Some questions of journalism ethics surface over and over.

One came up this week among members of the SPJ Ethics Committee: the pros and cons of using the descriptor “person of interest.”

I hate, hate, hate it.

I don’t fault police for using the vague phrase to flush people out to help speed up an investigation. But  journalists should not let themselves be pawns.

Every time we hear this phrase, we need to ask why a person is considered of “interest.” As a possible suspect? A witness?

Why not keep asking until we can be more specific: “Police say John Doe might have witnessed the crime,” for example.

If the person is a suspect, but hasn’t been charged, would your news organization name him or her? That’s an essential discussion and we subconsciously evade it by ducking behind “person of interest.”

Not everyone on the committee agrees with me. We’ll move the discussion here. We welcome you to join in.

In today’s changing information market, it’s sometimes difficult to tell what is news and what is entertainment.

With the recent, rapid changes in gathering and reporting information, the mainstream news media no longer are the exclusive sources of “news.” The public gets its information from many sources: cable and network television, newspapers and magazine, blogs, web sites on home and laptop computers, and on a multitude of hand-held devices. Information is everywhere.

The mixture is such that the lines between news/information and entertainment are sometimes blurred. In the confusion that this blurring has caused, the ethical issue of “checkbook journalism” has stirred complaints and excuse

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics and mainstream news media say news should not be purchased. However, entertainment media frequently pay for exclusive interviews and stories. Sometimes such payment is called a “licensing fee.”

Cable and network television present many “shows” that may be news and may be entertainment. Note that TV calls such programs “shows”:  the Rick Sanchez Show, the Dylan Ratigan Show, the Sean Hannity Show, the Today show, Good Morning America, etc. They are called shows, but they also are sources of news/information.

If, for example, the Today show pays a “licensing fee” for an exclusive interview with a person in the news, is that checkbook journalism or merely a standard practice in the entertainment business of “licensing” an exclusive television presentation?

Does paying for an interview or story diminish its credibility?

When is information news and when is it entertainment?

Here’s a brief quiz involving a hypothetical news/information situation:
A woman is lost for several days in a wilderness and is rescued by a search party in a helicopter. Which of the following different situations would you say are not ethical and why?
• A freelance journalist is at the scene when the rescued woman steps from the helicopter. An area newspaper buys her exclusive story and pictures.
• Several area news media buy the freelance journalist’s story and pictures.
• The freelance journalist invites the rescued woman to stay with her while waiting for family to arrive. In her home, the journalist interviews the woman and an area TV station buys the video.
• An area newspaper pays a freelance journalist to report on and take pictures at a press conference by the rescued woman.
• An area television station buys an exclusive story and video from a member of the rescue crew.
• An area television station pays for travel and accommodations for the rescued woman to appear in an exclusive interview on its morning talk show.
• A national magazine buys a story written by the rescued woman.
• A national network TV show flies the woman to New York for an exclusive appearance on its morning show. It pays all the woman’s expenses – hotel, meals, etc. It also broadcasts excerpts from the interview on its network newscasts.
• A national book publisher buys exclusive rights to the rescued woman’s story.
• A major studio buys movie rights to the rescued woman’s story.
• A national newspaper offers to pay the rescued woman for an exclusive interview.
• A national supermarket publication bids for and wins exclusive rights to the rescued woman’s story.

All the above involve some type of financial transaction. Are there ethical differences, and if so, what are they? What would you do in each of the above situations? Ask your friends – what they would do? And remember, ethics does not always result in black or white solutions.

Paul R. LaRocque, Ethics Committee member

Maybe ABC is trying to improve — maybe — but it has miles to go.

In 2008, the network paid $200,000 to the family of Casey Anthony — accused of murdering her daughter — for “an extensive library of photos and home video for use by our broadcasts, platforms, affiliates and international partners.”

Not only is it highly questionable ethically to pay a source while covering her, ABC compounded the matter by keeping it quiet for two years and continuing to report on the case.

The SPJ Ethics Committee chastised ABC in March 2010, shortly after the payment was revealed during a court hearing.

ABC denied that the $200,000 was an enticement for Casey Anthony to talk to the network. “No use of the material was tied to any interview,” the network said in a statement.

When the SPJ Ethics Committee asked ABC spokeswoman Cathie Levine about the $200,000 payment, she reiterated that it was not for an interview. It was for licensing exclusive rights, which she said is a common practice for broadcast news organizations.

We responded: “The SPJ Ethics Committee says news organizations that pay sources, for whatever reason, while covering them inject themselves in those stories and develop an ‘ownership’ interest. The public can legitimately question a news organization’s credibility and doubt whether its reports are fair and accurate.”

In talking to us, Levine said ABC stood by its decision to pay Casey Anthony’s family $200,000, but conceded that the payment should have been mentioned as the network covered the story.

“We should have disclosed it to our audience,” she told us, promising that disclosure would become the policy from then on.

Fast forward to several days ago. ABC aired an exclusive interview with Casey Anthony’s parents, George and Cindy Anthony, on “Good Morning America” and, once again, didn’t mention the $200,000 payment.

After hearing about this from another Ethics Committee member, I e-mailed Levine to find out what happened to the new policy or if this latest failure was another oversight.

She replied: “We did interview George and Cindy Anthony on GMA – we haven’t licensed anything from either of them so there was nothing to disclose.”

Is ABC actually trying to claim that a $200,000 payment to Casey Anthony is in no way tied to an exclusive interview it scored with her parents? And that it couldn’t at least be perceived that way?

Perhaps it’s the Ethics Committee’s fault for not spelling it out crystally clear.

Forevermore, ANY reporting the network does on this story is inextricably tied to the $200,000 payment. ALL future reports should disclose that the network has a business relationship with the subject of the story.

Obviously, this isn’t where I detected a glimmer of possible improvement at ABC. It was something else Levine wrote in her last reply to me:

“The policy we discussed has not changed – in case you didn’t see 20/20 on Friday night, we made a disclosure in our interview with Melody Granadillo as we licensed material from her.”

Because I’m sometimes a scandal behind, I had to look up who Granadillo was. It turns out she’s a former girlfriend of Joran van der Sloot, who is suspected of murdering one woman and was questioned several years ago about the disappearance of another.

ABC’s story previewing its “20/20″ report mentions that Granadillo kept mementos about van der Sloot and says: “Granadillo licensed a selection of these materials to ABC News.”

There it is: another weak ABC disclosure.

“Licensed”? Did ABC pay Granadillo? How much? What were the terms?

Why did the network feel the need to again breach basic journalism ethics?

And is it just a coincidence that ABC got an “exclusive interview” with Granadillo as part of the business transaction?

ABC isn’t alone in this charade of license payments and exclusive access. Other TV networks are using this same shell game of tortured logic to claim they don’t pay for interviews.

I look forward to the day when there’s real improvement.

This is about the rationalization you’d expect from someone criticized for being chummy with sources: We aren’t working 24/7. We get to see new sides of each other.

Ed Henry talks to On The Media’s Brooke Gladstone about goofing around with the vice president and others at a pool party. This was my earlier post.

He added an interesting excuse: When the vice president asks, you have to be receptive.

Doesn’t that illustrate the coziness factor Gladstone was getting at?

If you keep your relationships with sources professional, as ethical journalists try to do, I don’t see any problem saying no – yes, to the vice president, too.

Apparently, a Michigan lawmaker was just messing around when he proposed licensing journalists.

Under his bill (click on “Senate introduced bill”), reporters would have to “be of good moral character and demonstrate, by a signed statement, knowledge of any acceptable industrywide ethics standards acceptable to the board.”

They also would need to show a state regulatory board they have: a degree in journalism or a related field, three years’ experience, awards, at least three writing samples, or a letter of recommendation from another reporter. And pay $10.

Maybe the legislator is getting the attention he craved for his absurd, ham-handed idea.

Fine. Once the chatter dies down over his proposal, it will be time for another.

Something like: “Elected officials in Michigan shall a) demonstrate common sense, b) display a basic understanding of the First Amendment, c) eschew sham legislation … “

The publication of anonymous reader comments by newspapers is unethical and should be discontinued, except in rare and unusual circumstances.

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics emphasizes that journalists should:
• Seek truth and report it
• Minimize harm
• Be fair and accurate
• Be accountable
• Show good taste

However, it also says journalists should:
• Support open exchange of views, but should not misrepresent the facts
• Give voice to the voiceless
• Encourage the public to voice grievances

So, how can newspapers manage all that – be fair and accountable and support open exchange? They have been doing that for many years.

They have managed with features called “letters to the editor” and the “op-ed” page. Those features do not permit anonymity, except in rare occasions, and even then require that writers’ identity be known to the editors before articles are published.

Now, with the internet and online editions of newspapers, anyone with access to a computer can comment anonymously. Oversight is minimal. Newspapers would have to increase staff to authenticate each online submission, as is done with letters to the editor and op-ed articles. That will not happen, especially in these times of deep newspaper staff cutbacks.

The result has been a storm of anonymous comments – some of them quite nasty – in online newspapers. Rather than give voice to the voiceless, this practice in fact both provides venue and protection to unethical voices. It is unfair, is often inaccurate, harmful, in poor taste, and is not accountable.

Granted, those reader comments are not “journalistic” efforts but they are published by journalists who not only lend credibility to the irresponsible but also shield them from accountability. Newspapers cannot ignore the unethical aspects of anonymous reader comments.

The “voiceless” are not voiceless. There are many online avenues for them to air their opinions anonymously if they choose to do so. Newspapers should not be among those avenues. Doing so is irresponsible and not ethical.

Paul R. LaRocque, member, SPJ Ethics Committee
This comment is my personal opinion and not necessarily that of the Ethics Committee.

Surveys have told us that most people get their local news from television. That fact and the results of a recent Los Angeles survey are causes for serious concern.

The Norman Lear Center at University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism watched nearly 1,000 half-hours of local news on eight stations in the Los Angeles media market in August and September in 2009. It found:

“An average half-hour of L.A. local news packed all its local government coverage – including budget, law enforcement, education, layoffs, new ordinances, voting procedures, personnel changes, city and country government actions on health care, transportation and immigrations – into 22 seconds.” That’s seconds, not minutes.

Crime stories averaged 2:50, sports and weather 3:36, soft news 2:26, and teasers 2:10.

The Society of Professional Journalists believes that “public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.” The Preamble of the SPJ Code of Ethics says, “The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

If the Los Angeles survey is an indication of the national TV news picture, U.S. democracy is in trouble. Twenty-two seconds of a half hour is hardly time enough to enlighten viewers on the doings of its government.

As a major source of news and a user of public airways, Los Angeles television owes its viewers more than 22 seconds of civic information. That tiny portion of a half-hour newscast is certainly not a fair and comprehensive account of local civic issues.

Paul R. LaRocque, member, SPJ Ethics Committee

I hadn’t heard of the “Ellie Light” letters to the editor before today, but the story of the man who says he wrote them was interesting nonetheless.

I’ve railed against news web sites that let readers post anonymous comments after stories. The practice goes against long-held standards we use in print – vetting for libel or nastiness, verifying authorship, maintaining civil discourse.

Recently, a lawyer told me and my colleagues that newspapers don’t have time to call the writer of each letter to the editor and shouldn’t be expected to.

I know that’s not true, and said so.

I was an editor at a weekly newspaper in upstate New York. I called for each and every writer, or the letter didn’t run. My colleague made fun of me for trying to reach the name at the bottom of the form letter from the Girl Scouts.

Readers should expect that newspapers have made a reasonable attempt, at least, to verify the names behind the opinions on their pages. It’s a basic duty.

What happened at the newspapers that ran “Ellie Light” letters? Did they try to contact the writer? Did Mr. Steward lie to them?

I’m eager to read explanations from editors whose publications were duped, namely: How can we trust your pages next time?

Here’s one from Ben Smith of Politico, who didn’t mind that he couldn’t verify who wrote the letter.

Kudos to Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter Sabrina Eaton, who was more skeptical than opinion page editors across the country should have been.

- Andy Schotz, chairman, SPJ Ethics Committee

Interesting story from the Times that deals with purported “investigative journalists” who were nothing more than reckless partisan activists operating in what appears to be an illegal manner and claiming a journalistic purpose:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27landrieu.html?hp

Political perceptions and the fate of an important social organization have already been influenced by these goons, through dissemination of the products of their freelance “journalism” in mainstream outlets. One of their supporters defends their Acorn videos as “a kind of ‘60 Minutes’ undercover-exposé — going where ‘60 Minutes’ fears to tread.”

We’ll be seeing more of these hybrid so-called journalists as the MSM lay off employees and fill the news gaps with the work of freelancers and researchers whose purposes and techniques would not have passed muster in traditional journalism settings. And, of course, they will proliferate online, on new sites that claim to be journalistic.

The challenge for those interested in preserving ethical journalism will be figuring out how to help the public distinguish between clowns like these and credible journalists using ethical (not to mention legal)  journalism techniques.

Peter Sussman
Member,  Ethics Committee

One of the stories that sparked a discussion and led to SPJ’s statement about Haiti news coverage was this one by ABC, which helped an Iowa couple find an orphan they planned to adopt.

Here, Steve Buttry, who is related to that Iowa couple, writes that there are times when journalists’ humanity should take over, and this was one.