Posts Tagged ‘Rolling Stone’


Daily Beast’s Apology Falls Far Short of Gold

image1 (8)The editors of The Daily Beast removed its unethical and dangerous attempt at an investigation into the sex lives of athletes at the Olympics in Brazil.

“We were wrong,” said a note published on the publication’s website. “We will do better.”

While the note offers an apology to the athletes “who may have been inadvertently compromised” by their story, the editors’ note falls far short of what those Olympians and readers deserve.

First, the athletes who were possibly reported as gay or bisexual were not “inadvertently compromised.” The Daily Beast and its reporter Nico Hines deliberately set up fake dates with athletes in the Olympic village for the story.

Second, news consumers are getting tired of news organizations failing, shrugging and saying they’ll do better next time. Instead of offering empty words and promises, news organizations need to explain what went wrong with the initial story and how editors plan to prevent similar mistakes in the future.

Over a year ago, the Columbia Journalism School published a comprehensive report of the actions that led to Rolling Stone’s now-infamous investigation into campus rape. The authors of the report offered several suggestions to improve coverage, including confronting subjects with evidence and reducing the use of pseudonyms.

While the editors of Rolling Stone at the time committed to learning from their mistakes, such as not relying on the word of a single source, they then turned over editorial control of a cover story to its sole subject less than a year later.

Readers need to know what happened leading up to the publication of The Daily Beast’s report. They also need to know what will happen within the news organization to make sure something similar doesn’t happen again at a later date.

Journalism is built on trust. Mistakes like these harm not only the reputations and livelihoods of good journalists and editors at The Daily Beast, but every other journalist.

The Daily Beast and all news organizations that commit serious breaches of professional standards owe their sources, readers and colleagues a better and more concrete explanation than they’ll “do better.”


Andrew M. Seaman is the chairperson of the Society’s ethics committee.

Sean Penn Throws Stones from Glass Houses

In this screen grab from CBS, Sean Penn sits with Charlie Rose of 60 Minutes.

In this screen grab from CBS, Sean Penn sits with Charlie Rose of 60 Minutes.

“I’m really sad about the state of journalism in our country,” Sean Penn told Charlie Rose tonight in a taped interview that aired on 60 Minutes.


Journalism in the U.S. has its problems, and many of them are exemplified by Penn, who wrote a Rolling Stone article that profiled Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

In the brief interview with Rose, Penn defended his reporting and writing. Unfortunately, he expressed no regrets about missed opportunities or the deals brokered to secure the interview, which I took issue with in my previous blog post.

Penn expressed regret that people are not talking about what he hoped they would discuss, which is the war on drugs. But, people are talking about his reporting, integrity and accountability. “Let me be clear, my article failed,” Penn told Rose.

What Penn doesn’t understand is that journalism gets the attention it deserves. Good journalism is able to stand up to the criticism and challenges lobbed its way. Bad journalism crumbles and becomes the conversation – as Rolling Stone should know.

Over the past hundred years, journalists realized what defines good journalism. The Society tries to encourage those traits through its Code of Ethics. Failing to hold people accountable is not good journalism. Failing to be independent is not good journalism.

Penn told Rose that this experience with the press is “an incredible lesson in just how much they don’t know and how disserved we are.” He’s right, but he didn’t realize he was talking about himself.


Andrew M. Seaman is the chair of the Society’s ethics committee.

Rolling Stone Gathers No Accolades

Rolling Stone ChapoA magazine that staked the reputation of countless people on one person’s account just a year ago allowed a suspected murderer and drug lord control over an article.


While Sean Penn’s name appears on an article published tonight on Rolling Stone’s website, an accompanying note makes it clear Joaquín Archivaldo Guzmán Loera – known as El Chapo – controlled its content.

Guzmán was recaptured Friday in Mexico after escaping from one of the country’s most secure prisons last year.

The Rolling Stone story cautions that “an understanding was brokered with the subject that this piece would be submitted for the subject’s approval before publication. The subject did not ask for any changes.”

Allowing any source control over a story’s content is inexcusable. The practice of pre-approval discredits the entire story – whether the subject requests changes or not. The writer, who in this case is an actor and activist, may write the story in a more favorable light and omit unflattering facts in an attempt to not to be rejected.

Forfeiting its editorial control to Guzman is the latest misstep in the lauded magazine’s modern history. Last Spring, Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism chastised Rolling Stone in a report for publishing a severely flawed article about campus rape that largely relied on the account of one person. The magazine responded to the report by doing nothing.

Earlier this week, a rejection letter from Rolling Stone’s Hunter S. Thompson circulated around the Internet. In his words, Rolling Stone, “what kind of lame, half-mad bullshit are you trying to sneak over on us?” We expect better. Get it together.


Andrew M. Seaman is chair of the ethics committee of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Five Stories that Defined Journalism Ethics in 2015

2016

Journalism ethics is always a popular topic of discussion, and 2015 was no exception.


In the spirit of a new year and proverbial bandwagons, I decided to highlight the blog posts about the five stories that really embodied journalism ethics missteps in 2015. Since “scoring” or “ranking” ethics is impossible and irresponsible, these are in no particular order.

May this coming year bring you good luck, responsible reporting and ethical news!


Andrew M. Seaman is the chair of the Society’s ethics committee.

 

Do You Trust Rolling Stone?

“Do the two of you trust what you read in the magazine now,” Ravi Somaiya of The New York Times asked Columbia Journalism School Deans Steve Coll and Sheila Coronel at a Monday press conference about their Rolling Stone report.

“We’re empiricists,” Coronel replied. “Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we would judge each story on its merits.”

Less than 24 hours before the press conference at Columbia University in New York City, people devoured the 13,000-word report that called the magazine’s November 2014 story about an alleged gang rape a “journalistic failure that was avoidable.”

The report’s authors suggest several areas where stronger policy and clearer staff understanding may have prevented the original story from being published. Yet, the report says Rolling Stone’s senior editors “are unanimous in the belief that the story’s failure does not require them to change their editorial systems.”

Instead of blaming the editorial process, which is largely cited in the report that Rolling Stone commissioned, the magazine’s managing editor says the staff simply has to not make the same mistake again. The magazine’s fact-checking chief is quoted as saying the editorial process isn’t the problem. Instead, the process was bypassed because of the topic – rape.

Rolling Stone Publisher Jann Wenner told The New York Times in an interview that the story’s problems began with its source, who was a girl referred to as “Jackie.” Wenner clarified in the interview that he was not trying to blame the girl, “but obviously there is something here that is untruthful, and something sits at her doorstep.”

In other words, Rolling Stone’s leadership believes there is enough blame for these failures to go around, but there’s not enough left for themselves.

As Jack Shafer rightfully points out in Politico Magazine, no news organization is immune from “crimes against journalism.” He cites several well-known cases of pure fabrication and deception, including The Washington Post’s Janet Cooke and USA TODAY’s Jack Kelley.

Admittedly those cases rank higher on any scale of journalism malpractice, but there is another difference. In the cases of Cooke and Kelley, there was some acknowledgement – either through changes in staff or editorial policies – that the organizations learned a lesson.

There will be no changes in staff or editorial policy at Rolling Stone following the release of Columbia Journalism School’s report. Even the author of the now-retracted story will continue to write for the magazine, according to its publisher.

No news organization is immune from “crimes against journalism,” but the measure of an outlet recovering from an offense should be the response of its leadership.

Perhaps there is no need for any of Rolling Stone’s staff to lose their job, but surely there is at least one change that can be made within the magazine’s editorial process based on the report’s findings.

For example, Rolling Stone could implement new and stronger policies in the three areas that “might have changed the final outcome,” according to the report. Those areas are the use of pseudonyms, checking derogatory information and confronting subjects with details.

Another possible change would be a system to ensure the magazine’s fact-checking staff is not timid when confronting editorial leadership with possible problems.

Yet, there are no announced changes within the magazine. The lack of change signals that Rolling Stone’s leadership didn’t learn even one lesson from the 13,000-word report it asked Columbia Journalism School to produce.

Whether people trust Rolling Stone may not be the correct question to ask. Instead, the question may be whether people should trust someone who hasn’t learned any lessons from their mistakes.

Columbia J-School Issues Rolling Stone Report

A screenshot of the editor's note attached to a Rolling Stone story about a 2012 gang rape at the University of Virginia. (captured 12/5/2014)

A screenshot of the editor’s note attached to a Rolling Stone story about a 2012 gang rape at the University of Virginia. (captured 12/5/2014)

Systemic problems within Rolling Stone allowed for the release of a story that the Columbia Journalism School called a “journalistic failure that was avoidable” in a new report of the magazine’s editorial processes.

“The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking,” wrote Columbia Journalism School Deans Steve Coll and Sheila Coronel in the lengthy report, which was published Sunday night on the websites of Rolling Stone and the Columbia Journalism Review. Derek Kravitz, a researcher at Columbia, is also an author of the report.

Rolling Stone reported the events surrounding an alleged 2012 gang rape of a freshman woman named “Jackie” on the Charlottesville campus of the University of Virginia in a November 19, 2014, story. Subsequent reporting by journalists and investigation by local police questioned the accuracy of the story.

In addition to pointing to an overall failure of the magazine’s staff to prevent the story from being published, the report highlights several actions that were especially egregious:

  • The magazine did not seek comments from the person accused of orchestrating the rape.
  • The magazine relied on “Jackie” for most of the information for the article.
  • The magazine did not attempt to verify the information even when “Jackie” did not request restrictions.
  • The magazine did not provide a full account of what “Jackie” described to the university or the fraternity at the center of the story.
  • The magazine did not make clear what was known and what was unknown.

As a result of the report, Rolling Stone removed the original story from its website. The magazine now directs people to the report instead of the story. Sabrina Rubin Erdely, freelance journalist and the author of the story in question, also issued an apology on Sunday night.

“I hope that my mistakes in reporting this story do not silence the voices of victims that need to be heard,” Erdely wrote, according to The New York Times.

Journalists should take note of the report, because it shows that sloppy journalism causes harm. In this case, the failures of a reporter and Rolling Stone caused harm to “Jackie,” several men, a fraternity, so-called Greek life, the University of Virginia and all victims of sex crimes.

What’s more, the failures of Ms. Erdely and Rolling Stone likely harmed journalism as a whole. The situation may force ethical journalists to work harder to gain the trust of sources and readers.

As I wrote on this blog in December, it’s important for people to know that the blame for harm caused by the November article falls on the shoulders of Rolling Stone, which the magazine’s managing editor Will Dana also admitted on Twitter.

“Jackie” nor any other source forced Rolling Stone to publish an unverified article in a magazine that reaches about 1.5 million people. The magazine’s leadership is solely responsible for that decision.

Without question, one of most egregious errors committed by Rolling Stone’s leadership was not requiring Ms. Erdely to get a response from the men accused of rape.

In a note added last year to the story by Mr. Dana, he said the magazine respected the wish of “Jackie” not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack.

Ethical journalists attempt to be respectful to the requests of people who are victims of sex crimes, but those journalists are also responsible for verifying their work. It’s simply irresponsible for any news organization to not seek comments from people accused of such serious crimes.

Also, as exhibited by the excellent reporting by The Washington Post and detailed in the report, there are other sources that questioned the reliability of the information provided to Rolling Stone, such as activity and work logs.

Without a doubt, the Rolling Stone story on the alleged 2012 sexual assault at the University of Virginia will be considered as one of the great journalism failings in modern history – alongside the scandals of The New York Times’s Jayson Blair scandal and The Washington Post’s Janet Cooke.

Following the report, I assume the public will be hearing about several changes within Rolling Stone. Many of those changes are detailed within the report. No changes in staff will be made based on the report or the failure of the magazine.

Additionally, Rolling Stone should publish an accurate and thorough report about sexual assaults on U.S. college campuses. The topic, which is known to be a significant problem, was lost among the discussion of the magazine’s failures.

Until then, people looking for information or resources can check the website of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center here: http://bit.ly/1IhuXqZ

The Society’s ethics committee will continue to follow the events that occur in the wake of Columbia Journalism School’s report, and will update the blog as necessary.


Andrew M. Seaman is the Society’s ethics chair.

* An official statement from the Society will be released separately. When available, it will be posted here.

The Other Side: Rolling Stone’s Note

A screenshot of the editor's note attached to a Rolling Stone story about a 2012 gang rape at the University of Virginia. (captured 12/5/2014)

A screenshot of the editor’s note attached to a Rolling Stone story about a 2012 gang rape at the University of Virginia. (captured 12/5/2014)

The managing editor of Rolling Stone added an editor’s note earlier today to the magazine’s bombshell campus rape story that was published online November 19. The story described a 2012 gang rape of a woman called Jackie at a party in the house of a University of Virginia fraternity.

“In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced,” writes Will Dana, the magazine’s managing editor, in the note, which does not specify the discrepancies.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post  published a story today detailing its own investigation into the events described in the original Rolling Stone report.

“Several key aspects of the account of a gang rape offered by a University of Virginia student in Rolling Stone magazine have been cast into doubt, including the date of the alleged attack and details about an alleged attacker, according to interviews and a statement from the magazine backing away from the article,” writes Post reporter T. Rees Shapiro.

Many news organizations and journalists are calling the Rolling Stone editor’s note added to the story a retraction. The magazine does not use that specific word, however. Instead it’s up to the reader to proceed with the caveat that some of the 9,000-or-so-word story may be inaccurate.

Dana emphasizes in his note that the magazine decided to honor the source’s “request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her.”

Some journalists experienced with reporting on rape are quoted as saying it may be acceptable to not reach out to the accused in some cases.

Most – if not all – sets of journalism standards emphasize the special care and compassion reporters must take when dealing with certain sources. The Society’s Code of Ethics is no different. “Journalists should use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent,” says the Code.

Ethics and responsible reporting are balancing acts, however. In this case, it’s easy to argue the seriousness of the crimes described in the Rolling Stone story warranted reaching out to all accused parties.

Additionally, investigations are typically not considered complete until all information within a story is thoroughly examined and substantiated. As I’ve been taught, sources and subjects should not be surprised when an investigation is published – it’s how a reporter knows all involved parties had the opportunity to have their responses included.

Perhaps the inability to reach out to the accused meant Jackie should not be included in the magazine’s story.

The Post also reports Jackie asked be left out of the Rolling Stone story altogether. The Columbia Journalism School’s Darte Center for Journalism and Trauma says journalists should respect an interviewee’s right to say no. The Center offers journalists a comprehensive sexual violence reporting tip sheet , which can be found here.

Obviously, there are exceptions to most rules in journalism. Still, Rolling Stone and its editorial team owed – and still owes – its sources, subjects and readers thorough reporting and verification of whatever information made its way to publication.

What’s especially upsetting about today’s development is that the controversy created by poor editorial management overshadows a very real problem. The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) cites a December 2000 U.S. Department of Justice report that found “a college with 10,000 students could experience as many as 350 rapes per year.”

Instead of those rapes being the focus of public discussion, the conversation turns to the decisions made by a magazine. The investigation into the story is likely to only create a more traumatic experience for Jackie, too. Her friends tell the Post that “they believe something traumatic happened to her.”

Rolling Stone’s Dana took a step in the right direction on Twitter earlier today, when he wrote the “failure is on us – not on her.”

Ultimately, whatever doubt Rolling Stone has in its story is its own creation – not that of sources, subjects or readers. As a result, it’s up to the magazine to make this situation right.

Connect

Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn


© Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ