Ethics and Journalism

Editor's Memo

Recently, it has come to my attention that members of the news staff have entertained the idea of allowing sources to review potential news stories in which the individuals in question are intimately involved. While reporters have emphasized that this was in the case of purely factual data involving budgets, taxes, and business reports, I would like to stress that in the age of media unreliability, The Daily Drum's independence is worth its weight in gold. It is one matter to call and verify a quote, but to let a source see a draft of the final piece risks turning journalism into public relations. This line has already become blurry: there is a great deal of distrust of the media, given how non-legitimate sources of media masquerade as press releases for celebrities, even businesses. Engaging in this type of practice will raise the question of why we allow some sources to see material before publication, but not other sources. Our newspaper must eschew any appearance of favoritism.

You say perhaps: 'never say never' -- however, in the case of a source reviewing the potential news story 'never' seems to be the best policy. Thus, it is the Daily Drum's official policy that: "sources are not allowed to pre-screen news stories intended for publication." Regarding fact-checking for accuracy, verification should never be relegated to agency that submitted the original data. Instead an independent agency and the newspaper's own staff should double-check specific facts and figures.

Of course, in some cases it might seem more humane to allow individuals to review coverage, such as in the case of a story on a private citizen. But the personal interests of the individual, however notable and laudatory, will be in inevitable conflict with the newspaper's mission to publish the objective and unvarnished truth, rather than a sanitized version of that truth. If necessary, the citizen can be contacted regarding the release of his or her personal information, but no source should be allowed to have any editing jurisdiction over the final version of the story. If the source stipulates that he or she will not speak to the newspaper unless he or she has final review over the finished product, the reporter in question must refuse on behalf of the newspaper.

Section 2: Editor's memo

News organizations will delay the release of certain information. For example if an individual has been killed, until an effort has been made to find his or her family, the person's name will be withheld from the public until the victim's family is notified. The New York Times withheld the fact that one of their reporters had been kidnapped to facilitate negotiations for his release. The Times said that the value of the public knowing such a fact was less important than the potential good that could be accomplished by saving the reporter's life. However, the story was extensively reported upon after the fact (Wow, 2009).

Timeliness is to some degree subjective -- many government agencies, to avoid embarrassment, would allege that national security requires them to withhold information about ethical lapses for decades, while reporters are more likely to see timeliness relating to hostage situations, troop movements, or more immediate threats to individual lives and national security. Government agencies have selfish, self-preservation concerns, as well as the desire to protect the public from harm.

But timeliness itself does not mean that all journalism is 'good' if it reports on issues 'in the moment.' After all, the hysterical coverage of the 'balloon boy' incident clearly diverted journalistic resources away from more serious stories.

In the case of the hostage situation, the governor's office did not ask for information to be withheld, merely to delay the release of information. The presence of the web, which allows time-sensitive information to be blogged as it occurs, plus the dire nature of the threat tipped the scales in favor of not releasing the information. It was seen as akin to not releasing certain details about a victim, to enable the police to conduct a more effective investigation of what potential suspects did or did not know.

However, it must be remembered that the primary interest of the newspaper is to tell the truth, not to further a particular social objective, as defined by a government agency, whatever the agency's goals. In the case of the hostage-taking, individual officer's lives were at stake. However, it would not be ethical to refuse to release information about the treatment of inmates at the prison that lead to the riots, even if this information was inflammatory. The benefits of exposing such abuses are so great, when weighted against the theoretical potential harms. The newspaper intends to publish such stories about the prison in the near future.

The primary policy objective that has emerged from this incident is that: "during time critical hostage situations, the Daily Drum will err on the caution in releasing information in 'real time.'" However, other than that specific caveat, the Drum's interest is always to serve the public, not government agencies, and to uphold its reputation for accuracy and fairness. The interests of state agencies and the public are not always synonymous.

Section 3: Editor's memo

This issue is primarily one of logistics and understaffing rather than ethics. While the newspaper would clearly like to allow commentary on all of its various news stories, it is not feasible given the severe cuts the paper has been forced to make merely to remain solvent. Monitoring the website for inappropriate, abusive, and threatening comments is essential to retain journalistic integrity and also to avoid lawsuits. If a commentator makes a threat, or if repeated factual inaccuracies are printed in the comments section and are not corrected, readers might assume the inflammatory words are factual because they are printed on a legitimate newspaper's website. There is also the additional problem of spam comments, which, while not always an ethical concern, can be extremely annoying and detract from the perception of the article as accurate.