Cheers to the Maui News for not tolerating the venom posted at its web site (http://mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/508831.html). Opinions are still encouraged. Just sign your name and send in your letter.

You might have heard about AP writer Ron Fournier’s “breezy” e-mail encouraging Karl Rove to “keep up the fight.” There was a much different level of breeziness, though, in these e-mails thought to be exchanged between a reporter — who just resigned — and a school official she covered (http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=151190). The school official downplayed the e-mails, which showed an intimate level of friendship well beyond a reporter-source relationship.

There has been much discussion, especially at election times, about lies, truth bending, negative politics, and what we have come to call “swift boating.” The Internet is filled with such material. Hardly a day passes that I do not receive some material that, when checked at Scopes or other fact-checking sites, proves to be false or not quite true. The Internet is an open forum and what we see on it has to be taken with consideration of the source, reason, logic, common sense, and what the fact-checkers say. However, news media are different. They ask the public to rely on their credibility and to believe that they are advocates of truth, fairness, and accuracy. The SPJ Code of Ethics also states those principles and urges all journalists to uphold them. However, much goes into print and broadcast that is not vetted. The media obviously cannot stop broadcast of a live political speech and “sound bite” quotes to challenge a speaker’s statement. But it can follow up by reporting inaccuracies when they are spoken. Print media have more leeway and can note inaccuracies in the text of the story. Not objective, you say? It certainly is. It is reporting truth. It is accurate and above all it is fair. It is unfair and inaccurate to ignore a lie. Opinion articles are not meant to be objective, but they should be accurate. News media should treat untruth in op-ed pieces and letters to the editor the same as news articles when it comes to truth and accuracy. A published lie is picked up and repeated and when it is repeated often enough, it is believed to be true. Vetting the “news” is difficult. But it’s an ethical obligation that news media must meet to assure credibility and to assure credibility as well as this nation’s freedom. A democracy needs an informed public, not a deceived one – a nation will founder without truth. And providing that truth is the role of the Fourth Estate – that’s its obligation to its country and its citizens. If that’s idealistic, so what? What’s wrong with ideals? Disseminating lies is unethical. The U.S. news media can and must do better. Paul LaRocque

I’ve written about the ethical swamp that online comments after stories can create. So, I was interested to read the comments of David Waters of WashingtonPost.com, speaking at the Religion Newswriters Association’s convention (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/09/commenting_on_c.html). His quote could apply to many papers, far and wide: “Even Jerry Springer would be ashamed of the comments that we have on our site.” If news organizations are trying to maintain standards and ethics in the products they offer, I don’t think the degrading world of online sniping can be explained away with “Oh, but it’s only the web.”

The collapse/bailout of American financial institutions is resulting in more political blather instead of real discussion — at least on CNN. I am reminded of someone wiser than I who said balance in reporting does not mean getting two people who disagree. Neither is balance achieved when both yell their loudest.

Just last night on Larry King, two very partisan people from each presidential campaign yacked about what needed to be done to solve the country’s financial woes. All “advice” was couched in political rhetoric. For poor schmucks such as myself looking to figure out what we should do, Larry King wasn’t the answer. Apparently, neither was either presidential campaign.

Ethical reporting is not two yellers per side; it’s finding someone who has no political dog in the fight and some honest-to-God expertise who can rationally explain and advise.

I’m not sure I can last another six weeks. Was it only two weeks ago that the world discovered Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin? Seems a lot longer than that.

This week, I saw a proposed journalism code of ethics for Pakistan posted at the web page for Pakistan’s Daily Times. (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C09%5C09%5Cstory_9-9-2008_pg7_71) The code, which has a preamble and 26 guidelines, appears to be the result of careful thought and strong principles. Some differences in culture and atmosphere are interesting, such as a reference to how reporting on sectarian friction can “incite public discontent and anger” and another characterizing women as among the “vulnerable members of society” whose needs shall be respected. One noteworthy item states that a journalist “shall not identify or photograph minor children, infants who are the offspring of sexual abuse, forcible marriage or illicit sexual union, or where they are victims of trafficking or forcible drafting into conflict.”

This week, an online product called SpinSpotter (http://venturebeat.com/2008/09/09/demo08fall-spinspotter-aims-to-clear-up-media-bias/) was launched in an attempt to find and eliminate bias in journalism. In a “wiki” style, readers will critique published stories and suggest changes. SpinSpotter has created rules for combatting what it calls the “Seven Deadly Spins.” I was concerned when I saw the SPJ Code of Ethics connected to these “rules,” but there’s nothing to indicate that the use of the code is anything more than a guide to ethical concepts. (SPJ opposes efforts to turn the code into “law” or a required standard.) I don’t know if SpinSpotter will be just angry chatter like some online forums, but I support the concept of a renewed focus on ethical journalism.