibly lost income — shouldn’t be ignored. But rather than getting stuck on that path, I’d look at it a different way: What’s the budget? If you can’t afford it with the money available, do something else.

Andy Schotz
Reporter
The (Hagerstown, Md.) Herald-Mail

—–

Many, if not most, big-time journalists who get big speaking fees give discounts or freebies to journalism and academic groups.

Al Cross
Director
Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at University of Kentucky

—–

I spoke to several chapters around the country while I was developing my wartime ethics guidelines through local workshops, and I believe some of those talks were paid, at least in part, by host SPJ chapters. I am an independent
(freelance) journalist/author and can not afford to spend several days for travel, preparation and presentation without compensation.

On occasion, I have even considered whether to write an article for Quill for free or to write the same piece for another journalism magazine so that I could receive adequate freelance compensation. I hate to have to make
such choices for an organization like SPJ that I believe in so much, but I must.

This is not a comment on what SPJ’s guidelines are or should be — simply on the realities of freelance journalism. Perhaps different guidelines should apply to those who are given time by their employers to give such talks on company time. I’d hate to see SPJ talks limited only to journalists on a corporate or academic payroll.

I have given many talks without compensation to classes and individual students and to SPJ chapters and on national convention panels, but sometimes it’s necessary to charge, especially since I often write professionally about the same journalism issues I’m asked to speak about gratis.

Peter Y. Sussman
Independent journalist and author

—–

I see many sides to this issue, which is hardly black and white. We should leave the decision to pay honoraria to SPJ chapters — but expect those chapters to honor the guidelines for the expenditure of national money, as Irwin noted, and to live within their budgets, as Andy noted.

Christine Tatum