With its newest policy of making journalists wear ads (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003615951), the National Football League has locked its brain in on money, which we all know is the bottom line in most pro sports. But the league also is trampling on journalistic integrity, which we shouldn’t tolerate. We have enough trouble trying to keep ourselves free of improper associations, without having a third party saddle us with one for no legitimate reason. Distinctive garb for the working press makes perfect sense. Additional ads, though, are such an absurd imposition, it seems that we could make them go away pretty quickly by standing up to them. Another thought: Does Canon, one of these slapped-on sponsors, mind angering press photographers, who use their gear, by being a party to this?

A sports story in the A section of The New York Times? A picture of two guys sporting Yankees logos? When I read further, I really liked this story. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/nyregion/29blind.html?ex=1185422400&en=c9211741304faed8&ei=5070) Aiden McGuire of upstate New York went to great lengths to have his friend – who is losing his eyesight – have a special day at Yankee Stadium and even meet one of his favorite players (who was one of my favorites, too). So many businesses, including the Yankees, gave of themselves to help carry this out. I stopped short, though, when I read the role the reporter played in the story about this dream day. The reporter fudged the truth, a bit, when interviewing Michael Sayre, who wasn’t aware of the surprise McGuire was about to spring on him. As the story explained: “When Mr. Sayre was interviewed, he was told that the article concerned fans who take long and grueling bus rides to see their favorite teams, at Mr. McGuire’s suggestion, to keep today’s surprise intact.” (A deception that produced a two-sentence quote late in the story.) Spoiling a surprise is unnecessary, but what about misleading a source? Were those the only choices? Given a chance to play assignment editor at The Times, I would have asked the reporter to ditch the ruse and to instead document Sayre’s magical visit to Yankee Stadium and capture, honestly, his reaction as it unfolded.

There’s plenty to question about an odd situation in Chicago, where a TV reporter apparently lost her job after a videotape showed her socializing with a source and his family. (http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_192070830.html) The source is the husband of a missing woman, whose disappearance is the story Jacobson and other reporters have been following. The socializing — Jacobson, with her children, wearing swimwear, at the source’s house — became more unusual when a competing station surreptitiously taped Jacobson. Never mind the other station’s somewhat vague explanation of its secret taping session (http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/680195.php). Or the station’s reasoning that the tape only became newsworthy when other media outlets planned to write about it. (Peer pressure is at the top of the news judgment checklist?) What puzzled me the most was Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn’s steadfast defense of Jacobson, alleging that only gender bias cost her her job. He has said that a man wearing a bathing suit at a source’s home swimming pool would have been congratulated, not pilloried. I disagree with the premise that all good journalists hang out with sources to schmooze them up, at any which hour, with kids or not, in the name of rapport-building, or that good journalists should. Reporters build trust with sources by treating them fairly, clearly outlining what’s on the record and what’s not, listening carefully, double-checking comments, clarifying facts and context, and so on – practicing good, honest, straightforward journalism. This other world of clubbiness and friendships in off hours might be practiced by some, but at the expense, I think, of ethical boundaries that safeguard the perception that we’re not in anyone’s corner. And there’s more… It turns out that Jacobson also reported to the police department some things the source told her, just so the police can stay informed, too. Jacobson has said she made a mistake, but I wonder if she understands what the real mistakes were.

Infidelity allegations always send the press pack into a happy frenzy. This time, the subject is the mayor of Los Angeles. Whether it’s essential for the public to know that an elected official separated from his wife is dating another woman is for newsrooms to decide. I’m more interested in the news-conflict side of the story. In an AP account I read (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-04-villaraigosa_N.htm), the journalist dating the mayor said she met him “at a professional level where we went on to become friends. The current relationship grew out of our existing friendship.” She asked for “privacy when it comes to personal relationships.” I’m reminded of a column that my journalist friend once wrote about a source upset with her coverage, which, correctly, led to a crackdown by the authorities. When she saw him in court, he tried to jab her with a comment along the lines of “I thought we were friends.” Her reply, in print, was that journalists are never friends with the people they cover. “Friendly” (rather than icy) is one thing, I think, but “friends” is another. We should remind ourselves of this limit often. Editors and news directors, and ethics policies, should make clear what the ground rules are.