The relief that former ABC News anchor Carole Simpson must feel, now that she is a civilian and can be biased (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/19/professor_takes_heat_for_nod_to_clinton/?page=full). Since she’s no longer practicing journalism – and only teaching it – I suppose she should be able to ease back into civilian life, which might include campaigning for a candidate. I’m an idealist, though. What’s wrong with a journalist maintaining a modicum of neutrality after leaving the business?

The Albany (N.Y.) Times Union recently profiled a man who wants to legally break a speed record in his pickup truck (http://timesunion.com/speedster). As part of the story, the reporter rode with the man on an area highway and watched as he supposedly drove as fast as 160 mph – in a steady rain, on tires that “slip and slide.” Then, when a “traffic jam looms,” the driver had to slow down. The driver, though, says his speeding was exaggerated – the speed was maybe 85 mph, not 160 (http://blogs.timesunion.com/readandreact/?p=269 – go to post #66. The paper responds at #68). If the newspaper stands by its account, was it prudent for a reporter to go along on such a dangerous ride? The newspaper’s editor tried to address that question in a column (http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=637814&category=REXSMITH&BCCode=&newsdate=11/18/2007)

Even The New York Times is entering the Internet fray: letting people post anonymous comments after stories (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003667823). For some reason, newspapers that would never print vitriolic comments on their opinion pages don’t mind letting them sit there on a web page until someone complains. The Times is making an end run around this problem by hiring a “comment desk” to screen comments before they’re posted. The rest of us will say we can’t afford to spend extra money that way. Does that turn integrity into a budget issue?

There was an interesting story in the New York Times the other day about a New York journalist who burned his source, a former gangland mistress whom he had interviewed a decade earlier for a potential book.

The result of the reporter’s disclosure is that murder charges are being dropped against a retired FBI supervisor. The reporter had previously promised the source “to use the information only for a book, avoid attributing it to her and refuse to cooperate with any criminal prosecution arising from publication.”

The reporter, Tom Robbins of the Village Voice, told the Times he had struggled with his decision to come forward with tape recordings that showed the former mistress, a key witness in the the prosecutor’s case, had dramatically changed her story over the years about the defendant’s role in assisting in four murders by his informant. The Times quoted Robbins as saying, “I did not know what else to do. No journalist ever wants to go against a source. It’s against our creed.”

For the sake of discussion, contrast Robbins’ assistance with the San Francisco Chronicle reporters who refused to reveal their source for grand jury testimony, even after the source — an attorney in the case — lied in court, denying he was the source of the reporters’ information. The reporters were compelled by their scruples to report in their newspaper perjured testimony from their source that they knew to be wrong.

So what are the limits, if any, of a reporter’s obligation to protect sources and “keep promises,” as the SPJ Code of Ethics puts it?

Peter Y. Sussman,
Member, SPJ Ethics Committee

Indianapolis Star Editor Dennis Ryerson lays it out for readers who want to know why a photo of a vulnerable Amish boy made the front page:

Photo Director Mike Fender: