This post is written by Andrew M. Seaman, who is a member of SPJ’s ethics committee.

The decision by the Knight Foundation to pay Jonah Lehrer, who has admitted fabricating quotes and duplicating material, $20,000 for a speech brought swift ire from many journalists.

I join that disappointed chorus; the Knight Foundation’s choice to use its money in this way is antithetical to its long tradition of advancing the field on so many fronts. But it’s also important to remember that plagiarism and shoddy journalism’s price tag is much higher than $20,000. Thieves and fabricators cost us much more through collateral damage.

Every day, journalists work hard to explain the world. While some of them are bad apples, the vast majority hold true to the Society of Professional Journalists’ first ethical tenet: seek truth and report it.

Admittedly, it’s getting harder and harder to do that, especially with decreasing support from many news organizations that live by the motto: do more with less.

And while most good journalists are recognized internally by their editors and colleagues for their hard work, only a few – Cronkite, Murrow, Woodward and Bernstein – will become household names with the public.

Still, journalists show up each day to do their work and report on everything from local school board meetings to civil wars.

But just because a report is broadcast, printed or posted doesn’t mean people will watch, listen, read or click. No, journalists need to earn their audience’s trust before they do that.

Much of that trust belongs to the individual news organization, but another sizable portion is owned by the entire profession.

For example, when Gallup conducts its annual poll about the media, it lumps all newspapers, broadcasts and websites together under mass media. There is nothing wrong with that, but it means every journalist is responsible for maintaining that trust.

In September 2012, the number of Americans who distrusted mass media reached 60 percent, according to Gallup. That’s the lowest level of trust in over 15 years of available data. The last time the annual poll showed a majority of Americans trusting the media was 2006.

When people like Jonah Lehrer, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass and Janet Cooke come along, it’s like bomb. It doesn’t just ruin their careers and reputations; it also hits journalism’s collective trust.

Take Stephen Glass, who was caught fabricating stories at The New Republic, as an example. He was not just found out; his rise and fall was also turned into a movie that starred Hayden Christensen.

Jayson Blair, who was caught fabricating stories at The New York Times, had his deceptions chronicled in a lengthy front-page story. The same goes for Jack Kelley with USA TODAY.

There’s nothing wrong with movies or explaining a plagiarist’s or fabricator’s deceptions, but these examples show how easy it is for the average person to start questioning and distrusting every story from The New York Times, USA TODAY or any other media organization.

Some people may offer excuses for what these people did. Perhaps the stress was too much for them? Maybe they couldn’t find the stories they once did? I don’t know why they did what they did, and frankly I don’t care. There is no excuse for deception.

When a person consciously steals another person’s work or invents their own reality, they do not just ruin their career. They damage the reputation of every journalist doing hard and honest work – from those covering the school board meetings to those in the middle of war zones.

I don’t think it’s possible to put a price on that damage.

So, why am I angry that the Knight Foundation gave Jonah Lehrer $20,000 to speak? It’s because I don’t understand why anyone would give money to someone who has already taken so much.

Additional Information:

“Knight CEO regrets paying plagiarist” http://hrld.us/Yj8SvX

Jonah Lehrer’s speech: http://bit.ly/Yj90M2

Jonah Lehrer’s latest tweet:

Here is the text of my speech. I’m deeply sorry for what I’ve done. jonahlehrer.com/2013/02/my-apo…

— jonahlehrer (@jonahlehrer) February 13, 2013

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.

The firing of NPR’s Juan Williams last week for his remarks about Muslims and the connection of his dismissal to SPJ’s Code of Ethics isn’t really a case that establishes precedence.

The fact that NPR executive Vivian Schiller said his behavior violated SPJ’s Code of Ethics and NPR’s code wasn’t surprising to me since our framework for professional ethical standards has long been considered the gold standard for the industry, here and abroad.

According to The New York Times, Schilller said: “We terminated his contract because of our news ethics guidelines. The guidelines are based on the same news ethics guidelines of the Society of Professional Journalists, and are very similar to that of The New York Times and many other news organizations.”

SPJ has known since its code revision in 1996 that the code would be weaved into the fabric of many newsroom policy manuals. Just last year, according to my Google Alert, our ethics code was repeated in part or wholly more than 3,500 times. People are not only reading the code, but also applying its principles on a gratifyingly regular basis.

The appropriate section of the code as it applies to William’s comment can be found under the heading Seek Truth and Report It: “Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.”

In Williams’ case his remarks … “I mean, look, Bill (O’Reilly) I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the Civil Rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” suggest he not only stereotyped based on religion but on physical appearance.

I received an e-mail Monday morning following the incident from a woman whose son lives in Spain. A terrorist attack there was thwarted when Muslims reported suspicious activity by men hauling materials in and out of an apartment. She went on to say Muslims reporting against Muslims is common because most who embrace the religion realize that violence is not a component of their beliefs.

Then I found her next suggestion very provocative. Instead of punishing Williams for his insensitive remarks, someone needs to educate him, she said. You can’t stereotype people.

“But fanatics on both sides would rather not acknowledge this. Sarah Palin, Bin Laden, Glenn Beck and Al Qaeda all share one core belief — that every Muslim is a potential suicide bomber. Spreading this belief helps both camps keep up with recruitment needs, amassing their private armies of frightened sheep. The rest of us know better. The rest of us know that the world is full of good and bad people of all shapes, sizes, and religions. Juan Williams forgot this fact, but in a world where the bleating grows louder every day, you can hardly blame him.”

[Clarification: The above paragraph is from the previously referenced e-mailer, not the opinion of Kevin Smith or SPJ]

Let’s hope Williams’ lesson proves beneficial to journalists who provide news coverage and analysis on topics like this. Williams isn’t the first to violate ethical standards, nor will he be the last. The assurance to the American public is that there are ethical standards in journalism and people can be held to them. All of this creates a more reliable and responsible press.

Kevin Smith is chairman of the SPJ Ethics Committee and immediate past national president.

Journalists across the country go to great lengths to keep their distance from sources. It’s not that we don’t like the people we cover – many are pleasant enough; some could be friends in an alternate universe.

But we shouldn’t get cozy; we can’t. It colors everything else we do, beyond our control.

Of course, there’s room for judgment in how to interact with people we cover. My rule of thumb is “Friendly, but not friends.”

Friendly might mean saying hello, smiling, exchanging small talk.

Friends do more. They meet socially. They do favors for each other, maybe protect each other.

It’s hard to define exactly where that line is. But when I read this post on The Daily Call about journalists pool-partying with Vice President Joe Biden, I knew: This sure ain’t it. Kudos to Mike Riggs for speaking out.

Then, I read Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic make this ridiculous rationalization of journalists getting chummy with sources. I was disgusted and ashamed.

Is it a Beltway thing? Are Washington journos more likely to get so entrenched in people, places and institutions they cover, they don’t see the actual and perceived conflicts of joining, playing with and being them?

Riggs’ take on it is exactly right. There’s an allure of being both in the know and in on the fun.

Glenn Greenwald also had a good report. How can you read the giggly, fawning Twitter messages of CNN’s Ed Henry and not feel sick?

Getting a chance to see Biden’s casual side? Chatting about Helen Thomas? Squirting each other with a water gun?

For this, it’s worth jeopardizing credibility, independence, neutrality and integrity, all at once?

Good luck telling people to trust you – that your journalistic acumen can’t be swayed by a day of laughing and splashing with Biden and Rahm Emanuel.

It won’t work. You don’t dictate perception.

SPJ has extended the deadline for chapters to apply for a $2,500 grant for our journalism ethics series.

We’re planning a series of lively discussions with the public about journalism ethics, integrity and credibility. Each application should include plans for at least one community partner as a co-sponsor.

The new application deadline is April 30. We hope to hear from you.

Some people have asked me about the time frame for the programs. We intentionally left the window fairly large – any time from August 2010 to May 2011 is fine.

Andy Schotz, chairman, SPJ Ethics Committee

This column in Broadcasting & Cable is right on about Fox News. Fox sells, and that’s the big ethical problem news media face today – making money. Fox can sell its soul and rake in the bucks from the conservative public, MSNBC seems to be doing the opposite on the left, and CNN is somewhere in the middle. It’s not news, but the viewing public does not know that it’s not news. The cable news channels have gone to shouting heads, tweets, Facebook, etc., and constant injection of opinion. It’s entertainment and not news.

What’s needed is massive public education, which is not going to happen anytime soon. The pressure is on news media, and it’s all about money.

Somehow, SPJ, ASNE, APME, RTDNA, etc., must rise above the dollars and educate the public that real news has standards and is necessary to an effective democracy.

The changes we are seeing today in information distribution are similar in nature, if not format, to the changes seen in the advance of the penny press in the early 19th century. The printing press enabled mass distribution of information and hucksters, fakes, and politicians took advantage of it. Anyone with access to paper, ink, and a press could publish just about anything. Today, anyone with access to a computer – a much larger base – can publish just about anything. It took decades and organizations such as SPJ to bring sanity to news reporting.

We are in a period of change, and we will be for decades. We can’t throw up our hands, saying we’re better than they are. We have to educate the public and show that we are. And right now, the public does not have a very high opinion of news media. What are needed are a news media coalition and a grassroots campaign. Excuse the expression, but we need a giant public relations effort. The public does not care about checkbook journalism or doctors working for news media. It wants reliable information – the truth. And someone has to show the public the difference between noise and information. It will take decades, but it won’t happen unless we start now. Think big and be persistent.