Today, the SPJ Ethics Committee criticized NBC News for giving a free jet ride to a source while covering the source’s custody battle.

For a story by Multichannel News, NBC has defended itself. The story says the network issued a statement, but I couldn’t find it posted anywhere.

NBC’s defense is here.

So far, media critics for The (Baltimore) Sun and the Orlando Sentinel said they agree with our position that checkbook journalism, as this was, is wrong.

An American father’s fight for the custody of his son was interesting enough. So, why did NBC News decide to make itself part of the story?

The network flew the reunited father and son from Brazil, where the boy had been for five years, back to the U.S. on a chartered jet.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/nbc/nbc_news_pays_for_david_and_sean_goldman_charter_flight_to_us_147061.asp

The brief, hazy disclosure, if you want to call it that, is hardly helpful.

The considerations and repercussions here are significant.

NBC News has created, not reported, part of this story.

But why? To be charitable at Christmas?

Probably not. More likely are the visions of exclusivity dancing in NBC execs’ heads.

If the network felt the need to cross an ethical divide, it should have a compelling reason.

And, if it respects its viewers, it should explain the decision.

We’ve seen the Mainstream Media forced to acknowledge the work of the Scandal Sheet Press in the Tiger Woods saga.

Here’s a new wrinkle, courtesy of The Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ reports that Men’s Fitness magazine scored a surprising exclusive interview with Woods two years ago, in exchange for The National Enquirer, a sister publication, killing a story and pictures of a Woods affair.

The same story shows that Golf Digest was in bed, so to speak, with Woods through sponsorship and exclusivity arrangements.

This New York Times story isn’t exactly about journalism, but the ramifications make this worth reading and considering.

What happens when we lie, cheat and deceive, and the government doesn’t like it? Can journalists, for example, be ordered to be forthright and truthful?

This question stems from a movement in France to require altered advertising photos to be labeled as such.

Are those who, for example, attach Oprah Winfrey’s head to Ann-Margret’s body on a magazine cover inviting government intervention?

One more reason for us to be ethical, lest someone try to write a law requiring it.

Jayson Blair used to make up the 5 W’s.

All these years later, many people remain fascinated and want him to explain why.

The latest round on his tour was at – oh no – my alma mater, the University at Albany in New York.

I have trouble with the Hannibal Lecter comparison. Lecter’s brain was needed to help solve a ghastly crime. But what Blair did and the havoc he unleashed were pretty well documented when the Times did its lengthy self-exposé.

I also can’t believe Blair as the “inside criminal mind” boasting an ability to spot missing attribution among competitors’ stories.

That vastly underplays what Blair did. His was a deep, blazing, sustained campaign of lying, fabricating, covering up, stealing, you name it.

Listen to him? If you want, but don’t let him rationalize and soften the context.

As reported by the Dallas Observer, a Dallas Morning News memo says the DMN is restructuring into “business and content segments,” which sounds a lot like the newsroom and the advertising department are joining hands.

The memo is astoundingly opaque, for a business devoted to communication. How about: News and advertising are joining forces so we can come up with more ways to make money. Is that a fair summary?

It’s amazing that a news organization tears down the essential wall between news and advertising, then gives as a defense: “Trust us.”

If an elected official used the same defense, how would the newspaper react?

Does perception matter?

Why is the newsroom “developing solutions”?

Perhaps the DMN should review The Washington Post’s attempted “private dinner with the publisher” series for a recent reminder of how news-business alliances can blow up and cause serious damage.