The query from the University of Montana journalism graduate student caught me off guard.

“My basic thesis is that over-reporting on select incidents leaves less room for reporting on vital issues,” she wrote. She defined an incident as the Virginia Tech massacre and an issue as global warming.

Her message described three scenarios in which she felt journalists were unethical because of the lack of coverage. She wanted to know what I thought.

The three scenarios she posed as evidence of lack of issues coverage were the HIV travel ban, federal funding for privately run pregnancy crisis centers and global warming. I was ignorant of the first two, and it appeared her thesis was the reason why.

A saying in the news business suggests if it isn’t reported in the news, it didn’t really happen. That is especially true today as mainstream media mergers have eliminated diversity of ownership and voices in even the largest U.S. cities. The Internet is the news frontier, a place where independents can have a voice. But, good and bad, Internet sources don’t have the supposed credibility and history of mainstream media outlets.

So if the mainstream media ignore a story, it doesn’t really exist. I don’t know whether that rises to the level of being unethical, but it certainly isn’t the best use of the freedom guaranteed the news media by the First Amendment.

If media consumers don’t demand issues-oriented news coverage, they won’t get it and they will continue to leave mainstream media in droves.

Nerissa Young is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Mass Communications at Shepherd University and a member of SPJ’s Ethics Committee.

Every time pack journalists cover mass misfortune, there’s a danger of stomping on the privacy and grief of victims and their families. The SPJ Code of Ethics reminds journalists to think about the other side – i.e., “Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance” and “Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.” Tonight, I read an interesting exchange about a memorial service for a Virginia Tech student victim. A local journalist objected to the forceful edict banning the media from a public building. The victim’s father explained his intent. The debate on this blog was quite personal – and remarkably cordial. http://rappvoice.com/2007/04/22/rights/

In New York, reporters who cover horse racing have had a small but cozy side gig with the New York Racing Association – which these same writers were covering. The association’s bankruptcy filings show that it was paying $50 appearance fees to the writers to talk about their work on camera. While that’s not a great deal of money, this nonetheless is an unseemly daily double. Just say neigh, folks. (http://tuweb1a.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?category=STATE&storyID=558190&BCCode=&newsdate=1/29/2007)

What line would you draw for interacting with someone you regularly cover? Would you have coffee together? Share news about your families? Send a condolence card after a funeral? Laugh together at a dirty joke? At least two members of the White House Press Corps decided it’s OK to wear a yellow bracelet to show that they’re wishing press secretary Tony Snow well in his fight against cancer, according to a report by The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. Better yet – it was the White House’s idea, according to ABCnews.com. (http://poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=122492) Was this a “you’re either against cancer or you’re for it” request from the White House? If bracelets are OK, what about lapel pins? I don’t see the harm in wishing someone well, as a sign of human decency, source or otherwise, but I don’t understand the need to make a public statement about it – especially to please the president.

Are ethics different for editors and for reporters? What about ethics for an editor who covers events and issues and then writes editorials about said events and issues?  When does the written editorial move the editor into conflict of interest?

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics suggests a series of “shoulds.” Journalists should do this or that or should not do that or this.

A city councilman has contacted the Committee with what he believes to be an egregious violation of the “Act Independently” section the SPJ Code of Ethics. He believes it patently wrong for an editor to cover issues and events of the city council and then write “scathing” editorials. The councilman claims the editor “organized” a recall election against another member of the council. SPJ code says the journalist “should avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.” The journalist “should remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.”

It is noted here that the recall election centers on a different city councilman who was fined $20,000 by the Public Disclosure Commission for obliquely channeling contributions to other council campaigns including that of the councilman who contacted SPJ. Of the two weekly newspapers in the community one sends a reporter to cover the council. The editor of the other chooses to cover the city council which leads our concerned councilman to believe the editor is invoking personal values in an attempt to make public policy by choosing what to report to the community and then strongly advocating editorially for a particular point of view. The editor has admitted inadvertent errors of fact and omissions of fact that the councilman believes are purposeful.

The councilman has been advised that the editor may choose to cover and write about, even editorialize, whatever the editor believes is germane to the paper’s readership. All reporters are hired to select and write about those facts and actions they consider relevant in their coverage. The councilman has also been advised that much accrues to him as a public figure including media interpretation of his actions as a public servant. My review of 60 pages of articles and editorials revealed little that might warrant formal review by the Ethics Committee.

It is not known whether the editor-slash-reporter subscribes to the SPJ code of ethics or to any other code for that matter.

Could be that the editor is also a full-time reporter covering a beat just like everyone else. Maybe the economics of a weekly newspaper can’t support a separate opinion staff or editorial board. That being the case the editor should be as fair as possible in coverage and strive to avoid the public perception that reporting is agenda driven. It would be ideal for editorials to be based on coverage by other reporters. A newspaper in such a situation ought to try extra hard to be fair and neutral. Coverage and editorials should be judged on their own. If there’s a bias in coverage – no matter the arrangement – that’s wrong.

Public mistrust of journalists and journalism has much to do about the power of media and the public’s lack of recourse when editors and reporters step over the line. In this instance, the editor and the councilman are each at the precipice of credibility.

Ah, it’s so easy. Couple of minutes with photoshop and wham! You can make a picture say anything. You can slim Katie Couric, put Oprah’s head on Ann-Margret’s body, move the pyramids, give a O.J. a little five o’clock shadow. Magic! Allan Detrich, the Toledo Blade photographer who altered at least 79 photos according to the paper, no longer works in journalism. He was caught because other shooters noticed a picture he took had eliminated the legs of another photographer from a shot of kneeling baseball players. Hey, what’s the big deal? It’s cleaner without the offending legs in the picture. And who will notice? I teach journalism ethics and I teach broadcast reporting. For many years in radio and TV it’s been easy to manipulate tape. You can make almost anyone appear to say almost anything. I remember the hilarious Nixon “speeches” the Harvard Lampoon created more than thirty years ago, all done with Nixon’s own voice and a lot of clever editing. Cutting audio or video tape manually took a lot of time, effort and skill. Today’s TV and radio satirists do this kind of thing every day now. It’s a lot easier with digital technology. A few years ago digital still photography entered the easy manipulation age. It’s a cinch to improve the framing, touch up that blemish, lose those ugly electric wires in the background. Hey, why not merge a couple of shots and make that soldier look a bit more menacing and the Iraqi man with the baby in his arms look more submissive. John Long, the recently retired Hartford Courant photographer, and a past president of the National Press Photographers Association, spoke to my students recently. He said it clearly. “It’s a lie! When you manipulate a photo it’s a visual lie. If you tell lies the public can’t trust you anymore.” Following Long’s appearance one of my student reporters asked why they do it. I misunderstood the question. I thought he meant why do journalists get so upset about “little things” like taking the legs out of a photo. What he meant was, “Why do photographers take the time to change a photo (Or why do reporters change or make up a quote?) when they know it’s unethical, it takes more time, and they might lose their job? That, my friends, is an excellent question.