It was reported once more this past weekend that the Washington Post is considering getting rid of its ombudsman position of 43 years. Current ombudsman Patrick Pexson moved the story past the rumor stage with his Sunday column http://www.washingtonpost.com/patrick-b-pexton/2011/02/24/ABkLhYN_page.html  Pexson said newly installed executive editor Marty Baron believes there are plenty of avenues already in place for addressing criticism of the Post and, with tightening budgets, the salary didn’t make sense.

“There is ample criticism of our performance from outside sources, entirely independent of the newsroom, and we don’t pay their salaries,” Pexson quotes Baron as saying.

Granted, ombudsmen have been dying off at a steady rate since the 1970s, but they’ve always had an important and revered position with the largest of America’s newspapers. The Post’s ombudsman has been a position of great inspiration and purpose for one of America’s greatest media institutions.

Herein lie my concerns: First, allowing those outside the newsroom to be the sole source of criticism for your publication isn’t the same as having internal checks and balances with self-imposed accountability. Second, if Baron and others think that they can manage the task of addressing criticism by using in-position editors they are missing the entire value of having an ombudsman. Allowing subjective editors to replace an independent ethicist becomes nothing more than a whitewashing effort to resolve complaints. By allowing the alleged offenders within the newsroom to help serve, even in a small way, as the judge and jury means you are eroding the very credibility you hope to attain with a separate reader advocate.

I’ve learned a lot from my 20 years on the SPJ Ethics Committee. Something that has always struck me as odd is this ill-conceived notion that people who become editors are suddenly bestowed with indelible, sage moral reasoning. You see in many newsrooms editors deemed the best purveyors of ethics.  But, if that were the case, most ethically suspect material would never make it before the public, assuming review by these moral mastodons. We’d have no case studies to analyze; we’d need no code of ethics. We’d simply leave it to the moral attributes of a few who are in power by virtue of their longevity at the workplace or their abilities to get the most of a reporting staff or polish a rag tag piece of copy into a masterpiece of prose.

In this position as chairman of SPJ’s Ethics Committee I field numerous ethical complaints from the public. In almost every incident they call SPJ’s Ethics Hotline because they’ve already pleaded their case with the reporter and an editor but were ignored, spurned or told there was no problem. None of these papers have independent ombudsmen, so the verdict lies with the people who are being criticized. These have included cases where the reporter’s wife is campaign manager for a candidate, where an editor has lobbied in the paper to get a coach fired after he cut the editor’s son during tryouts. They’ve involved cases where they’ve refused to run corrections even after documents were provided to show the reporter made a factual mistake.

We then wonder why our moral currency with the public isn’t of much value anymore. And, now we have a great paper wondering why an independent, judicious voice is needed to lend credibility to its work and image.

Last fall, a young reporter called me saying she questioned her editors’ decision to pay for travel, hotel and meal expenses for a couple who were going to see their son in prison. The story focused on the tribulations of having an incarcerated family member. They asked the couple to be a part of the story. The couple wanted paid, and the paper agreed to send them 100 miles away to visit their son. The couple ran up room, meals and bar bills the paper paid. When this young reporter, a year removed from college, questioned the ethics of the editors, she said she was informed “this is way things get done in journalism” and if she didn’t like it, she might want to look elsewhere for a job. And, if she brought it up again, she’d need to. This type of ethical decision making is more common in American newsrooms than we want to admit. And, this is the moral reasoning we are pleased to show the public whose interests we claim to be serving?

In a journalism world where hollowed-out excuses are readily used as foundational support for ethical decision making, why would a newspaper with the reputation of the Washington Post consider removing the very underpinning of integrity and credibility from its news coverage? Granted the Post is assailed every day for its decisions, just like most of America’s media. But, until now, it has never considered allowing those who could be breaking ethical standards to sit in judgment of themselves.

(Smith is chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Committee. He served as chair from 1994-96 and 2010-present. He is the former president of SPJ (2009-10). He currently teaches journalism ethics at the University of Dayton.

Representatives from some of the most prominent journalism organizations are confronting the industry’s struggle with plagiarism and fabrication. To better understand the issue, we want to hear from the nation’s newsrooms about their policies aimed at eradicating such behavior.

The mission started when Craig Silverman, author of Regret the Error and a Poynter adjunct faculty member, detailed ten episodes of plagiarism during what he labeled “journalism’s summer of sin,” and challenged journalism’s professional organizations to work together to attack the problem.

The challenge was taken up by Teresa Schmedding, president of the American Copy Editors Society, who talked about the idea during her workshop presentation in September at Excellence in Journalism. SPJ President Sonny Albarado committed the society to participate.

Schmedding began her letter of invitation to the committee with a stark assessment, “Plagiarism and fabrication are killing us.”

A committee with journalists and journalism educators, including representatives of the American Copy Editors Society, the Associate Press Media Editors, the American Society of News Editors, College Media Advisers, the Online News Association and the Radio Television Digital News Association.

President Albarado and Ethics Committee Chair Kevin Smith asked me to represent the Society of Professional Journalists on the committee. The committee has been divided into three subcommittees, each looking at a different aspect of the issue.

William G. Connolly, a retired senior editor of The New York Times, is leading the committee effort. Connolly is a founding member of the American Copy Editors Society and has served as the president of its education fund.

The goal is to create an e-book that would define practical guidelines for preventing, detecting and responding to plagiarism and fabrication. The plan is for the e-book to be ready for a summit meeting that will be part of the ACES national conference in St. Louis on Friday, April 5.

Silverman, who is also a member of the committee, asked Poynter readers for help recently:

“ 1. We’d like to collect examples of newsroom policies that talk about plagiarism and fabrication. What do you tell your people about what is and isn’t plagiarism? Do you have ethical guidelines that address these issues? We want as many of these policies as possible.

2. We’d like to hear from newsrooms that have instituted measures to detect and prevent incidents of plagiarism and fabrication. Do you do random checks? Do you use plagiarism-detection services to root out stolen content? Do you call sources quoted in a story? Any examples of internal practices or programs would be great.”

SPJ members who have examples to contribute should email them to Silverman at silvermancraig@gmail.com, and if you have questions or suggestions about the committee’s work, you may email me at farrell@uky.edu

Silverman’s original article, “Journalism’s Summer of Sin marked by plagiarism, fabrication, obfuscation,” including the examples, is available at http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/regret-the-error/187335/journalisms-summer-of-sin-calls-for-leadership-transparency/

A lot has been made of the word “objectivity” as it relates to news coverage and reporting.
Some people believe it is an attainable value in American journalism, a principle worthy of our efforts. Others think it is nothing short of a myth. The rankling over whether objectivity can truly exist in journalism has been the subject of so much contention over the years, I feel like I can stand before a mirror and carry on a lengthy debate with myself.

I know the rhetoric.

I also know what I believe and how I apply it to my role as chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Committee.

To the many voices who respectfully say it’s a farce, and to the growing voices who contend it’s nothing more than a concocted standard by which journalists could hang their principled crowns for display for all these many years, I concede this point – we are all biased.

We have favorites and there are those things we do not like. We have a core set of beliefs and we nurture them, guard them and share them, and we feel threatened if we are asked to shift our thinking in another direction, be that politics, religion, social issues or fiscal philosophies.

I use those four constants because they’ve been at the core of a lot of national debate during this presidential year. They will continue to garner attention in the next. Our core feelings of conservatism or liberalism are at odds. We are figuratively crossing swords every day over social issues and how to manage the nation’s finances. The rhetoric is divisive and acidic many times. And journalists are weighing in.

Over the past months the SPJ has been deluged with calls and emails from journalists with questions about political ethics. Aren’t journalists supposed to be objective? Why are they lying and spinning the truth?

One journalist’s blog response could best be summarized by “Get over it. American journalism hasn’t been objective for years. Think Yellow Journalism.” In other words, why are we still having this discussion and why do people still cling to this lame, cockeyed notion that journalism is about impartial, unbiased, objective reporting?

Here’s my retort. I admit up front it’s not objective.

We are still having this discussion and we still harbor hope for objectivity because it matters that much to people who want to believe that the press is the bridge between the lies and the truth. They want to believe that journalists can resist their inner voices and personal feelings and deliver news that has truth and fairness at its foundation. It matters because in a world of increasing distortions and subjective opinions being packaged and sold as “fact” it’s still important to hear information that fairly takes all views into account, even those we don’t personally agree with. It matters because when we stop being objective and fall into the trap of adjusting news to accommodate our sources and not our public, we sell out our reputations and hand over our credibility. Our integrity is gone.

Think of objectivity as the act of holding your breath under water. No one expects you to be able to do it 24 hours every day. They expect that you can do it when the need arises. The consequences of not doing it are dire.

In the privacy of your home, among family and friends, you can choose to breathe as you wish. But, when you are reporting and producing news, you are expected to “hold this breath” and repress those personal feelings, working toward the goal of objectivity, much like the person submerged needs to strive for the goal of staying alive.

You “hold your breath” when you cover an event, create a news story, when someone asks you to wear a political button or erect a sign in your yard. You “hold your breath,” too, when your friends and family ask you to write stories about them, when the publisher asks for a business story about his dry cleaner. The breath holding doesn’t mean you can’t have personal feelings or opinions. In fact, it’s best if you recognize those and admit them to yourself. What it means then is these biases, subjective political, religious, social views should not surface in moments when it can impact your work as a journalist.

You see, attainable or not, it’s still worthy of our strongest efforts. To give in and suggest that journalists can’t reach this platitude is to hand over our trade to the charlatans, the carnival barkers and the mind benders. And that would surely suffocate us, our public and our democracy.

How serious does a conflict of interest have to become before you can call it a conflict of interest? Believe it or not, this conundrum is intended as the start of an ethical discussion.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is clear: Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know. The code also advises journalists to “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived, and to “Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.”

Many news media companies apply that injunction to those who gather, report and edit the news but not to those on the so-called business side of the operation.

So when the president of the University of Cincinnati abruptly announced he was resigning Aug. 21, one of those with a seat on the UC Board of Trustees was Margaret Buchanan, publisher and president of the Cincinnati Enquirer.

The reason Greg Williams quit remains a public mystery. As Enquirer reporter Cliff Peale wrote in a Sept. 28 story, “It remains unclear, a month after Williams’ departure, whether he was forced to resign from his $451,000-per-year job six days before the start of fall classes. It’s also unclear why the board decided to award him a $1.3 million severance package.”

Publisher Buchanan announced she has resigned from the UC Board of Trustees. “My news team is reporting aggressively on the departure of UC President Greg Williams and the search for the next president,” Buchanan said in a statement reported Sept. 28 in the Enquirer. “The credibility that is so important to our news team’s work is my highest priority, and I did not want my involvement with UC to make it uncomfortable or confusing for them or for the community.”

Big questions do remain unanswered. First, why should the board of a public university be allowed to preside over a president’s resignation without giving account to the public whose sons and daughters attend there and to Ohio taxpayers who support it? And second, what earned Williams a severance package that looks to be three times his annual salary when so many people are out of work?

Give Buchanan points for recognizing the conflict and resigning her seat. The Enquirer stories I reviewed usually made note of her membership on the board, which would be consistent with the SPJ Code’s statement to “Disclose unavoidable conflicts.” Whether this conflict truly was unavoidable is a bigger question.

I also think it’s fair to question whether she really understands the conflict. Peale’s story also reported that after her resignation from the UC Board of Trustees, Buchanan was appointed chairwoman of UC Health, an affiliated health care company. While she’s off the Board of Trustees and out of that line of fire, she’s still involved with the university. Given the centrality of health care costs and policies, it’s hard to imagine she is not going to be at the center of important decisions that deserve public explanation. How will she and the region’s metropolitan newspaper handle that when news arises?

This is not the first time her community involvements have brought her public attention. City Beat, a local publication, reported in April that Buchanan sits on the executive committee of what it labeled a major real estate development connection and is in charge of overseeing publicity and marketing efforts for the organization.

Her role was not disclosed in a 1900-word Enquirer article that City Beat said lauded the efforts of this development group despite the economic downturn.

I fully understand that being involved with community enterprises is a perfect way for the news company’s top officer to associate with other local leaders, to demonstrate the company’s commitment to the community and to contribute to those efforts that are intended to improve the quality of life of residents. But it almost always raises questions and makes for some uncomfortable moments.

Where is the line when contribution becomes conflict of interest? Should a media executive sit on any board of a policy-setting public university where news is made routinely? Should a media executive take any role relating to publicity for any organization? If an executive sits on a university board, should he or she insist that there be no secrets no matter how embarrassing the event might prove?

This debate is more important than ever, given that most cities now have fewer media outlets than a few years ago. In a one-newspaper town such as Cincinnati, competing voices are unlikely to challenge the role Buchanan played and it will be uncomfortable for Peale or any reporter to dig out those facts.

As someone who served for 12 years as the managing editor of a community newspaper without an on-site publisher, I understand the importance of those community commitments and the potential for conflict.

Publishers and other media executives need to keep asking themselves whether their involvement will improve the community without impeding the community’s access to important information. They also must ask themselves if these positions don’t compromise the credibility of the journalists who work to inform the community.

I also wonder whether making decisions involving millions of public dollars and affecting 41,000 students is an appropriate position for any news media executive. It’s certainly a debate the profession should engage.

In an effort to bring some sense of ethical standards to the unbridled spirit that often accompanies social media, people have traditionally reverted to the default settings of the legacy mediums for a sense of guidance. These codes, based on traditional media practices, can serve as a centrifuge by taking new, technologically driven media and breaking it down into its simplest components of journalism. These components are universal for all media. In SPJ’s ethics code they are truth, fairness, harm, independence and accountability.

The Society of Professional Journalists relies on its current ethics code to be a standard-bearer that can be applied to the varied mediums, rather than addressing social media specifically. This has been a source of debate from external influences, as well as from within SPJ.

The debate comes down to a singular focus – Does the code require rewriting to directly reflect the new technologies, specifically digital and social media, or can it serve this new journalism through a more overarching interpretations of its existing standards? To put it another way, is the code about functionality or inspiration? The answer for SPJ can be both.

To complicate this debate is the code’s existing language. The code does offer specifics as it relates to broadcast news and other times with print. It mentions news teases for broadcasting and headlines for newspapers. It talks about readers, listeners and viewers in a time when newspaper, radio and television were the three legacies. Today we might reference crowd-sourcing where the public provides integrated collaboration with the media. The question that arises is, if the current code was written to take into account specifics in 1996, why is there a resistance to do that same today to acknowledge the differences between old media and social media?

The retort then is to fairly ask why the current language doesn’t serve the ethical concerns of these new mediums sufficiently and provoke the pragmatic question: Must the code need revised every time technology advances and introduces another form of journalism? If we rewrite it today to address the ethics of Twitter, what happens if Twitter disappears? Do we rewrite it to address Twitter’s replacement?

The real test of the current code’s value comes from reading it line by line. For instance, Under Seek Truth and Report It, the first instruction is “Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.” Does this mandate speak clearly enough to the use of reporting via social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Four Square, Tumblr, blogs? Is there a discernible difference between testing the accuracy for a newspaper or TV news cast and doing the same for Twitter?  If the answer is yes, then that needs to be explained in a forthright and logical manner. In short, a case needs to be made for how it’s different and why the current code should be changed.  If no, then the code has provided sufficient advice.

In addition:

Identify sources whenever possible. Are the rules the same for all mediums or does it need to change for social media?

What about promising anonymity?
Using undercover tactics?
Differentiating between news and advocacy?
Labeling analysis?
Giving others the opportunity to respond to allegations before publishing?
Showing sensitivity with interviews?
Promoting good taste?
Being judicious about naming criminal suspects, victims?
Disclosing conflicts?
Identifying yourself as a journalist?
Denying favorable treatment?
Showing a reasonable guarding of a person’s privacy?

If these questions cannot be specifically applied to social media reporting practices, then more viable, directed solutions are in order.

As always, the most sensible way to producing a strong code of ethics is to field test it repeatedly. If it comes up short in providing you with reasonable solutions or guidance, then it’s not doing its job.

To that end, my advice is to give the code a chance; at the very least, when in doubt, use it as the default setting. If you are looking for the solution to a social media ethics question and you have any doubts about what is ethical, always err on the side of applying the same standards as those used in other mediums. It may not please you or jibe with your reporting style, but it will almost certainly put in a group with others who follow these standards and give you a defendable position.

Nearly every day I receive phone calls or emails from journalists in the United States posing ethical questions to me. It’s part of my job as chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists’ national ethics committee to help American journalist make wise decisions about their professional behavior.
In fact, between the journalists and members of the public, SPJ’s ethics committee answers more than 300 inquiries each year. A slow, but steady portion of those calls are coming from foreign journalists. In a recent week, I answered questions from journalists in Denmark, Russia and Pakistan. For a period of time a lot of questions came from Indian journalists. I’ve been interviewed by reporters and editors in Egypt, Iraq, Korea, Japan, Israel, England, Germany, Canada and Vietnam. We are happy to help anyone, of any nation, address ethical problems in this challenging media landscape.
That The Center for International Media Ethics is holding its second International Media Ethics Day is the indicator you need for understanding that media ethics issues abound and they transcend borders and cultures. CIME should be commended for helping support the good fight across the world, much the same way SPJ handles matters in the United States.
SPJ’s ethics code has been the hallmark of our work to secure the highest level of ethical compliance among journalists. It appears in newsrooms, employee handbooks and in classroom notes all over the U.S. There are several thousand in circulation. But, since the very first SPJ-written ethics book was published in 1992, the SPJ code has been translated into 12 languages. Today you can find the code in Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Hungarian, Macedonian, Spanish, French, German, Greek and Portuguese as well as English. More are coming. You might want to help. Many of the foreign journalists who call, have the code with them.
Whether it’s SPJ or CIME, the message is the same – we have a moral obligation to conduct ourselves with the utmost ethics so we can secure and maintain our respect and credibility with the public we serve. There is no place for lies, innuendos and sensationalism. Fairness must always be a standard bearer. Conflicts of interest cannot jeopardize our independence, we must strive to minimize the harm we do to others in the quest for information, and we must always remain accountable for our shortcoming and admit our mistakes and correct them.
On Friday, Sept. 21, International Media Ethics Day, the national ethics committee of SPJ will meet during our national convention in Florida to present our goals and objectives for the coming year. I suspect one of those will be to extend our hand in cooperation to more and more foreign journalists and to work closer in cooperation with groups like CIME so that we can help provided the best ethical journalism of our time, no matter where in the world that takes place.
Congratulations to CIME and to all the ethical journalists in the world for this commitment.

Kevin Z. Smith
Chairman, National Ethics Committee
Society of Professional Journalists

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.

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