It’s not often we give credit to journalists who do the right thing when it comes to ethics. That’s too bad.

Most of the 18 years I’ve spent on SPJ’s Ethics Committee has been used admonishing journalists when their professional conduct falls short. Every day I get Google Alerts on my cell phone telling me when SPJ’s name is used. Many times it occurs when ethics are involved. SPJ isn’t the only one chiding media types for their ethical lapses. According to these Google Alerts, about three times a day someone is citing our ethics code and taking someone to task.

Just for the record, those of us at SPJ would rather see proactive discussions using our ethics code instead of using it as a tool for punishment. Talk ethics all the time and the code becomes a living organism and not a bludgeoning device.

So, in my book, when there’s an opportunity to say congratulations for standing up and doing the right thing, we need to hear that as well.

Two cases to mention.

The first involves the leaders of an Alaskan TV station who took a bold step to suspend their newscasts for an evening so they could gather staff  to talk ethics. Here’s the Associated Press’ account:

A TV station took the unusual step of canceling its evening
newscasts Wednesday so the staff could discuss ethics after the flap
over a voicemail two producers accidentally left for a GOP Senate
candidate’s spokesman.

The Oct. 28 recorded message by the KTVA producers involved possible
scenarios for covering a rally for Republican Joe Miller, who had
been endorsed by Sarah Palin.

Miller’s camp says producers were discussing making up stories about
the candidate. Palin said the recording showed media bias.

Station general manager Jerry Bever wrote on the KTVA website that
Wednesday’s 5 and 6 p.m. broadcasts were canceled for the internal
discussion.

The station instead aired reruns of “The New Adventures of Old
Christine,” the Anchorage Daily News reported Thursday.

The two producers involved in the recording are no longer with the
station, a CBS affiliate.

“Events over the last week and a half have been challenging for our
station,” Bever wrote. “As the result of a conversation within our
newsroom that was accidentally recorded and released to the public,
our newsroom credibility has been called into question, and the
public’s trust in us has been tested.

“Our job as journalists carry a far greater responsibility than that
of media personalities and pundits,” Bever wrote. “We have been
given the public’s trust … now we must keep it.”

Let me say this is a bold initiative. It’s one thing to bring staff together and talk, but to make a statement that says “we’re not doing another newscast, showing our faces on the air until we make sure our ethics house is in order” takes courage and commitment. Nice job.

The second incident involves an online publication, North by Northwestern, at Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.

A story published online featured a student’s comments about finances and college life that resulted in a harsh backlash from other students who logged onto the site and commented. The student took a beating. So the story was taken off the site.

Here’s what editor Nick Castele said about his decision to remove the story from publication:

Now, North by Northwestern cannot hold itself responsible for every reaction of every reader. Readers must be responsible for themselves. In an Internet environment where anyone may attack others while remaining anonymous, readers must consider their own responsibility to the Web community.

But we do hold ourselves responsible for minimizing the harm caused in the process of making public the lives of real people. The Society of Professional Journalists, in its Code of Ethics, calls for media to uphold that responsibility.

That is why I removed the story from the Web when I became aware of the attacks. Until I could better assess the reporting and effect of the story, I wanted to minimize what seemed to be undue personal harm to one of our sources.

After carefully reviewing the reporting process and verifying it was done in accordance with the best reporting practices, Castele decided the story should be reposted but wanted to stick to his conviction of minimizing harm.

Consider this line from the SPJ Code of Ethics: “Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention.”

Only one source quoted in this story is a public official within the Northwestern community. All others are private students. The story is not really about them as individuals. They appear in the story to give voice to the very different financial backgrounds and experiences found among students at this university. This piece is not about four students. It’s about all of us.

I have therefore decided to republish the story with sources’ names withheld. None of the sources requested anonymity — and, upon the story’s initial publication, it was not the reporter’s or the editors’ responsibility to conceal identities.

But it seems important to consider the degree of personal harm one of our sources experienced as a result of publication. I believe that granting anonymity is an appropriate step toward minimizing that harm.

This is another bold move by a journalist, fairly unprecedented in my time in the field, but certainly a decision that seems to come with a lot of careful deliberation. And, in the end, that’s what we want from ethics — sound moral decisions though deliberation allowing all perspectives that are ultimately defendable.

In both cases these bold moves, albeit unorthodox, showed initiative, courage, conviction and resulted in defendable decisions.

And,  for that they deserve our admiration.

Kevin Z. Smith is the chairman of SPJ’s Ethics Committee and the immediate past president of the Society.

Tuesday night MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann spent the last five minutes of his show issuing apologies for the furor that erupted last week when it was revealed he had made political contributions to three congressional candidates.
For his action MSNBC execs, citing ethical guidelines, suspended him for two shows, and America was forced to live through another example of journalism gone wrong.

So, there he was Tuesday night, the snarky tone evident in his voice and that jeering look in his eyes as he began his mea culpa.

He apologized on three fronts. First, for subjecting the audience to the drama (though he seemed to relish the fact he had more than 300,000 people sign a petition supporting his actions); second, for not knowing “by observation” there was company policies against political contributions without prior notification to superiors (he said he thinks it’s completely illegal to have such mandates) and finally, for not revealing a contribution to his audience the next day when he slapped Arizona Republican congressional candidate Jesse Kelly in his “Worst Person” segment. Kelly’s opposition was Democratic candidate Gabrielle Giffords, a $2,400 donor recipient. His other $2,400 benefactors included candidates Jack Conway in Kentucky and Raul Grijalva, also of Arizona.

But, what I never heard was an apology for the donations themselves. There was nothing to suggest that Olbermann thinks there was anything wrong with a journalist giving money to politician candidates. He dodged apologizing for the basis of the problem. In fact, he went in the opposite direction saying he thinks the donation rules “need to be adjusted to adapt to the realities of 21st century journalism.”

Olbermann just doesn’t get it.

He can snarl and flash those leering looks into the camera all he wants, and he can have colleagues point accusatory fingers at Fox News on his behalf, but the bottom line is clear: His obvious conflict of interest and his forfeiture of independence doesn’t register with him nor the legions of supporters, some journalists themselves, who think that taking overtly subjective stands and advancing those causes is the “reality of 21st century journalism.”

Olbermann used to cover sports, so maybe this analogy helps. Think Pete Rose betting on baseball games. Both men placed money in a gamble to achieve a desired outcome, one that ultimately benefits their interests and careers. Olbermann hopes that by his donation he can help create Democratic victories, something that certainly stands to benefit his program that relies on a steady feast off the liberal carcass. In the end they both wanted to alter the outcomes in a way that benefitted them. Both represent corruption of the profession.

So we are lead to believe by Olbermann’s assessment there is a new age in 21st century journalism that tosses aside reliable tenets of fairness and honesty in reporting. That this new age can turn its back on independence and disclosure of conflicts and that “partial” journalists who deal in commentary get to live by a different set of rules than “impartial” journalists (most everyone else who doesn’t work for MSNBC or Fox).

That we are separating journalists into subcategories of “partial” and “impartial” as I’ve seen touted by bloggers means American journalism is hosting a growing ethical sideshow. Where once uniform credibility meant everything to a journalist, many are gladly opting now for “niche” or “community” credibility among like mentalities.

Niche credibility translated means I report whatever I want, say whatever I want, alter the facts and reality however I want and tear down the foundations of ethical journalism if they become an obstruction. In the end, as long as I have credibility within my select audience or community, then that’s what stands for responsible journalism.

When Plato put forth the notion of communitarianism as an ethic foundation, one that puts community values and development first over individual morals, it’s a safe bet that he wasn’t supporting the notion of rouge communities springing up within a greater society, each with their own set of standards that would repeal the overarching values of society as a whole. And it’s doubtful he’d advocate for journalism’s ethical foundations to be pared into subsets depending on how you chose to practice the craft or the medium you resort to.

For now, Olbermann and his minons don’t get to stratify ethics based on titles and television ratings. They’ll have to follow the standards most journalists do in developing that sacred trust with the public. And that’s a trust you can’t put a price on, though we know now you can lose it for $2,400.

(Kevin Z. Smith is the chairman of SPJ’s ethics committee and immediate past president.)

Mix together:

1 c. total disregard for copyright law
1 c. apparent ignorance of the definition of plagiarism and the entire SPJ Code of Ethics
3 lbs. social networking dogpile
½ c. arrogance

Congratulations, Cooks Source Magazine. If what we’re reading today is true, you have concocted the perfect recipe to remind us all of the disappointing slide in modern journalism ethics and the internet’s watchdog role that continues to be underestimated by, well, everyone.

A writer named Monica Gaudio wrote a historical piece on the evolution of the apple pie titled “A Tale of Two Tarts.” She was floored to discover that five years later, it was apparently lifted wholesale by Cooks Source and printed without payment or even notification. She found out when a friend called to congratulate her on the publication.

Gaudio contacted the magazine quietly, asking them for an apology and a $130 donation (about 10 cents a word) to the Columbia School of Journalism.

What she says she got back was so frankly astounding in its ignorance and arrogance that the internet has been exploding all day. Here’s my favorite part, as quoted by Gaudio:

“But honestly Monica, the web is considered ‘public domain’ and you should be happy we just didn’t ‘lift’ your whole article and put someone else’s name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me… ALWAYS for free!”

I think Cooks Source’s lawyer just quit, changed his name and ran away to Tahiti.

I don’t really have to go into the copyright issues, right? I mean, those of us that graduated from journalism school – or attended Day One – know that publication on the internet is absolutely not public domain.

Gaurdio’s story picked up real steam when it was posted by author and popular blogger Nick Mamatas. Authors who live or die by protecting their work – often with a whip and a chair – dogpiled with blogs and Facebook postings, and “Cooks Source” reached No. 6 on Twitter trends at the time of this writing.

It staggers the mind that anyone could reach the position of editor of a mid-size magazine without realizing that you can’t lift your material wholesale off the internet. Has it really become so commonplace that this basic tenet of Thou Shalt Not can be misunderstood, sublimated or ignored?

Many are calling it plagiarism, and without splitting legal hairs, I think it’s a dicey argument because they did credit her name. Gaudio has a better case on copyright infringement than plagiarism, I would think. But the attitude here – one that seems far too prevalent – is that what you find on the net belongs to you. And that simply isn’t so.

When I speak to journalism students about developing a personal code of ethics, I tell them there are certain parts that should be titled “The DUH Section.” And number one in the DUH Section is, you don’t take someone else’s words. We journalists know better than most the power of words, and how very difficult it is to craft a story that will register with readers. Stealing my words is no better than stealing my wallet – and since I’m a journalist, I don’t have much in the latter. Still, I’d rather you stole the wallet.

As the Cooks Source web site has been taken down and no one is speaking on their Facebook save the thousands shouting at them, it’s difficult to say how it will play out. Advertisers are bailing faster than you can boil a pot of tea, at least one of them with a public plea: “We have pulled our ads, please stop calling us.” Readers are finding other authors from whom the magazine may have swiped, including Paula Deen and Martha Stewart.

Such is the power of the internet. In the old world order, a kerfuffle like this would have been known only to the writer, the magazine, a handful of lawyers and perhaps a trade magazine. Thanks to social networking, there is a national discussion of plagiarism and writers’ rights taking place – and everyone knows the name of the magazine. There is such a thing as bad publicity.

Perhaps that is the real message, for those who have thumbed their noses at ethics codes and the tenets of good journalism for so long: the internet is watching. Follow the rules, or it’s going to hit you in the pocketbook. That’s probably a more effective punishment than anything the courts or the industry’s disapproval could ever manage.

Elizabeth Donald is a reporter with the Belleville (Ill.) News-Democrat, vice president of the St. Louis Society of Professional Journalists and a member of the SPJ Ethics Committee.