"I don't have to understand it. I just have to write about it."

Those words came from a reporter who had just interviewed a friend of mine who was working in business development. My friend was doing his best to explain how private business and government partnerships work.

At the end of the interview my friend asked the reporter if he understood the issue. Needless to say, he was less than enthused about the reporter's response. In fact, that moment many years ago soured my friend on journalism. Even though he continued to do interviews over the years with other reporters, he was always wary. He was always concerned about whether stories would be accurate and fair.

He's not alone. Consider the following:

"Business, community and civic leaders say they and their organizations often are covered by reporters who simply do not know enough about the subjects they are trying to report on."

That assessment comes from veteran newspaper editor Bob Haiman, who wrote a handbook called "Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists." Haiman was examining journalistic standards and practice for The Freedom Forum's Free Press/Fair Press Project.

Here's one more element of what Haiman wrote:

"Inability to report with authority was cited repeatedly as a problem on stories about technical subjects such as science, medicine and aviation as well as business, the economy and the law. Business executives, bankers, lawyers, city managers, elected officials, and even ministers and rabbis spoke convincingly that when reporters and their editors have a limited grasp of the topic, the story they produce is likely to be unfair."

That indictment tells us we often fall short in our professional responsibility to inform and educate the public on significant issues. We fail our ethical duty.

This indictment came to mind when I saw a recent story about a new program at Northwestern University. The Medill School of Journalism -- one of the best in the land -- is partnering with Northwestern's School of Music to offer a combined Bachelor of Music/Master of Science in Journalism.

... we too often fail our journalistic mission and flunk our ethical obligations because we just aren't smart enough about the subject matter we cover.

Students in this joint degree program will take a usual range of courses in reporting, writing, and editing along with courses in music theory, history, and aural skills.

Loren Ghiglione, Medill's dean, told The Chicago Tribune "…we need a new paradigm for what a good journalist does. The old paradigm was that any good reporter can do a good job of covering any subject, regardless of how complicated it is. The new paradigm says: 'Wouldn't it be good if people really knew what they were writing about?' In other words, reporters should try to know as much about a subject as the people he or she is writing about."

That idea might be rather scary to journalists who consider themselves generalists. And, to some degree, reporters need to be reasonably versed in a wide range of issues since the story du jour may require at least some familiarity in a particular topic.

But it's clear that we too often fail our journalistic mission and flunk our ethical obligations because we just aren't smart enough about the subject matter we cover.

... wouldn't it be great if more newspaper and broadcast executives and owners committed themselves to continuing the "subject expertise" development of their journalists?

Sandy Rowe, the editor of The Oregonian, has been making that case for years. She says one of the greatest weaknesses in American journalism is our failure to hire and develop reporters who have expertise on the beats they cover.

Northwestern University's new joint degree program in Journalism and Music addresses that concern in one subject area. Wouldn't it be great if more universities offered similar programs where students could specialize in economics or religion or genetics while also specializing in journalism?

And, wouldn't it be great if more newspaper and broadcast executives and owners committed themselves to continuing the "subject expertise" development of their journalists? Yes, some news organizations provide the funding support and time off for educational opportunities. But far too few.

Journalism educators and journalism leaders must develop and carry out more and better ways to make journalists smarter.

Until that happens, too many reporters may fall back on that lame excuse my friend heard: "I don't have to understand it. I just have to write about it"

And journalism's credibility will continue to erode.

Ethics is a blend of the professional and the personal -- both the how and the who. We measure ethical behavior by how we do our work. We measure ethical qualities by who we are.

Our Poynter Ethics Fellows class of 2001 has stood tall, stood proud in both categories.

When we selected these 16 Fellows we had high hopes. They have not let us down. They have been battered and bloodied this year, figuratively and literally. Casualties of terrorism and economic downturn. Deaths of loved ones. It has been so difficult, yet these Fellows emerge with grace and dignity.

Hopefully they learned something during the fellowship experience and from Poynter. I know we learned a good deal from them, and not just from how they practice journalism.

To be sure, their craftsmanship is admirable. Their work products are laudable. Their leadership is commendable. Their professional awards and honors are notable.

Just as important, they’ve shown us outstanding personal qualities while carrying out their professional duties. They’ve modeled for us, and for each other, the ethical principles and values that underpin who we are as human beings. They’ve demonstrated independence and integrity, courage and compassion, responsibility and respect. They’ve done this during what has been an exceptionally trying year for all of them and all of us as citizens and journalists.

Doing Ethics With Vigor

A story about the Poynter Ethics Fellows experience would reveal their spirited discussions when we gathered back in March to discuss significant issues on our journalism ethics landscape. They pondered and probed (and occasionally pontificated) on matters of bias, fairness and  credibility, going from the macro issues to the micro case studies they each brought to the table.

They wrestled with the challenges of covering victims of tragedy. They grappled with the growing concern over conflicts between journalism and business values. They explored the story frames we use to cover and all too often mis-cover segments of our communities. And they explored much more, day and night for a week.

The Ethics Fellows continued these discussions -– sometimes evolving into passionate debates -– via Internet listserv these past nine months. The Fellows challenged each other and their profession on matters of racial and ideological diversity. They hashed out the ethical and journalistic nuances on the Dale Earnhardt autopsy photo case. They kicked around the ethics and diversity issues in the infamous B.C. comic strip that raised a ruckus. They shared emotions when a newspaper wrote a tough story on the suicide of a fellow journalist. They examined the ethical issues in the Gary Condit and Chandra Levy case. And, of course, they scrutinized how they and their profession were covering the terrorism of Sept. 11 and the aftermath.

All the while, they sought one another’s guidance when facing challenging ethical quandaries in their own reporting –- dealing with anonymous sources, reporting on gays and spirituality, telling stories about vulnerable juveniles.

And, just to make sure they weren’t getting bored, we asked each Poynter Fellow to write an essay or article on an ethics issue of particular, personal interest. The fruit of their efforts is impressive, and we are now posting their stories on Poynter.org so other journalists across the land and around the globe can benefit from the good thinking of the Fellows.

They Walk the Talk, Even Across Tough Terrain 

The Poynter Ethics Fellows accomplished all this, of course, while still going about their daily lives. Our Fellowship was in addition to the demands of their regular work and the commitments of their personal and family lives.  

That brings me back to the connection between professional and personal ethics. What greatly impresses me about these 16 journalists is not just what they accomplish, but who they are and how they live their ethics, often in the face of considerable challenge.

The events of Sept. 11 have ensured that 2001 will be remembered as a year like no other. The memories are seared onto the front pages of our minds.

One of the Fellows, David Handschuh, was seriously injured that day while photographing the horror at what became known as “ground zero” in New York City.

While grieving for David and the other casualties, the Fellows found the fortitude to go on with their lives, do their jobs and take care of their loved ones.

This had already been a year of testing for many of them. The passing of parents. The illness of family members. The challenges of raising children.  

In addition, the economic turmoil that was decimating the ranks of journalists hit home with layoffs. A spouse lost his job. Close friends were there one day and gone the next.

The pressures of the profession weighed heavily on the shoulders of these experienced and talented journalists. One lost out after a noble effort and decided that journalism was no longer the place to be. Another teetered on the edge, not sure if journalism was the right calling after all these years. Others searched their souls for meaning –- professional and personal –- during these troubled times.

It was a trying year for the Fellows. There was a major project to complete without the support that had been promised. There were the brickbats flying after a controversial column. There was big-time reorganization in the ranks that required double-duty on top of an already full plate of work. There was the frustration over lack of commitment on the diversity front.   

Going Forward

Amid the sadness and the searching, the frustration and the false starts, our 16 Poynter Ethics Fellows earned glory this year, and they fittingly celebrated with each other. They cheered when Michele and Bob received prestigious Nieman and Knight fellowships. They applauded when Caesar rose to the presidency of the Associated Press Managing Editors. They congratulated Joe when he was named to a new editorship. They gave each other virtual pats on the back for stories well written and management problems well handled. They found time to laugh and to needle each other in the ways that kept them honest and humble.

As we head down the homestretch with this 2001 class of Poynter Ethics Fellows, I am grateful for what they have given us. Commitment. Passion. Smarts. Savvy. Lots of lessons learned.

And, yes, their ethics. Professionally and personally, they have taught us well.

Front Row: Romie Christie, Raul Ramirez, David Handschuh, R.B. Brenner, Joe Davidson, Kelly McBride, Marianna Spicer-Brooks. Back Row: Harry Stein (Advisory Board Member), Aly Colón (Ethics Faculty), Caesar Andrews, Michele McLellan, Jeff Seglin, Terri Fleming, Martha Stone, Maria Barrs, Lynne Adrine, Keith Woods (Ethics Faculty), Bob Williams, Jeannie Nissenbaum (Ethics Program Assistant), Kurt Luedtke (Visiting Faculty), Bob Steele (Ethics Group Leader), Marjie Lundstrom, Don Wycliff.

Journalists spend their professional lives working with real-life jigsaw puzzles. They pass their days and nights staring at and shuffling around dozens - maybe even hundreds - of tiny, irregularly shaped pieces of a puzzle that, if correctly connected, might reveal the truth of a story.
Sometimes these puzzles are about high-profile mysteries that may involve crimes. That's what news organizations across the land face as they try to tell the interlocking stories about Chandra Levy and Gary Condit.

Journalists are working with a tabletop of puzzle pieces that are the elements of a compelling mystery involving a missing woman and a besieged congressman.

Reporters and editors from Washington, D.C. to Modesto, California sort through bits and pieces of information trying to separate fact from rumor. Television producers from big networks in New York to small stations in New Mexico struggle with distinguishing substance from speculation. All grapple with what to report, when to do it and how to present the information.

It's a genuine jigsaw puzzle guaranteed to perplex the most seasoned of journalists. But, unlike the kitchen-table version where the pieces eventually get dumped back in the box and the lid is closed, this Levy and Condit puzzle carries permanency. It also promises profound, long-term consequences to multiple stakeholders. The people affected by this story become highly vulnerable because this puzzle plays out on primetime television and on newspaper front pages.

Chandra Levy's fate remains unknown nearly three months after she disappeared. Meanwhile, some individuals connected to this case assail her reputation.

Levy's parents suffer greatly while they grasp for any developments that could give them hope, or at least knowledge of what happened to their daughter. They have stimulated, and at times orchestrated, the media coverage to heighten awareness of Chandra's disappearance. Their strategies are understandable though such publicity and exposure invite more scrutiny of the Levy family.

Representative Gary Condit's political career and personal reputation are certainly at stake. He faces intense scrutiny as police question him about his relationship with Chandra Levy and what he might know to assist their investigation into her disappearance. At the same time many citizens wonder why this politician has been so tight lipped when someone's life is almost certainly on the line. His evasiveness and lack of candor only complicate his dilemma.

While the primary people in this case are extremely vulnerable, there are other stakeholders. They include: Condit's wife and his family; other women who say they have had relationships with Condit; the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Force; The F.B.I; the Congressman's staff; other members of Congress; the residents of Levy's apartment building; her friends; others who might have seen her at her health club right before she disappeared; taxi drivers who might have picked her up.
The list can go on and on as the story unfolds and other individuals become pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. Some stakeholders might become targets of examination. Others might become suspects in Levy's disappearance.

Journalists find this a supremely demanding and perplexing story. It conjures up memories of the mistakes made in covering the Atlanta Olympics' bombing story five summers ago when Richard Jewell achieved infamy before being cleared. It reminds us of the excesses in reporting the Clinton-Lewinsky soap opera that evolved into a Federal crisis. These are cautionary tales we should remember and recount.

The Levy and Condit story demands journalists to measure up to the highest levels of professionalism. It's a story that compels news organizations to strive for excellence in craftsmanship and editorial judgment.

No single rulebook exists for news organizations to follow in a story like this one. But there are principles to honor, guidelines to consider and common sense to apply.

Journalists should be vigorous in their pursuit of truth while ensuring every step they take measures up on the fairness scale. They should insist that every word they print or broadcast meets the test of factual accuracy, contextual authenticity and significant relevance. They should use unnamed sources only as a last resort and when the information is vital to the public.

They should treat all stakeholders with respect, dignity and professionalism. They should make sure that any intrusion into the privacy of individuals is justifiable and done with the minimum level of harm to those involved.

Television producers and newspaper editors should apply the measuring sticks of tone and proportion to every story. They should eliminate judgmental adjectives and hyped verbs. They should avoid video and still photos that are unfair in content or context. They should guard against speculation. They should question the placement and length of every story to make sure it is justified.

And, as they work on this high-stakes jigsaw puzzle, journalists should be exceptionally cautious about what they think they see as they connect the pieces. The puzzle becomes complete only when the last piece is in place.

Bob Steele

I'm thinking about patriotism on this Fourth of July, 2002. I'm thinking about the word itself. I'm thinking about what patriotism means in this era of terrorism. I'm thinking about its application to journalism.

I tried to express my thoughts and feelings about patriotism last fall during the dark days after Sept. 11. I wrote "A Pledge of Allegiance for Journalists."

I challenged those journalists and news organizations who were wearing their patriotism on their professional sleeves - in the form of red, white, and blue ribbons and bold graphics. I suggested that "the true measure of journalism's worth to our democracy will be measured not by our outward displays of patriotism, but by the work we produce…by the vigor and rigor we bring to our coverage and commentary."

I did not then, nor do I now, pretend to hold the corner on truth in this matter. For I struggle mightily with the word "patriotism" and its multi-dimensional and complex meaning.

I was hard pressed to understand patriotism 31 years ago when I reluctantly went to Vietnam wearing the military uniform of my country. How could I fight in a war that I, in my heart and my head, opposed? Somehow I decided that I could support my country even if I disagreed with what it was doing. I could honor my duty to serve and give the best I could.

Can journalists be loyal to this country while provoking spirited debate that might lead to dissension?

There have been other times over the years when I grappled with the concept of patriotism, when I struggled with support of my country and its supposed moral authority. How could I defend our democracy when so many of our laws and too many of our national and community leaders treated those with different skin color as less than equal? How could I show true loyalty to country when some power-hungry politicians violated the laws of our land, their moral authority corroded by corruption?

Yet, my dispirit is balanced by my affection for my country and my respect for those Americans who do so much, so well. I'm heartened by the spirit of those leaders who have truly served the public good. I'm motivated by the quiet courage so many citizens demonstrate in reaching out and helping others. I'm inspired by the genuine expressions of love of country when we sing America the Beautiful at public events.

Patriotism is more than a word, to be sure. It's a concept. It's defined by each person and, to some degree, by the circumstances of a given situation.

Patriotism may seem concrete when we sing the anthem or recite the pledge. But patriotism is much more abstract as we grapple with the nuances of our beliefs.

Can we stand behind our national leaders even as we challenge their policies? Can we support our men and women in uniform even as we question our country's military strategies?

Just what is patriotism? Is it dogma? Doctrine? Principle? Propaganda?

Can it even be defined by words? Or just by deeds?

Is patriotism absolute love of one's own country? Zealous devotion? Unfaltering homage?

Does patriotism imply certainty? Must it be unconditional? Should it require full fidelity?

And, for those of us who practice journalism in this democracy of the United States of America, can we show support for our country while also offering news coverage that reveals the weaknesses of our system? While offering commentary that challenges our leaders and their policies? Can journalists be loyal to this country while provoking spirited debate that might lead to dissension?

Can a journalist be passive in allegiance? Active in opposition?

Must a journalist accept the patriotic absolutism championed by President Theodore Roosevelt? "There can be no 50-50 Americanism in this country," the Rough Rider roared in 1918. "There is room here for only 100 percent Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else."

Or, can a journalist uphold the passion of patriotism advocated by presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson in 1952? "I venture to suggest that patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion," Stevenson offered, "but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."

Archived Discussion:

Thoughtful Commentary

7/5/2002 10:51:56 AM Posted By: Ben Burns It would be nice if our elected political leaders approached the subject of patriotism with the same intelligence that Bob Steele consistently exhibits. While I don't always agree with his stands, he charts a steady course that all journalists should be aware of.

Standing Up for Terrorists

7/4/2002 6:55:25 PM Posted By: Allison W. Right after 9/11 I was working at one of the newsrooms that forbade their anchors from wearing red, white, and blue ribbons on air. The news directors' reasoning behind this was it was "taking sides". I found this insane at first, but then thought about it and realized we are totally suppossed to be unbiased and showing American bias counts. How can you trust international coverage of a station that wraps itself in red, white and blue.

Patriotism

7/4/2002 5:14:51 PM Posted By: Bob Palmer Patriotism is a state of mind to me. Flying the flag, or saying the pledge are great shows of support for our country, however, to be a TRUE patriot one must believe that their own country is their own. It is a place they will die for. They will support and in our case criticize its leaders with the goal of promoting the lives of ALL its citizens. Please fly the flag or wear the colors on your jacket, but if you consider yourself a patriot, know it in your heart. Bob Palmer, WISN-TV Milwaukee

Bob Steele

Journalists face lots of tough ethical challenges. Reporting on missing children ranks high on the list.

The difficulties are clear when you look at two high-profile cases playing out right now, one in Salt Lake City, Utah and the other in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The stories of Alexis Patterson -- the 7-year-old Milwaukee girl who apparently disappeared May 3 on her way to school, and Elizabeth Smart -- the 14-year-old Salt Lake City girl who was apparently kidnapped at gunpoint from her family's home on June 5, tell us a good deal about how journalists respond to such cases.

Both cases have generated considerable local coverage by newspapers and television. But the Elizabeth Smart disappearance has been heavily covered by national news media. That hasn't been the case in Alexis Patterson's disappearance.

Some suggest that race is a key factor. Smart is white. Patterson is black.

Related Article

• Two Missing Girls' Cases Show Media Disparity Milwaukee Journal Sentinel June 15, 2002

I do believe that race, as well as class differences, can factor into how journalists cover the stories of missing children.

But the issue is much more complex than that. There are a number of reasons why news organizations choose to cover some missing children and not others, and why they devote more attention to some cases.

To be sure, few cases of missing children get much coverage at all. The National Crime Information Center says that about 2,000 children per day are reported missing to the extent that the police make a report based on a call from a parent. The NCIC says the vast majority of those cases are resolved within hours. Among those gone for longer, most are "runaways, or lost, injured or otherwise missing, or family abductions." The smallest category of missing children is "nonfamily abductions."

So why do journalists heavily cover some cases of missing children and not others? Here are some reasons:

What stories get covered depends on what else is going on in the news that day. If it's a slow news day -- few big or breaking news stories -- a newsroom might devote more attention to a missing child story. But if it's a hot news day -- lots going on and reporters and photographers committed to others stories -- a newsroom can easily skip or lightly cover a missing child story.

The role of law enforcement is significant. Some police departments are very cooperative with news media and some aren't. Depending on the nature of the investigation, police may release many details or very few. In some instances, local law enforcement agencies may be accessible and helpful to local news media but much less accessible and helpful to the national press.

The role of the parents of the missing child is significant. Some parents are very aggressive in seeking news media coverage. They will be accessible and outspoken in their pleas for help. Other parents will be less activist, less accessible, and more reserved. Journalists might be less likely to extensively cover some missing child stories when the parents are not "cooperative" in doing interviews and supplying photographs of the missing child.

The role of national organizations for missing children is significant. When the Klass Kids Foundation or America's Most Wanted or other advocacy groups get involved in a case, that can quickly heighten news coverage. Additionally, some states have an extensive missing child response program -- The Amber Plan, for example -- while other states do not.

The circumstances of a particular case are significant. Some children disappear from their homes, some from the streets and some in other circumstances. Rightly or wrongly, journalists tend to respond to the circumstances in different ways applying different values, thus prompting particular coverage decisions. When witnesses say someone was "kidnapped," journalists may be more inclined to cover a story then when a child "turns up missing."

The suspicions about "what happened" can be significant. In some cases, police -- often off-the-record -- tell reporters that the parents or other family members are likely involved in the disappearance of the child. That factor can prompt a certain level of reaction from journalists, perhaps influencing the intensity and nature of the news coverage. Journalists may be less likely to cover a missing child story if they believe there is no "bad man on the loose."

Location can be significant. Some children go missing in areas where there are fewer newspapers or television stations. The case may generate much less, if any, regional or national coverage because of accessibility or even interest by big-city journalists.

Timing can be significant. Journalists factor immediacy into news judgment. They might react differently to a report of a missing child that just happened than one that police or family don't report for a couple of days after the disappearance.

Competition can be significant. Journalists take pride -- sometimes inappropriately -- in "breaking" a story or having an "exclusive." Some news organizations may be less likely to cover a missing child story -- or to cover it heavily -- if they are following the lead of other news organizations.

And, I believe race and class can be significant factors in when and how journalists cover missing children. Journalists bring their own identities and histories to the newsroom. A look at the demographics of American news organizations tells us that the majority of journalists are white. And, while socio-economic statistics are harder to come by, it's safe to say that the majority of journalists are at least middle class. Compare those factors -- race and class -- to the communities the journalists cover and you will find a disconnect in many cases.

Journalists think about issues, decide what to cover and gather information based, at least in part, on how they live their own lives. Journalists who have very little connection to people who are different in race or ethnicity or class may be less equipped and less motivated to cover those who are different.

To be sure, that's the case when covering all kinds of issues and events from education to elections, from housing to health care. Many important stories can go untold, or at least poorly told.

Such may well be the case when it comes to how journalists cover missing children.

Archived Discussion:

Role of target audience

6/25/2002 10:25:15 PM Posted By: Tim Ruzek Someone on another web site discussing the media's coverage of Elizabeth Smart compared to Alexis Patterson made what I think is a valid point. The general target audience for TV news stations, especially the 24-hour news stations, is families similar to Elizabeth Smart's - white, middle- to upper class, SUV driving, etc. Not that the reasoning for this by news editors is right by any means, but it probably does draw in more viewers as the real-life mystery saga continues. Personally, I think there is way too much coverage being devoted to one missing girl. It's a sad story but there's also many other missing children, such as Alexis Patterson, in America and a lot more issues that should be getting discussed concerning our country in this post-Sept. 11 world.

CONFIRM INTERVIEW

6/25/2002 8:26:38 PM Posted By: REBECCA MACK jUST WANT TO CONFIRM INTRVIEW WITH MR STEELE TOMORROW, WEDNESDAY AT 6:00 PM EAST COAST TIME. i WILL CALL TO CONFIRM IN THE AM. REBECCA MACK, PRODUDER, KXLY, SPOKANE WASHINGTON

Gender also matters

6/24/2002 5:24:09 PM Posted By: David Throop Yes, race matters in which children get saturation coverage. As does how cute, how photogenic the kid is. But also note the role of gender. Almost all the 'high profile' missing kids are girls. People worry more about girl-in-danger than boy-in-danger. One exception - Adam Walsh.

an ugly game

6/24/2002 2:12:24 PM Posted By: Leon Tucker Bob Steele's look into what I've called a "hop-scotch approach" to how news organizations cover missing children shed some needed light on an otherwise ignored subject. Maybe we need to explain this to the public at large.

missing children

6/22/2002 11:55:19 AM Posted By: Fran Paolinelli Please stop blaming journalist (aka: reporters) for failing to cover missing children stories properly. Reporters/ournalists don't decide what goes into the paper each day. Editors do.

Man bites dog?

6/22/2002 7:35:44 AM Posted By: Mike Peterson Both Bob Steele and the linked local-coverage analysis list some compelling reasons besides -- and perhaps "instead of" -- race for the disparity in coverage. (1) A child taken from her home at gunpoint is more newsworthy than a child who simply disappears. The alleged Smith carjacking, though it involved underclass white children, did not require a media-savvy family to get major headlines because it was believed to be a more spectacular crime. (2) A crime that is perceived to occur in an underclass setting may be perceived to be "dog bites man." That's not necessarily fair: The neighborhood in this case may be crime free and ideal. But it's not a squeaky-clean suburbia where everyone is supposed to be safe. I'm not saying that's accurate -- in fact, it sounds from some of the Alexis Patterson coverage that the neighborhood is cohesive and it may well be that everyone watches out for each other. Moreover, anyone who has been around the barn at least once knows that there are families whose strong personal values make wherever they live a safe place, albeit with a struggle now and then. Still, from the distance of the assignment desk, a crime in a risky place is not big news, a crime in a safe place is. (Yes, race plays into this, in both subtle and unsubtle ways.) It doesn't help that Alexis was angry with her parents that morning because she wasn't allowed to bring cupcakes to class that day -- it adds to the possibility that she skipped school. A seven-year-old child doesn't run away for more than a few hours unless she finds trouble along the way, but, again, it's not as clean as the child taken at gunpoint from her bedroom. There is more of the "dog bites man" factor at play in this story. (3) Being media savvy certainly helps. A middleclass family with a good network in the professional community can rally the media more successfully than a family whose connections are limited. Somebody knows somebody and the chain gets to where it needs to go to get attention. Posting "Find My Baby" fliers and having rallies down at the neighborhood church is just not the same as knowing somebody who plays racquetball with somebody. It's an issue of class, education and connections. There are plenty of white people who don't have those connections, and their missing kids also get little air play. But leave us not fool one another. The lack of connection falls harder on the minority community. (4) Being media savvy also means playing the game once you've got the attention. Jon-Benet Ramsay's family failed miserably. Remembering that she wasn't missing long enough to fall under this topic, her case is instructive because the family was quickly seen as obstructing rather than assisting police. Susan Smith was perceived to be assisting in the search for her boys. A look at clips on the Alexis Patterson case shows a degree of criticism that doesn't help -- family members object to being questioned, but a stepfather who is the last to have seen the child and who has a record can hardly be ruled out simply because he claims to love the child. (Susan Smith made the same claim about her boys.) (5) The BS detectors are probably armed in both cases. I would assume nobody in the police or the media covered the Susan Smith case without keeping some skepticism in the back of the mind. Certainly it emerged quickly in the Ramsay case. And, certainly, it's a factor in Salt Lake City, it's a factor in Milwaukee. Does race make it more easy to discuss in Milwaukee? Or is that a matter of class? I would suggest that the "race or class" factor is a major player in all media -- and for people with widely divergent sympathies and agenda.

Missing Dhildren-Who Gets Covered & Why

6/21/2002 10:20:55 AM Posted By: Connie Branson One factor was left out... What gets in print, on national TV news, on the radio, is what sells. The news business is precisely that. A business. All of the other reasons are valid. This is also. Proof? Subtract profit from from a given branch of a media and it will soon disapear from the scene.

How can this be?

6/20/2002 10:33:57 PM Posted By: M. Hinton Since the major TV and Radio, stations are owned by 3 or 4 major companies. How can the story of the Black child be missed, by the national media . It once again proves that corporate media does not value the life of a Black Child. So very sad.

Race is everything in this story

6/20/2002 4:30:02 PM Posted By: Jim Thomsen Elizabeth Smart, Danielle van Dam, the two girls in Oregon, and so forth ... they all get the overwhelming share of media coverage for one reason above all others ... they're cute and white, and news directors and news editors know their images play meltingly and manipulatively with the unelvolved tastes of their readers and viewers. They're going for an immediate, visceral, emotional, irrational reaction ... and they're getting it.

bottom of list?

6/19/2002 8:10:22 PM Posted By: glenn may I see Mr. Steele places race at the bottom of the list in determining which stolen kid gets covered. That would explain, I suppose, why no one can think of one Black child or victim who has been the subject of one of those media feeding frenzies. Not one. Coincidence? Of course, the amount of media coverage these cases get is assine anyway. The Middle east is falling apart, nuclear conflict beckons in Pakistan/India, our schools are failing and one family's tragedy is the top story? This is another example of the meaningless, emotion-driven "content" the editors of today call news. P.S. It's never a boy that "benefits" from this coverage, either, just as those "Megan's Laws" always are named after girls.

Bob Steele

The spirit of competition can motivate journalists to do really good work on important stories. But competitive fervor can blind journalists to their ethical responsibilities and undermine their news judgment.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel deserves credit for putting competition in perspective on a very important story. The paper chose the high road when faced with getting scooped on a blockbuster story involving allegations of sexual assault against Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland.

Journal Sentinel reporters had been working the story vigorously in mid-May. They heard the allegations from Paul Marcoux, a former Marquette University theology student, who said Archbishop Weakland had "date raped" him in 1979 after the then 30-year-old Marcoux sought advice on becoming a priest."

But the Journal Sentinel was missing a key piece of the journalistic jigsaw puzzle. Marcoux said the Archdiocese of Milwaukee paid him $450,000 in 1998 to settle the claim against Weakland. But Marcoux had failed to produce a copy of the document verifying that settlement. He had, in fact, reneged on his offer to give the paper the document.

Then, on Wednesday night, May 22, the local ABC television affiliate in Milwaukee told viewers that ABC's Good Morning America would break the story the next morning about the allegations of sexual abuse against Archbishop Weakland.

You can imagine the reaction at the Journal Sentinel. Nobody likes to be beaten on a story of this magnitude, especially when you are "that close" to breaking it yourself.

Journal Sentinel editor Marty Kaiser and managing editor George Stanley immediately conferred with their reporters working the story. Was there any way the paper could publish the story in the next morning's paper? Could they nail down the existence of the settlement document to verify that important piece of the puzzle? Could they get the Archbishop or the Archdiocese to confirm the settlement?

Kaiser had set the threshold high for publishing the story. He knew he could avoid legal land mines if he went with the story, but he remained deeply concerned about the ethical matters.

Kaiser believed the paper needed the document to insure the accuracy and fairness of the story. He wouldn't let the plans of other news organizations drive his paper's decisions. He wouldn't let competition determine the Journal Sentinel's ethical standards.

That's pretty impressive thinking in the face of losing your edge on one of the biggest local stories in years. It's a journalistically sound and ethically principled decision. Kaiser made the right call that night. He resisted the temptation of competitive zeal.

ABC's Good Morning America did broadcast the story the next morning. The Journal Sentinel quickly tracked down a copy of the settlement document, and they used their website, JSOnline.com, to effectively report the multiple dimensions of this significant story.

Then, on Friday morning, May 24, the Journal Sentinel published a comprehensive set of stories that filled almost three pages. Included was the full text of the letter Archbishop Weakland wrote to Paul Marcoux in 1980. (The paper took the important step of using a handwriting analyst to review the letter to conclude that it was done in Weakland's handwriting.)

While some readers criticized the paper for publishing that entire letter, it was a journalistically sound and ethically justifiable decision. Publishing that full text heightened the factual accuracy and contextual authenticity of this element that was seen as crucial to the settlement between the Archbishop and his accuser. Publishing the full letter also enhanced fairness to the key stakeholders in this story. It gave readers valuable insight into the complexity of the case and the roles of the Archbishop and his accuser.

I'm sure editor Marty Kaiser and his colleagues at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wish they had been able to nail down the story and break it ahead of ABC.

But faced with a "being first when you aren't sure you are right" decision, the Journal Sentinel made a professional and ethical decision it can be proud of. It's the kind of tough call that will leave its mark in the culture of that newsroom.

(DISCLOSURE: Bob Steele has done paid consulting work for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, including conducting ethics workshops at the paper the week after this story broke.)

Archived Discussion:

ethical,yes; but...

6/13/2002 1:33:20 PM Posted By: peter hearne I think the Journal acted admirably in not publishing the story, lacking the statement linking the archbishop and the former theology student. But in an important and competitive news situation, the public's need to know is highly significant, and every attempt should be made to publish. Did the Journal attempt to confront Weakland with what it had and simply ask the archbishop for comment? He has the reputation of being straightforward, and he might have fessed up. And even if he denied the allegation -- reinforcing the Journal's high-minded decision to hold the story, rightly -- the Journal would have had the second-day story plus the bishop's denial, a significant piece. The Journal's insistence on proof that the former student was abused was admirable. Otherwise, publication is based on hearsay, and that is invidious.

Like many of you, I regularly read Jim Romenesko's MediaNews on the Poynter.org site. I'm never surprised by how many of the story links have connections to the ethics side of our journalism profession and news media business.

We can learn a good deal about the way we do our work -- sometimes honorably and sometimes embarrassingly -- from what we write about our own profession and business.

Boston Globe ombudsman Christine Chinlund examined how her paper has covered the Catholic church and the sexual abuse by priests. Chinlund says she "could not find" the Anti-Catholic bias in the Globe coverage that some readers have suggested exists. Chinlund does say that the "scores of critics who have contacted the ombudsman's office should not be summarily dismissed." You can find her column here.

Journalists face tough ethical challenges when their "boss" runs for public office. That's exactly what's happening in Idaho Fall, Idaho. Editor and Publisher writer Joe Strupp details how things are playing out at the Post Register as its own editor and publisher, Jerry Brady, runs for governor of Idaho. I'm impressed with some steps the paper has taken to preserve editorial independence.You'll find Strupp's piece here.

Chicago Tribune journalist Judy Peres put herself in a very embarrassing position when she put her money and her name behind a cause. Peres brought her personal beliefs to an advertising campaign that takes a strong position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The Chicago Reader's Michael Miner explored Peres's actions and the response from Tribune management. Miner's story is linked here.

Many ethical issues these days are at the intersection of business and journalism values. There was a story in Maine this week that caught my attention, partly because I lived in that state for many years. The Maine Times, once one of the best "alternative" papers in the land, has ceased publication. Its role of "holding the powerful accountable" was undermined by an inability to stay financially sound. You can read about The Maine Times demise in a story in the Portland Press Herald, linked here.

Lessons learned from how we do our work as journalists and media leaders. Lessons about the ethics of our craft and our business.

Discussion (Now closed on this article.)

copy approval

5/21/2002 5:24:00 AM Posted By: philip The magazine (trade weekly) I work for has recently begun discussing the issue of copy approval, following a couple of instances where the editor has allowed interviewees to, what he calls, "fact check" articles before they go to press. I disapprove of this, as do my colleagues on the editorial desk, but the editor insists that this is a reasonable concession to make in a trade paper. I think it is naive. Journalists should not get facts wrong, when they do they should be corrected in a subsequent issue. End of story. However, we are still in discussion over what line the paper should take and I would welcome advice on this matter. I am particularly keen to hear what policies other magazines have; whether there is a distinction between "fact checking" and "copy approval"; what effect a policy of allowing "fact checking" has on a magazine and on the reputation of the journalists who work on the magazine; and whether "fact checking" "copy approval"--in other words having interested parties read through your copy before it goes to press--is actually ethically wrong for a journalist. Thanks for any help with this.

Size is a factor

5/6/2002 1:48:45 PM Posted By: AJ Wright Smaller newspapers have more opportunities for conflicts of interest than the larger ones. And they don't see it as such. The first newspaper I worked at had staff people writing features on social service groups they belonged to. Our publisher was a bigwig on the Salvation Army's board of directors, and he always made sure we printed lots of PR photos after their annual dinner. Our ME was a member of Rotary, and covered the Rotary meetings while attending as a member. They always chalked it up to "public service" on the part of the newspaper, and never once considered it a conflict of interest. Perhaps it shouldn't have surprised them when their courts reporter started having an affair with one of the married judges, and the lifestyles editor started carrying on with the married city manager. Why should the rank-and-file worry about conflict of interest if the bigwigs upstairs don't?

overlooked ethics

5/6/2002 9:41:29 AM Posted By: tim thornton The Chicago Reader piece about the reporter's alleged ethical misstep was interesting, but there's a corporate question deeper in that same column. If a reporter can't take a stand on a public matter unrelated to her beat, why can a newspaper corporation own a piece of a baseball team -- a business interest the paper covers daily; a business interest that will have regular dealings with the local and state (and sometimes national) governments the paper covers; a business interest that, because it has people working for it, is likely to sometimes have employees show up on the police blotter and other lists and things the paper covers? What's the difference -- except that the reporter is acting out of a personal, moral conviction and the paper's parent company is acting out of a convictio that it should make more money?

Word choice?

5/3/2002 9:51:41 PM Posted By: Chuck Small Re: The Idaho item. I don't think you really meant "to prevent editorial independence," did you?

Journalists spend their time chasing stories and then telling those stories to the public. Occasionally the journalists become the story. That can be mighty uncomfortable, especially when a journalist is under attack for something he did. It takes a strong and courageous journalist to stand on principle when he's under siege.

Stacey Woelfel

That's the position Stacey Woelfel has been in the past seven months. Woelfel is the news director of KOMU-TV, the NBC affiliate in Columbia, Missouri. The station also happens to be owned by the University of Missouri.

On September 17th Woelfel sent his staff -- composed of some professional employees and mostly Missouri journalism students -- an e-mail about the station's existing policy regarding on air displays of symbols for any cause, including patriotism.

"Leave the ribbons at home when reporting or anchoring for KOMU News," Woelfel's e-mail read. "What you do on your own time is up to you, though I would urge you to consider the fact that you are always 'on the clock' in terms of being known as a reporter or representative of the station."

This of course was in the wake of the events of September 11th. Some television journalists across the land were, in fact, wearing ribbons, flag pins or other symbols of their patriotism.

Woelfel's position -- one I very much agree with -- put him in the gun sights of plenty of critics, including Missouri legislators. Some state lawmakers have publicly criticized Woelfel and the Missouri J-school. And, the Missouri House of Representatives has voted to cut $500,000 from the state appropriation to the University of Missouri system to protest the KOMU policy. The station's position on the issue resulted in an ethics award announced April 16 by the University of Oregon.

So, what's it like for a journalist to be at the center of this controversy? I asked Stacey Woelfel to describe what he has been going through:

Bob Steele: What is this debate all about?

Stacy Woelfel: In the days following September 11, as people across the country began to wear ribbons and flags as a show of support or solidarity, I decided it was a good idea to remind my professional and student staff of our on-going policy regarding personal displays of opinion. The policy has been in place for my 11 years as news director and is simply this--we do not wear items that show our personal beliefs on the air. My e-mail memo eventually reached Missouri legislators--many of whom were angered by it. Even though KOMU-TV is a commercial, NBC affiliate, it is also owned by the state of Missouri as a teaching lab for the University of Missouri School of Journalism. Legislators threatened a cut in funding to the station if I did not change the policy. The station actually does not receive state funding for its operation, but I saw the threat as immaterial to the ethical principles behind the policy. I have not changed it.

Steele: What journalistic principle(s) are you fighting for?

Woelfel: The principle centers on what messages--intended or unintended--we send the audience. While some would see the ribbons and flags as merely a tribute to the dead on the east coast, others see them as a sign of support for particular policies and positions. We cannot risk sending our viewers the impression that we have "taken sides" in this conflict. Instead, we show our patriotism best by being aggressive reporters asking questions of our leaders about the policies they are pursuing.

Steele: Have you had any second thoughts about the decision you made at the front-end of this debate?

Woelfel: I have not.

Steele: Have you faced similar political pressure over decisions you made? If so, what lessons did you learn from that experience?

Woelfel: As the news director of a state-owned TV station, I've been questioned before about critical coverage of our state government. As long as the reporting is sound and the stories are fair and accurate, I always felt that we were within our right and duty as journalists to air these critical stories.

Steele: How has your staff responded to your position on the issue of journalism and patriotism?

Woelfel: The members of my professional staff have been 100% supportive of the policy. In fact, they have wanted to be more aggressive in dealing with critics than I have allowed them to be. They feel there's an impression out there that I am keeping them from wearing patriotic displays. In fact they'd like everyone to know they support the policy and don't want to wear the ribbons or flags. The students staff seems to feel the same way, though it is a much bigger group and hard to gauge completely. Many of them have come forward to tell me what a great lesson all this has been--both in terms of ethical behavior, and sticking behind a policy in which you believe.

Steele: How has your staff responded to the ongoing controversy?

Woelfel: They are weary of it, but have tried to stay optimistic that good will come from other news organizations following our example.

Steele: Is there a challenge for KOMU-TV when it comes to reporting on yourself?

Woelfel: This has been the hardest part of the whole episode. I find it almost impossible to report on any of the furor over the patriotic displays without coming across as trying to be defensive or self-serving. I want to be neither. Perhaps the only conflict I've had with my staff in the whole matter was a disagreement over whether I should personally go on the air last fall to talk about it. About half the staff wanted me to "set the record straight" on the air. The other half did not. I decided not to go on the air to state my/our case. The conflict of interest seemed too great.

Steele: How has KOMU-TV reported the news stories on this issue?

Woelfel: We did no reporting at all on the public outcry or legislative reaction in the fall. So far this spring, we have only reported on the budgeting process and the University cuts in general, and have not mentioned ourselves specifically in the stories. Again, I can see no way around the conflict of interest if we state our case on our own air.

Every profession has its lightning rod personalities. Journalism has Geraldo Rivera.

For decades, Rivera's style has been a flash point. His reporting and commentary spark strong reactions from viewers. I imagine there are some who cheer. But mention the name Geraldo Rivera, and many will sneer.

Rivera's recent antics in Afghanistan only reinforce the perception that this man is so full of himself that he won't let professionalism and journalistic ethics get in his way. He lets his ego drive his work. He has behaved with a reckless abandon that jeopardizes himself and others. Now he is accused of making up elements of a story.

Rivera quit his CNBC talk show this fall to join FOX News Channel. He said he was so distraught over the events of Sept. 11 that he felt it imperative to get into the action, get in on the war. He wanted to go to the battlefront as a war correspondent.

Let's honor Rivera's legitimate feelings of dismay at the terrorism and the terrible toll that it took. Let's recognize that he has been to other battlefields as a war correspondent. Let's note that he has done award-winning journalism during his career.

But let's seriously question what he has been doing in Afghanistan.

RESOURCES

December 20, 2001 Bob Steele appears on CNN to discuss this issue. Download Quicktime Player

His stories too often highlight Geraldo as the lead actor, ducking sniper fire or exploring the caves of Tora Bora. We see a lot of him in his stories and we hear plenty of first-person references. He also boasted that he's packing a weapon, a move that other war correspondents rightly criticized.

Is Geraldo Rivera a journalist or an entertainer? Is he a correspondent or a bin Laden bounty hunter? Is he a news reporter or a fiction writer?

In an exceptionally troubling incident, he claimed to have been at the scene of the deaths of American soldiers when there is strong evidence to the contrary.

Baltimore Sun writer David Folkenflik reports that Rivera's story on Dec. 6 doesn't measure up for honesty. Folkenflik's article says "Rivera had claimed in a Dec. 6 dispatch to have choked up after saying the Lord's Prayer over the 'hallowed ground' in Afghanistan where 'friendly fire took so many of our men and the mujahedeen yesterday.'" When challenged, Rivera admitted to Folkenflik that he was not at the location where the Americans died. He defended himself by pleading confusion as to the location of that story in relation to another friendly fire incident. It was a very weak defense. Turns out the other incident didn't happen until several days later, according to the reporting done by the Baltimore Sun which cited multiple sources.

Neither Rivera nor FOX News has offered a substantive explanation for the challenges to the truthfulness of his Dec. 6 story. The gunslinger and the FOX network brass are silent. They are unwilling to be accountable.

Did Geraldo Rivera make up the details and descriptions of that Dec. 6 story and pretend to be somewhere where he was not? If so, he has violated a guiding ethical principle of journalism. Tell the truth.

If he did not, if he fabricated that story, Geraldo Rivera has been disrespectful to the profession of journalism and to other war corespondents. He also has shown great irreverence to the soldiers who died on that hallowed ground.

Archived Discussion:

Geraldo

3/14/2002 5:12:54 PM Posted By: HickoryBrown If Geraldo is lying about being with dying American soldiers when he isn't, I would never try and justify that, however I will say that I appreciate Geraldo's Bravada. I think he is genuinely well-intentioned and that he is intersted in presenting the story. Does he romanticize--probably--does he put himself on the line to show what's really going on--yes. I haven't seen any other coverage from the streets of Israel, and that is powerful. Its not being shot in a studio. Does he go overboard sometimes? yes he does, but he also provide angles that are missing from the other newscasts. Complain about his romanticized reports, but not about his intentions. I think there's a big difference there.

YOU ARE CORRECT

3/13/2002 12:36:51 PM Posted By: J. H. KARP I AM SAD TO SEE FOX NEWS HIRING AND STILL EMPLOYING G. RIVERA. YOUR COMMENTS WERE ON POINT AND I'M SURE LIMITED DUE TO SPACE., A REPUTABLE NEWS REPORTED, HE IS NOT. THANK YOU.

Someone put a sock in his mouth

1/10/2002 4:02:33 PM Posted By: blurp Everything Geraldo touches turns to liberal gobbledygook. That is why I dont t trust a single thing that is done by him. He is a complete waste of an objective news watcher's time. I don't know of a single TV "journalist" that is so painfully biased in his/her reporting as good ol' Geraldo Rivera.

Geraldo

1/8/2002 12:23:59 PM Posted By: Jana It is quite obvious that many are trying to"spin" wrong doings at the Fox network. Geraldo may have been confused, look at the guy, it is obvious he isin't staying at the Hilton. CNN, has made it's share of "ethical, honest mistakes" and every newspaper in the country as had to retract and explain. Cut him a break. It's okay that he took Sept. 11 personal, many did, and he feels that he should be there reporting. His ego got him to where he is today, and his ego was okay on his last show. Leave the guy alone.

Who's Gerardo?

1/7/2002 9:21:58 AM Posted By: Mike Labamba Who is this Geraldo anyway? Who's he think he is? This guy needs to lighten up. Good writer, but deffinetly a hermaphrodite.

Cool

1/7/2002 9:18:39 AM Posted By: Josh Gerardo is cool. He knows what he's talking about even though he's a hermaphrodite.

Proof? Yeah right.

1/4/2002 2:06:05 AM Posted By: Brian CJ: You wrote: "Here is the proof you asked for. I also have proof of the sky being blue if you need that. http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/nq/2001/best2001/bestofnq2001.html" OK. So this is your "proof?" The MediaResearch group describe themselves as thus: "the Media Research Center (MRC) has grown into the nation’s largest and most respected conservative media watchdog organization." Uh... "conservative media watchdog organization?" Rhetoric/bias alert!!! You are offering as proof rhetoric from a group whose entire PREMISE is that the media skews to the left. Are these guys offering unbiased evidence??? Nope. They even ADMIT it by saying they're a "conservative" group. Come on, you aren't fooling anyone. If your best proof is some unabashedly conservative website, I'd rethink my positions. If you can give me some OBJECTIVE proof, maybe I'd be convinced. But again, remember, conservative-ness and liberal-ness is SUBJECTIVE. Liberal to a socialist is quite different to liberal to a conservative. Oh and technically, the sky ISN'T blue. In fact, it is everything BUT blue. It LOOKS blue because the atmosphere scatters blue light. It absorbs the other colors. -Brian

Geraldo is a Drama Queen!

1/4/2002 12:54:51 AM Posted By: David Berkley Just the fact that Geraldo would give up a "Cushy" anchor job is enough for me to question his choice to report on the front lines. He's the King of talboid journalism! I saw a couple of his reports and a red flag went up immediately! Geraldo is out for shock value... and I think that's what Fox News is banking on to keep its ratings up. Ashleigh Banfield is the leader in war correspondents... and Fox realizes that... having Geraldo there as a correspondent is a total joke, and America knows it! As a reporter and anchor for an NBC affiliate, I give Geraldo Rivera a "C-" for his inaccuracy and "shock-jargon" reporting style. I hear he's going back to report in the Middle East... Fox should save their money and send a REAL JOURNALIST to do the job... maybe Banfield's contract is up for renewal???!!!

The Wit and Wisdom of Geraldo Rivera

1/3/2002 1:23:36 PM Posted By: A.D. King I don't blame Geraldo for being a sensational, self-promoting yahoo --- I blame the networks and the audiences who give him air time.

Proof

1/2/2002 2:08:16 PM Posted By: CJ Brian said --> Maybe there IS a liberal media conspiracy. But throwing around those terms lightly, without any sort of proof, is simply ignorant rhetoric. Fox news throws it around daily in its news coverage, often lambasting CNN and the New York Times. While I think both those media outlets deserve lambasting at times, simply calling them "liberal media" without offering any proof is another example of shoddy reporting. Here is the proof you asked for. I also have proof of the sky being blue if you need that. http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/nq/2001/best2001/bestofnq2001.html

Geraldo Revolta

1/2/2002 1:54:50 AM Posted By: A Jones I watched Fox in disgust as Geraldo gave us an "all exclusive" look at his rolled-up sleeping bag and rolled my eyes as he whispered about the fact that he was carrying a gun. Please. A 15-year-old in a high school j-class knows better than to turn the story inward. When's the last time you picked up a newspaper and read the word "I" above the fold? Let him come home and get back to what he's proven to be good at -- sleazy, self-propagandizing tabloid work. He can spend some quality time weeping over the hallowed ground that was his journalism career.

Lib bias strikes again

12/31/2001 11:51:00 AM Posted By: Craig O'Bryan Where were all the critics when Geraldo was laying out the daily whoppers, for months on end, at MSNBC during the Clinton impeachment? The real target is Fox, which has the lib media foaming at the mouth.

Let's cut the fluff

12/29/2001 3:48:07 PM Posted By: Brian I don't care about Fox News. I don't care about Geraldo. What I do care about is honesty in journalism. Let's assume for a second that Geraldo's disputed reports ARE in fact true. Now, as a journalist, I'd be doing everything in my power to set the record straight, instead of calling out other reporters to a peeing contest. If I were a news exec at Fox, I'd be doing the same thing. Integrity is paramount. There is no excuse for shabby reporting. If he told the truth, explain it. If he didn't, he should be forced to do a public apology and retraction. If I reported a story that turned out to be dubious (which I would never willingly do), I'd be the first person to say "you know what, I messed up. I'm sorry." Then, I'd work my butt off to get the REAL story. I'd even consider quitting my job and looking into a different field of work. Unfortunately, we've seen none of this from Geraldo or Fox News. Some random quotes from this forum: "In any case, this whole policing of journalists is an exercise in futility." I highly disagree. The press has immense power and NEEDS to be policed vigorously. It is one of the few businesses that is actually mandated in the U.S. Constitution. Every branch in the government is supposed to have some checks and balances. The media, though not part of the government, needs these checks as well. Bad reporting can ruin careers, lives and businesses of innocent people. The press is simply too powerful to not have some media watchdogs and gadflies calling their bluffs. "His real crime? Leaving the liberal establishment to work for the hated enemy (Fox)." Rhetoric alert. Only true Fox News fans pull out the almighty "liberal media conspiracy" card. You know what? Maybe there IS a liberal media conspiracy. But throwing around those terms lightly, without any sort of proof, is simply ignorant rhetoric. Fox news throws it around daily in its news coverage, often lambasting CNN and the New York Times. While I think both those media outlets deserve lambasting at times, simply calling them "liberal media" without offering any proof is another example of shoddy reporting. And "liberal" itself is one of those subjective, open-to-interpretation terms that essentially means nothing. "Liberal" to a libertarian is miles away from "liberal" to a Democrat or a socialist. It's a term that needs clarification: Liberal compared to whom? Compared to Fox News? Compared to most Americans' political philosophies? I'm not sure, no explanation is ever offered beyond single cases and anecdotes. If you're gonna make a claim, back it up with evidence. "Liberal establishment" essentially means nothing. There's no proof, no frame-of-reference, nothing. I think the point is, people need to cut through the rhetoric. This is not a case of "I'm a liberal, so I don't like Geraldo," it's a case of "Now listen here good chap, I know you're Geraldo and all, but would you be so kind as to answer a few questions about a report you filed?" What makes Geraldo head-and-shoulders above those he interviews? Is he beyond reproach? He is as much game for an interview questioning his actions as George W. Bush or Bill Clinton are. I just want the truth. If he fudged, I want an apology to the American people. Fox News should set the record straight. If he didn't fudge, I just want an explanation of what happened. So far, the critics have argued their side of the story, but he has not. It is simply in Geraldo and Fox News' interest to defend credible work against questions such as these. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm perfectly happy to say "righto Geraldo, you just keep on Geraldo-ing over there in Afghanistan." -Brian

A quick journalistic education

12/29/2001 5:26:24 AM Posted By: Rod Proctor Gotta respond again, this time to poster Patrick, who wrote: "Oh, if all the mistakes by print media reporters were given the same treatment. Once again, your bias against broadcast journalists is laid bare. And it's ugly." The bias isn't against broadcast. The bias is toward truth. Rivera lied. Pure and simple. He knew precisely where he was and what he was doing when he filed that dishonest report. He set out for a sexy TV file, couldn't get it, so he tried to piggyback on something that he knew happened hundreds of miles away, and got caught in his lie. When the print reporters you so criticize play such games, they get fired. On the spot. No excuses. You don't believe me? Ask Mike Barnicle -- who made his Boston paper tons of money over the years. (Interesting that Barnicle is now a semi-regular on TV). Rule No. 1 in this business (at least in print): You don't lie. Period. And a quick aside: Why is it you think Fox isn't paying Rivera the same massive bucks he was getting from CNBC? Hell, they're probably paying him more!

Shame on you Poynter

12/28/2001 5:22:58 PM Posted By: Patrick Oh, if all the mistakes by print media reporters were given the same treatment. Once again, your bias against broadcast journalists is laid bare. And it's ugly. Where's your forum on war correspondent's whose print reports are filed from the safety of their hotel room in Islamabad or Peshawar? Geraldo's an easy target -- you know it-- and conveniently he's out of the country and can't defend himself. Here's a guy who leaves a multi-million dollar anchor job to go into the field to report on the most important story of our careers-- he wasn't fired, he walked away from a successful show. Unprecedented in the history of broadcast journalism. Why isn't that your focus, Poyneter? (oh, I see the editor of your online is a former print guy) I expected more from the Poynter than taking topics for discussion off the gossip pages. This whole discussion forum is as unfair as that saying about what you guys do for a living. Goes something like.... "those who can't 'do' , teach."

why?

12/28/2001 3:04:20 PM Posted By: rebecca Why is this even an issue? shouldn't the focus be on the men that died there? This is the exact reason the media is given such bad name. Give Mr. Rivera a break! I don't care about the color of his shoes or the way he combs his hair, the fact is he is a heartfelt reporter and I would listen to him report the facts before half of the other journalists on tv.Yes he is used of being the focus of the camera and maybe he should be less dramatic. but, remember half of our history is built on apocraphyl stories.

Give him a break

12/28/2001 1:04:41 PM Posted By: linda I like Geraldo Rivera-- I used to not be a fan. I know he messed up about the reporting, but how many other reports would do the things he isdoing. I think it's really interesting watching him He shows us areas of the war, that no other report would.. I actually miss his appereances on foxs, since he is MIA.

Rivera -- You briefly had my respect

12/28/2001 6:10:43 AM Posted By: Rod Proctor I must respond to poster Sylvester who maintains that Rivera wasn't 'wrong in any material sense.' If you say you're reporting from one location, on camera, when in point of fact you're hundreds of miles away -- well, I'm sorry, but that IS a 'material' wrong. And there is no excuse for it. Rivera's a highly intelligent man. He knew exactly where he was at. Rivera was clearly an egotistical ham earlier in his career, but thanks to his law background, he did a lot of good, knowledgable stuff during the Clinton impeachment and the 2000 election -- at which point he had finally earned the respect of many of us in this trade. He should have stayed with CNBC. Perhaps it's just a bad case of the Middle-Aged Crazies, but the man has clearly reverted. What's even more unconscionable than his initial Afghan lie is his bellicose response: The BaltSun reporter 'will regret this the rest of his career.' Threatening an honest journalist's livelihood simply for reporting the truth -- and coming from another so-called journalist -- well, that's simply beyond the pale. Journalistically, Rivera has hung a Scarlet A upon himself -- and for the good of our credibility, and our craft, must be treated as such from here on out.

The Geraldo Secret

12/28/2001 12:05:53 AM Posted By: Ed Schwartz Let me remind you that we are looking at the "journalist" who took us thru the amazing world of "Al Capone's Vault" a few years ago, That faux story has defined Geraldo Rivera. He is a hot dog. An ego driven camera hog. The stories he covers are about him, not the newsmakers he is supposed to watch. Geraldo has been hit in the head a few too many times by chair wielding guests. He actually thinks he is important to the telling of his stories. His 15 minutes was up years ago. Even Al Capone would agree. Credibility 12/27/2001 4:54:23 PM Posted By: Don Sayman Credibility is the word for Jerry Rivers (aka Geraldo Reviera). what a joke. Fox News is what is going down the drain. When is Jerry going to open OBL's tomb. The most disturbing part 12/27/2001 1:51:50 PM Posted By: Rebecca Cook What bothers me most is not, strangely, whether Rivera was mistaken or lying about his location. What keeps haunting me is what he said in his "news report," after describing the bombed-out scene: " I said the Lord's prayer and really choked up. I could almost choke up relating the story to you right now." I could almost choke up right now?!?! Hey Geraldo, William Hurt called, he wants his character from "Broadcast News" back. Maybe you two could swap pointers on working up real, live tears on cue for the camera. I think that sort of faked, it's-all-about-me drama is so much more damaging and malignant and insidious than any geographical mistake. I know, I know, that's what he does, that's who he is, but that doesn't mean it's right.The "choking up" is the real lie, and the worst kind. Geraldo's blooper 12/27/2001 12:55:38 PM Posted By: Peter Spearing Geraldo Rivera has a long history of chasing the stories that will get him attention and he's gotten a lot of criticism for it. I can't stand his style or most of his stories, but I think a lot of the criticism is hypocritical. Rivera does the same things as most of the people in journalism, especially broadcast journalism, but does them more spectacularly. When I read or hear a news story where I have some personal knowledge of the facts I find there is almost always at least one major error, and usually in the direction that makes the story more sensational. Very often the mistakes would have been prevented by 30 seconds of checking. Journalists love to act sanctimonious, but until accuracy is the rule rather than the exception most journalists should put their energy into checking their own stories--Geraldo can make a fool of himself unassisted. where is he now? 12/27/2001 4:32:39 AM Posted By: Neil Stewart When I heard that Fox Hired Rivera, I was surprised. I think of him as a show-boating egomaniac, and voewed not to watch him. I am/was a Fox-Fan, and used my remote, every time Rivera caame on Fox. So I thankfully missed his controversial reports. Now Fox supports him and says it was an Honest Mistake. Both Rivera and The people that hired hi should be replaced. We report You Decide. Well I decided ! Journalism...a synonym for nonthinkers 12/27/2001 12:04:46 AM Posted By: Larry Hazelbaker It appears to me that the majority of journalists suffer from a severe case of nonthinkeritis .....they do not have the capacity to think for themselves...instead..they merely quote from some established paradigm in the same manner that all other cultish organizations do and call this process ethics. This is demonstrated in the current bashing of Geraldo Rivera. Understand I am no fan of GR either, it just seems funny that here you have a bunch of nonthinkers who are supposed to simply report the news the way they see it who are now trying to determine whether GR saw it the way he reported it or did he report the way he saw it? *#!^%$(*^%$# In any case, this whole policing of journalists is an exercise in futility. They are all like lawyers, buzzards looking for something rotten to stick their gross and ugly heads and necks into. Someone should make a documentary of them and run it on the Discovery Channel or Cartoon Channel, or better yet, The Comedy Channel Back Off Geraldo 12/26/2001 9:00:50 PM Posted By: Sylvester Let's all jump on the bandwagon and whump on Geraldo. His story wasn't wrong in a material sense, only details. He speaks from the heart, and even is he was 100 miles from where he said he was, he was several thousand miles closer to danger than the rest of us. His real crime? Leaving the liberal establishment to work for the hated enemy (Fox). I'd bet there isn't anyone posting the comments above who wasn't cheering Geraldo during the Florida election mess a little over a year ago when he was still the left wing hero. Que Verguenza! 12/26/2001 4:16:39 PM Posted By: JAMoncayo Que verguenza! in spanish means "how embarrasing." That about sums it up for a fellow journalist and Latino watching a once talented individual mold himself into a silly puddy canon ball for the WWF, Jerry Springer, Survivor, lust island, watch this shows blood and guts, I screwed your mama, my problems are bigger than yours.......whew! television audience. Keep it up Geraldo......you'll be remembered for something. JAM Los Angeles, Ca. ps what was the real story about? Foolish 12/26/2001 12:09:05 PM Posted By: Glenn Gingold The day I heard about it I felt Fox was foolish to hire Rivera. It was a gamble with the deck stacked against FNC. Why would a up and coming news network risk so much credibility in the hopes that they score a winner with a "born again" showman? Not only should Rivera be fired but the guy who hired him also. When he told his story of being at two places at once I immediately wrote Bill O"reilly an e-mail questioning the story's validity. No response. This incident, unless handled quickly and forcefully by FNC is potentially very damaging .And yes the gunfire incident was staged. I've seen first grade plays that were better acted and more realistic. Geraldo's well-rehearsed act. 12/26/2001 9:57:36 AM Posted By: Eugene Carlson This bit of Geraldo's -- "Watch me, the brave war correspondent, reporting under enemy fire," is one of his favorite roles. Twenty-some years ago, during the height of the Khmer Rouge crisis, Geraldo showed up in Bangkok. Bangkok in the early 1980s was the base for reporters covering Cambodia and, not-surprisingly, was home to a number of correspondents who had made their careers reporting on the turmoil in Southeast Asia. Within days, reports of Geraldo's gee-whiz dialog from the field -- "We have to be extremely careful here as we approach enemy lines" etc. etc. as he snuk around in some nondescript rice paddy, began making the rounds of the resident press corps to much amusement. We all thought him a buffoon and not to be taken seriously. Doesn't sound like he's changed a jot. From Geraldo's point, it's understandable -- why mess with a bit that sells and provides a handsome salary. But why the contemporary press corps's reaction toward his reports from Afghanistan should be anything but total ridicule is beyond me. Rivera Full of Himself 12/24/2001 6:20:49 PM Posted By: Jim McQuaid Bob Steele's right on target (pardon the pun) piece "Let's Talk About Ethics" beautifully points to Gerlado Rivera's ;arger than life ego and narcissism. The inside scoop on Rivera is that his own show's ratings on MSNBC were in the toilet and he couldn't stand not being in the limelight. Jumping his sinking ship to FOX News gave him the ability to come off as a courageous, get the story correspondant by putting himself in harms way. Each telecast show him braving the war zone, packing a piece, pointing towards the hills expecting a B-52 strike which never came, and dodging sniper fire. Kind of makes you wonder if the rifle shot was staged for affect. The funny thing is that with all his personal porters and aides laughing quietly at him, the story was bound to break sooner or later! Come on Bill O'Reilly, this is supposede to be a no spin zone! Jim McQuaid Newport Beach, CA Riveria's Ego as "War Correspondent" 12/24/2001 5:15:06 PM Posted By: D.H. Lindsey Geraldo's inflated ego seems to drive all aspects of his reporting and point of view, as well as his much ballyhooed title. When he left CNBC and went to FOX, everyone seems to only refer to him as a "war correspondent", true he has covered many wars--but no other correspondents (who have covered wars as well) are "titled" or referred to as "war correspondents." It seems that at FOX he is addressed and enthroned as a "war correspondent", was this a clause in his contract??? I agree with many other POVs that others have raised regarding the war correspondent, i.e., entertainer vs reporter vs ??, making and being part of the news report, Murdoch--ACCEPT HIS RESIGNATION One other point, if you're reading Mr. Riveria, please remember to refer to your "camera guy" as a photographer--you know the difference if you're a professional. Look at the bright side, Fox 12/24/2001 3:55:09 PM Posted By: Dan Hortsch, The Oregonian On the positive side for Fox and Geraldo , perhaps they can parlay their situation into a new puzzle book: "Where's Geraldo?" Or possibly into a board game in which would-be Geraldos compete to be the first to reach Osama's lair. ("Oops! You've sent home a false dispatch! Go back five spaces!" "Report of being shot at by a sniper draws big ratings! Move ahead three spaces!" "Your nervous crew gives you blanks for your handgun! Go back to nearest cave and hide, skipping one turn!") geraldo humor 12/24/2001 3:07:03 PM Posted By: Sally Mahan One of the best things I've read about Geraldo was from a first-person story on reporting from Afghanistan. The reporter said he saw Geraldo and several of his crew members coming down a mountain and all were wearing helmets except Geraldo, who was wearing a bandana or some such thing. The reporter asked a crew member why Geraldo didn't have on a helmet and he was told they couldn't find one big enough for his head. Bin Laden Bounty Hunter 12/24/2001 10:35:31 AM Posted By: Jay Grelen, The Sun News, Myrtle Beach The moment I heard Geraldo brag (and it was a brag) he was packing heat (that's not exactly how he said it, but he's capable), ''bounty hunter'' was the word that came to mind. I knew that his No. 1 aim was to be the one -- no to be The Man, The Patriot -- to kill bin Laden. I imagine that he lay awake at night with his 31-inch waist (his description) dreaming of the moment he could report (preferably from a hospital bed, his head bandaged), that he had come upon bin Laden in a cave and that as much as he regretted it, he had been forced to dispatch the man to martyrdom. It wasn't a pleasant task, he dreamed of telling us, but as an American first, it was his duty. Bob Steele wrote it right. What is Geraldo Rivera 12/24/2001 7:34:44 AM Posted By: William Gormly Journalist? Entertainer? News reporter? Fiction Writer? Whatever Geraldo is, it's not someone you'd likely call a pal in the newsroom. Speaking of Baltimore Sun writer David Folkenflik, who broke the "friendly fire" incident, Geraldo says, "He is going to regret this story for the rest of his career." And in a typical showing of hubris, Geraldo continues, "[Folkenflik] has slandered a journalist who is an honest person and has contributed arguably much more to American society than he has." And, illustrating his command of the language, Geraldo continues, "[CNN's Aaron Brown's reporting of the incident] made me want to puke." What a splendid fellow to have as a colleague. In the heat of the controversy, Geraldo has offered to resign from Fox News. This is an offer they can't refuse. Another Occurrence of Geraldo Rivera.... 12/23/2001 8:19:30 PM Posted By: Viki Reed It's not surprising that Geraldo Rivera, crossed an ethical journalistic line-certainly in a particular broadcast from Afghanistan for Fox News Channel's Network. As Bob Steele beautifully stated in his "Let's Talk About Ethics" column for Poynter.org. on December 21, 2001 (http://www.poynter.org/talkaboutethics/122101.htm) ; "He lets his ego drive his work." It would be impossible for Geraldo to simply fess up that he had been trying to be theatrical and exciting at the expense of accuracy and real reportage. We can be sure of this because he told another documented fib when confronted with the fact that he was not where he says he was so how could what he says he did...be true? Geraldo Rivera is also not a bright fellow (even if he laughs all the way to the bank). Is he capable of recognizing the top-shelf emotion attached to any story (which is mandatorally sensational on a log-line basis anyway): yes. Is that what he likes doing because it's dramatic and makes him more famous: what do you think? Is he the only one that thinks this is adequate cover for not having hardcore journalism skills: No. Fox News Channel does. Bill O'Reilly's 'no-spin zone' suddenly stopped spinning despite sharing a professional lunch box with Geraldo every day. Seems like a valid story especially since Geraldo's new Fox deal was derided by serious media critics. He's hard to take seriously except so many perfectly nice and uninformed people do. Despite having worked in TV news and journalism for over thirty years; Geraldo is frequently unable to conjugate words and form the right tense and useage with apparently not much more than a seventh grade lexicon at his disposal. His broadcasting hiatus was exchanged for a highly publicized sailboat world trip. To face and challenge himself...at one point taking along his mistress without trying to conceal it from his wife at all. Instead of journalistically challenging himself; Geraldo turned his daily CNBC and MSNBC shows into non-stop one subject gutter-f*&!@ tabloid maxi-series. If you ever wanted to know what hadn't changed or developed at all in the JonBenet Ramsey or O.J. Simpson Sagas...just tune into "Geraldo!". No news is breaking news in his world. He went on the Stern Radio Show and got his face pummeled by Frank Stallone...FRANK Stallone. He openly discussed his wealth and even more readily is version of his ground-breaking acheivements; in fact he seems unable to report any story without talking about his opinion about it, his personal experiences that can be remotely connected to it...often without much pre-thought or conclusive, valid, point when Geraldo erupts while someone is speaking. When a guest happens to have a nickname, he'll use that instead of using their surname. He attempts to be funny while working. Not George S. Kauffman or Gore Vidal witty, but more like when your little brother tries to hang out and be cool with you and your older friends-and he's the only one laughing. He has help remembering all the names in the war with Afghanistan, (as does every anchor with an earpiece) but his conversational improvisational style reveal a simplistic level of comprehension on the subject. It's as if he got all his news from television.   From predator to scavenger 12/22/2001 5:22:30 AM Posted By: Ronald Rijken Mister Rivera has turned out to be one of the many who cannot handle fame. Not the items but his person are the focus of the news he brings. In fact, he never was a journalist. He merely used the methods and logistics that are linked to journalism. He is making news at any cost. Now he is trapped in the hole he has digged himself. He used to be 12/21/2001 6:55:21 PM Posted By: Larry in South Floridaq He used to be a journalist. Now he's an entertainer -- and a bad one, at that. I remember the Willowbrook reporting, too -- outstanding. Now he is merely Springer draped in the Fourth Estate. Remember Capone's vault? The broken noise from the chair fight? I doubt that any of the Big Three anchors, no matter your opinion of them (even Dan's foray into Afghanistan under cover of robes and turban during the Soviet invasion ), would proclaim they would return from their assignment carrying the head of bin Laden. An aside to Willowbrook, though: The man can be blamed for many lapses in judgment and for obviously losing his objectivity, but blaming him for the homeless problem -- even with the disclaimer that it was an unintended consequence -- I think is a bit of a stretch. And rest in peace, Dick Schaap, who died today. A great sports journalist is silenced. Geraldo Gave Us the Homeless 12/21/2001 3:42:09 PM Posted By: R.E. Marsh My first exposure to Geraldo was his work as an investigative reporter on WABC-TV's Eyewitness News in the early 70's, when he broke the story of abuse and neglect of the mentally ill at New York's hospitals. It was a spectacular story, for which he was feted and celebrated in the media, even if his story abandoned any pretence of balance, and perhaps fairness. Many "new" journalists, and many others who followed, believed that the important work of social change required them to abandon such conventions in favor of essential truths. They had been "taught" this by the experience of the civil rights movement, the peace movement and Vietnam, and it would be reinforced by the impeachment/resignation drama and the emerging women's movement. Social scientists and politicians responded, in the case of Geraldo's relevations about Willowbrook and others, with "mainstreaming" (discharging) mental patients, who were often abandoned by their families and became homeless. In large part, the unintended consequences of Geraldo's one true triumph as a reporter was the large homeless problem throughout America.

I vividly remember the day in June of 1979 when ABC News correspondent Bill Stewart was killed while covering the fighting between government troops and Sandinista rebels. I watched the televised footage of Stewart being executed by a Nicaraguan soldier.

My memory of Stewart’s death is rekindled every time I learn of other war correspondents meeting a similar fate. Seven journalists have been killed this month alone, while covering the war in Afghanistan.

They, like Stewart and hundreds of others over the years, lost their lives at the battlefield crossroads of duty and danger.

RELATED COVERAGE

• Journalists at Risk: Editors Talk About Safety Bob Steele, 10/10/01 • Freedom Forum's online memorial to journalists killed in 2001. • Obituaries of four journalists killed in Afghanistan in Nov. 2001

Reporters and photojournalists have a professional obligation to seek the truth and report it as fully, factually, and fairly as possible. With war coverage that generally means getting as close as possible to the military action to observe firsthand, verify facts, interview combatants and victims, and take pictures that document reality.

The authority of the reporting is a product of a war correspondent’s ability to effectively balance the challenges of access to action with the significant risks to personal safety.

But let us also praise those journalists when they practice the craft with skill and substance. And let us honor those journalists who give the ultimate sacrifice for their profession and for the public they serve. War correspondents tell stories with their own words, with sound, and with images. They report on invasions, civil wars, terrorism, and ethnic and religious strife. They take their readers, listeners and viewers to the battlefront, to the perimeter, and to the rear. They document incomprehensible horror and unimaginable heroism.

War correspondents help the public understand the consequences of government policy, military strategy, and battlefield tactics. They give citizens the essential information to hold their own leaders accountable and to better comprehend what other governments are fighting for or about.

It is appropriate, to be sure, to fault journalism when it fails to measure up to its obligations. It is understandable to question the credibility of journalism when it does not uphold the highest standards of craft and ethics.

But let us also praise those journalists when they practice the craft with skill and substance. And let us honor those journalists who give the ultimate sacrifice for their profession and for the public they serve.

They have shown their devotion to duty in the face of grave danger.

Bob Steele

I'm proud of those news organizations across the country that took on the Florida Ballot Project. They knew they were headed into tough territory when they revisited the presidential election snafu of last November.

It was an expensive project -- nearly a million dollars. And critics could have a field day no matter what the study revealed and how important it might be to democracy.

A consortium of some of America's largest and finest news organizations made the commitment to carefully, systematically and professionally explore what happened in Florida when citizens went to the polls and when the votes were counted. The consortium hired a highly credible, independent organization, not to determine who won the Florida count but to "assess the reliability of the voting systems themselves … the results … will help state and local governments improve their ability to assess the will of the voters -- by selecting systems that count ballots with a high degree of reliability."

RELATED COVERAGE

• Predictions and plans of ombudsmen and editors the weekend before the results came out. • Background on the NOCR report, its methodology, and potential uses. • Roundup of other recount projects.

This project reflects the noble and essential role for America's news media. It's a fine example of public service journalism.

"The closer journalists can get to spelling out voting procedures and the counting processes, the better the chance to fix the problems," is how Caesar Andrews, editor of the Gannett News Service views the project. "Even if the public interest has waned, journalism has a responsibility of thoroughly examining from many angles why voting in 2000 was such a puzzlement," Andrews told me in an e-mail. He added this important caveat: "Provided enough people demand change."

I asked Andrews, who is also a Poynter Ethics Fellow, what ethical issues editors faced in publishing the results of such a project. "One big issue is interpretation … it does affect credibility," he said. "Since the project will not result in a single, neat unambiguous final vote count, newsrooms can easily be accused of leading with their own agendas instead of the facts. Full and careful explanation is required."

I was impressed with how editors at the newspapers sponsoring the Ballots Project justified this project. Tim Franklin, editor of The Orlando Sentinel told me, "As a Florida newspaper, we have a responsibility to expose the flaws in the state's election system and how they affected last year's election. We're doing so in hopes that these mistakes will not be repeated in the future. The very integrity of the state's democratic process and the principle that every vote counts are good enough reasons to do this ballot review."

That review has been completed and widely published. It's now up to the citizens in Florida -- and by extension citizens across the country -- to hold their elected officials accountable.

And news organizations have the continuing responsibility to be the vigorous watchdogs on this linchpin issue in our democracy.

Bob Steele

Reporting on child abuse is an exceptionally tough assignment in very difficult terrain. Itís the proverbial ethics minefield.

Complex issues. Sources with axes to grind. Barriers blocking essential information. Elusive truth. Vulnerable individuals.

Accuracy and authenticity hinge on the vigor and rigor of the journalists. Fairness hangs on matters of precision and craftsmanship.

Reporters must be aggressive yet compassionate; intense yet reflective; skeptical yet open-minded.

Jack Kresnak, a veteran reporter for the Detroit Free Press, faced considerable journalistic and ethical challenges in reporting and writing what eventually became the six-part series, "Children First: Murder by Neglect." It was also called "Arianaís Story," the account of a 2-year old girl who died from the abuse by her parents. The story also was the revelation of system failure - how the State of Michigan failed to protect Ariana.

Kresnakís reporting was cited by the Casey Journalism Center as a 2001 Casey Medal winner for Distinguished Coverage of Children and Family issues. (See press release.)

The Casey award judges said this series was "An in-depth analysis of Michiganís child welfare system written with a compelling narrative and facts uncovered from restricted filesÖ.Kresnakís writing is devastatingly straightforward."

In many ways this is the classic example of journalistic duty: "Hold the Powerful Accountable" and "Give Voice to the Voiceless." Jack Kresnak honored that duty with his dogged, substantive reporting and his serious attention to ethical concerns. He and his editors weighed the good and bad consequences to vulnerable stakeholders. They found ways around major barriers to essential information. They produced a series of stories that had impact.

I asked Jack Kresnak to comment on how he handled this story journalistically and ethically. Hereís an edited version of our e-mail exchange:

Bob Steele: What was your journalistic purpose in reporting Ariana's story?

Jack Kresnak: I've been covering Juvenile Justice for 13 years and am still learning things about this very complicated system. I had been looking for a story that could explain how the system to protect abused children is supposed to work and combine that with my yen for narrative storytelling. So, my purpose was to educate our readers about the child protection system in a way that would be compelling. In other words, give them a series that they couldn't not read and would leave them hungry for the next installment.

Steele: What ethical challenges did you face in reporting the story? With information gathering? Interviews? Other ethical concerns?

Kresnak: First and foremost, in this story and in other stories I do on this beat, I strive to be as accurate as possible and to treat everyone involved in the story fairly and in an up-front manner. Getting the 1,000 pages or so of confidential information helped me to be accurate. I cannot discuss how I obtained the documents, but suffice it to say that someone who had access to them violated the law by giving them to me.

I didn't want to look for someone -- an attorney or social worker -- to blame. I knew that the system is complicated and short-cuts are taken to save money and time. And I had a good idea of how the system is supposed to work so figuring out what went wrong was not difficult.

I contacted or attempted to contact every person whose name appeared in the story. I had dinner with Jennifer Mikel, the foster care worker handling the case at the critical juncture, and her attorney (whom I had known well on previous stories), to give her a chance to explain things. She did, but on condition that she not be quoted because that would be a violation of Child Protection Act.

I also interviewed other social services workers involved under the same condition; they could be charged with a crime for divulging information about any child protection case. (Indeed, this is a chronic situation on these stories; it is against the law for people involved in this system to discuss them with news reporters). I talked to each attorney involved and tracked Referee Fred Zizelman down to his home in Florida, only to learn that he couldn't remember this case out of the hundreds he had handled. The children's attorney, Michael Osaer, turned down repeated requests from me to talk about his handling of the case - and I can understand why. Osaer appeared to have failed in his responsibilities to safeguard the children's rights.

Perhaps the biggest ethical dilemma was whether or not to name the children involved. Having covered this stuff for many years, I believe there are good reasons to maintain the privacy rights of people in the system, especially children. On the other hand, however, I have not heard of A SINGLE CASE in Michigan in which a child's name in news reports has come back to hurt that child. Indeed, I believe there can be great good done on behalf of children by the news media reporting on their situations and I take some pride in knowing that many of my stories have helped individual children whom the system had neglected.

But we don't take these decisions lightly. Certainly, Ariana's name would be used; she was dead and could not be hurt any further. I believed that using the names of her siblings was important as a way of telling the reader that these are real children who suffered real harm.

I talked at length with the children's aunt - who has since adopted 3 of them - and other members of the aunt's family about whether to use their names or not. The aunt - Linda Swinson's sister - urged me to use the names, but asked us not to print any current photos of Noah as he may be recognized by schoolmates. Noah continues to be the one sibling who suffers the most from this tragedy. Since the story ran, the aunt says the children have not suffered in any way from being named in the newspaper. And she has told Barbara Stack-White of the Pittsburgh Press the same for a story Barbara has been working for the Casey Journalism Center. Indeed, the aunt said the children have been taken under the wings of people in her church who read the series and now understand some of their behavioral problems.

 

Steele: How did you work through those ethical challenges?

Kresnak: As I mentioned, I discussed this with the aunt and other relatives. This decision was actually made by editors at the highest level of the newspaper, including Executive Editor Robert McGruder.

 

Steele: What was the toughest part of reporting this story?

Kresnak: Getting the time to do it. I remember that stack of 1,000 pages sitting on my desk for several weeks while I worked on other stories and rushed to cover ongoing crises. I came in on weekends for about a month to put together my first draft of four stories running 120-150 inches each. Then, it was a matter of finding an editor. Because of turnover here, I was without a permanent editor until Alison Young was promoted in about August. Because we were hiring people, Alison really couldn't get to it for another 4-5 weeks.

 

Steele: What was the toughest part of writing the stories?

Kresnak: Convincing everyone, including Alison, that this should be at least a 4-part narrative series at a time when news space was tight. It ended up being a 5-parter with another 6th day added ad hoc. (Alison thought it should be 3 parts, at first).

 

Steele: What was the most satisfying element of this project for you?

Kresnak: The feedback from readers was tremendous and brought me to tears several times. I have never done anything that engendered that kind of response before.

Bob Steele

Sure, I'd ask Osama bin Laden some questions. I'm curious - personally and professionally - what he has to say even if I find him despicable. I'd like to know what's in the guy's head and, assuming he has a heart, what's there.

Related Articles

• Steve Lopez: "There is nothing bin Laden can tell us -- interview over" • Fox says it wouldn't interview bin Laden under CNN's conditions • CNN's bending interview rules for an "exceptional circumstance" • Cosby explains the difference between her McVeigh mail interview and CNN's bin Laden questions. • Read McVeigh's interview request letters, via The Smoking Gun

I'm not thrilled by the approach CNN is using to send questions to bin Laden, but I believe it's justifiable given the circumstances. CNN was approached, we are told, by an intermediary who would use the pipeline of the Al Qaeda organization and Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab TV network, to get the questions to bin Laden and, supposedly, the answers back to CNN.

There are at least two principles in tension in this case - truthtelling and journalistic independence. Journalists have a primary obligation to seek the truth and report it as fully as possible. I would include in that category the pursuit of somebody like Osama bin Laden. We should do everything we can to tell our viewers, readers and listeners as much as we can about him including what he is saying these days. To be sure, we must take his words with a shaker full of salt. We must recognize that propaganda, mis-information and dis-information run rampant at times like these. That said, we would be irresponsible if we failed to inform and educate the public about this man. I've always believed that the more we know about our foes, the better we can combat them.

Then there's that matter of journalistic independence. Ordinarily, journalists do not limit the scope of their interviewing to questions drawn up in advance. That approach significantly diminishes the journalist's ability to probe and to observe.

But the alternatives here are even more problematic. While a face-to-face interview with bin Laden could offer more questioning and yield an expanded if not more genuine response, the journalists and the news organization would be walking into ethical quicksand.

It would be morally problematic for the journalists doing that interview to protect the secrecy of bin Laden's location once it is known. Independence is an essential principle in journalism, but it does not function in isolation.

If a news organization learns where bin Laden is, their duty to the welfare of a very vulnerable society would trump their duty to protect bin Laden. They would have an obligation to reveal that location.

I have no idea what, if anything, CNN's efforts will yield as they dispatch questions via messenger. I am impressed with what I know about how they handled this matter. It's reported that they vigorously debated the decision internally. They also informed the public about what they were doing and why. They say they will share what they get back with other news organizations. And, very importantly, CNN says it will apply appropriate editorial scrutiny to what they get back to decide what, if anything they will air. They may decide that little, if any, of a bin Laden response meets the test of meaningful information and news.

Argue against what CNN is doing if you choose. I'm impressed that they were willing to figure out a justifiable way to continue to report on bin laden. This won't be the last tough call CNN and other news organizations face during these troubled times. Let's hope all editors and news executives are keeping their ethical decision-making tools very sharp.

They were in big trouble and they knew it. St. Petersburg Times reporter Susan Taylor Martin and photographer Jamie Francis found themselves at great risk as they reported from Pakistan on anti-American sentiments following the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan.

Martin's first-person account of what she and Francis faced was published on the front page of The St. Petersburg Times on Tuesday, Oct. 9:

"We began to feel scared and trapped," Martin wrote of their peril in the town of Sakot, Pakistan. She described how she and Francis had escaped an angry mob with the aid of local police and the chief constable.

"The officers...saved us from beatings or worse...," Martin wrote.

Neil Brown is managing editor of The St. Petersburg Times and Martin's and Francis's boss. "We tell them over and over, 'don't be heroes,'" Brown told a group of journalists at a Poynter Institute ethics seminar on the day Martin's story was published. He praised her authentic, first-person account and Francis's compelling photographs. But Brown was also very concerned about their welfare.

"Don't put yourself in harm's way if you can avoid it. If you are in harm's way, call for help," Brown said in describing the directive that Times editors give to their journalists.

What did Brown say to Martin and Francis after they had escaped and filed their story?

"Do you want to come back?" he asked them.

"Here's their answer," he said. "'Not yet, but soon.'"

Newsroom Leaders say 'Be Safe'

Few American journalists will face the extreme danger Martin and Francis encountered while reporting from Pakistan. But many journalists could be at some personal safety or health risk in reporting events and issues connected to terrorism or military action. The leaders of news organizations have a great responsibility to make sure their journalists don't find themselves in threatening situations -- and that they make sound decisions if they do.

We asked several news executives to talk about what guidance they give their staffs during these troubled times:

Bob Steele, Poynter: How do you ensure the safety of your journalists when they are covering stories where danger exists?

Chris Cramer, president of CNN International:
CNN was among the first news organizations in the world to provide formal safety training for its staff. We subscribe to hostile environment training both in Europe and here in the U.S. We provide the best equipment and the best protective vehicles that money can buy. But this is a risky business, and we will always run the risk of our staff being in harm's way.

Candy Altman, group news executive, Hearst-Argyle Television: (With 23 local television news departments across the country.)
You can never fully ensure safety...but you can make sure your reporters, photographers, and producers are fully aware of the potential dangers that exist in a situation before they enter it. It's important, when you can, to make sure your crews know as much as possible about the place they are heading (history, background, customs, language, or at least translator). Sometimes, depending where you are heading, you might hire extra security.

Steele: What do you tell your journalists?

Cramer: They should never take undue risks in pursuing a story. There is always another day and another road to drive down.

Altman: We tell them in all situations to exercise common sense and use all of their instincts to keep them out of trouble. We tell them to look for the story, but not look for trouble. We make sure they have a level of professional maturity that will help them make the right call. Choosing the right reporter for these stories is really important.)

Steele: What do you expect of them to minimize any danger they encounter?

Cramer: To understand that their safety is of the utmost importance to us, and we will never put them under pressure to cover a story in a hostile environment.

Altman: We expect that they will go into these situations having done their homework. We also expect that they will recognize, if possible, any warning signs of approaching danger and take the necessary steps to be safe. Safety is of paramount importance. In addition, if they are in a situation in which danger develops, we expect that they will move out of harm's way as quickly as possible. We know they have competitive instincts and want to get the story, but we want to make sure they understand that we value their lives.

Steele: How do you address other concerns beyond physical danger? How do you help your journalists deal with emotional or psychological trauma when covering dangerous stories?

Cramer: CNN is in the vanguard of organizations trying to raise the issues of stress and post-traumatic stress disorder to the right level. We accept that some of our staff can be affected by what they cover, and we have long had voluntary and confidential counseling for our staff. CNN also contributes to new research into PTSD among war correspondents.

Altman: In the case of the Sept. 11 terrorism, we offered counseling through our Employee Assistance Program to all of our employees. It was their choice whether to take advantage of that offer. We were concerned not just for employees covering the story from the scene, but also for editors and producers who had to look at the pictures over and over again. We also tried to make sure that our newsroom managers had a dialogue going with their employees, so they could see if anyone was having a particularly difficult time.

Steele: Can you tell me about a specific instance in which you helped one of your journalists deal with a dangerous situation?

Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive
The night NATO began its bombing of Serbia, masked and armed Serb thugs criss-crossed Belgrade looking for [CNN correspondent] Christiane Amanpour. They burst into the Reuters office in Belgrade, lined everyone up against a wall, and demanded to know the whereabouts of Christiane. Clearly her life was in danger. Luckily, we reached Christiane and shared this alarming news with her before they got her out. She went into hiding before being smuggled out of Serbia a few hours later.

Are you considering "testing" such systems as airport security or your community's water supply? What safeguards should you consider?

Make sure you do considerable front-end thinking on the journalism and the ethics of such reporting. Ask tough questions of yourself and your colleagues before you begin and at every step along the way.

• What is our journalistic purpose for the story?
• Why are we doing this story? Why now?
• How will it legitimately serve the public?
• What are the ethical concerns?
• Harm to vulnerable individuals?
• Fairness to those we will test?
• Accuracy of the story based on our knowledge about the issue and those we are testing?
• Impact on the credibility of our news organization?
• What about the possibility of harm?
• Are we putting people at physical risk in the process of our test? Can we justify that?
• Do we risk emotional harm to innocent people? Is it justified?
• Are we compromising other citizens in our community if we test public safety agencies, potentially drawing them away from other duties?
• Might our stories reveal information to terrorists that they don't already know?
• How can we commit the necessary resources to any "test" we conduct to make sure it is fair and reliable?
• How can we make sure we have our most skilled journalists involved in this "test" to ensure success?
• Do we run the risk that our "reporting tactics" will become the story rather than the public safety issue we are exploring?

• If we are considering any forms of undercover reporting and deception, can we fully justify those actions? This would include the use of disguised identities, hidden cameras, misrepresentation of our purpose, etc.

Consider these guidelines.

• Who can provide advice and guidance on this reporting? Are there experts on terrorism, public safety, and journalism ethics we should include in our deliberations to make sure we stay professional and ethical?

• Are we willing to tell our viewers, readers, or listeners the full account of how we did our reporting and why we did it?

Bob Steele

I spend a good deal of my time on the phone and online helping journalists deal with thorny ethical issues. I also do quite a few interviews with reporters who are writing stories about journalism ethics.

Just about every week I get a call or two about how the press covers rape and other so-called sex crimes. Fairness is a critical concern in almost every case. Almost all news organizations protect the identities of victims of sexual assault even though the stories almost always use the name of the accused.

This is not an abstract question of fairness. It's very real to those involved and the consequences are profound and long-lasting. Victims are vulnerable. Defendants are vulnerable. The journalists and their news organizations face very tough calls.

These issues were the focus of a conversation I had with Gina Lubrano, Readers Representative at The San Diego Union-Tribune. She followed up with this column on August 20th. (By the way, the best book I've found on this subject is called "Virgin or Vamp: How the Press Covers Sex Crimes." The author is Helen Benedict, a professor at Columbia University's J-School. The publisher is Oxford Press.)

Bob Steele

The Chandra Levy and Gary Condit stories certainly are reporting and ethical challenges for Washington press corps journalists because the events are primarily playing out on their doorstep.

But journalists beyond the beltway also struggle with tough calls. Newspaper editors and broadcast producers across the country have been faced with frequent decisions on what to tell readers, viewers and listeners and how to play the stories in the paper and on the air.

The coverage challenges are considerable for news organizations in Congressman Condit’s home state of California.

I asked Raul Ramirez, the news and public affairs director at KQED-FM, the National Public Radio affiliate in San Francisco, to offer some thoughts on how his station has covered this story.

Q. How do you make decisions on reporting new developments in the Condit-Levy case when the stories are coming from other news organizations including wire services, your network, newspapers, cable talk and the tabloids?

Raul Ramirez

A. Given the flood of stories, analyses, speculation, rumors and gossip about the Levy disappearance flowing mainly from Washington, it’s been essential that we filter out the fanciful and the wild from the factual and the warranted. NPR has done a credible job of staying with factual, responsible reporting, so its reporting from Washington has been a mainstay of our coverage.

Closer to home, we have largely refrained from reporting on what others are reporting, instead choosing to focus on the relatively few factual local reports we have deemed relevant — questions such as the shifting political sands in Condit’s district. Ironically enough, given the volume of coverage of this situation, we have had to make very few decisions about whether or not to air stories coming from other news organizations. Most of what is being "reported" locally is not breaking "news" or, really, anything that breaks new ground on the mystery.

Q. What is your threshold for sourcing on such stories? Do you have guidelines to help you make decisions? Can you apply your station's standards in these instances? How?

A. Our filters have been a handful of simple threshold questions: Is it new? Is it news? Is it relevant to the investigation or the consequences of the situation for Condit? Is it sourced? Can we get to the source or, if necessary, can we interview the journalist? (We have had no reason to do the latter, but it’s one option). If the situation arose, we would use additional filters, but these questions have served us well thus far.

In addition to news reports, to date we have produced one public affairs call-in talk show about new media coverage of the story. We have talked about additional programming on the ins and out of missing-person investigations, but have not done anything yet.

I should add, though, that a situation as ubiquitous as this one, where every strident network outlet is stretching to outdo the other, we are doubly freed to take a higher road. The fact is, our audience knows that we leave the gossip, the sleaze and the pandering to those on the tube who know it best.

---

Raul Ramirez has been news and public affairs director of KQED-FM in San Francisco since 1991. He previously worked as a reporter for the Miami Herald and the Washington Post and as a reporter and editor for the Oakland Tribune and the San Francisco Examiner. He is a Poynter Ethics Fellow for the year 2001.

 

Bob Steele

Is there a statute-of-limitations on teenage indiscretion? Is there a point at which journalists should stop referring to "what happened back when?"

Those questions intrigue me as I watch Jennifer Capriati on the tennis courts at Wimbledon and as I read, watch and listen to the stories about her.

As a tennis player, I’m captivated by the Capriati comeback story. At the age of 25, she has surprisingly captured her first two Grand Slam titles this year at the Australian and French Opens — not to mention winning the admiration of fans around the globe.

As a journalist, I’m torn by the stories about her triumphs. I’m particularly interested in how sportswriters and sports broadcasters address the matter of what happened to Capriati over the past decade before she rejuvenated her game.

Typical of the coverage is a Reuters wire story on day one of this year’s Wimbledon after Capriati won her first round match. The story’s lead described her victory and subsequent graphs told us how she did it, what she had to say of her win and whom she would play next.

Then this graph: "Once a teenaged prodigy in tennis, Capriati dropped off the tour after running into trouble with the police on shoplifting and drugs possession in the 1990s."

Those words have become a boilerplate reference to her personal difficulties that detoured a promising career. In fact, and perhaps ironically, what Jennifer did was not exactly heavy-duty crime and her mistakes were far less serious than the legal troubles many teens get into.

What does this have to do with journalism ETHICS?

The Capriati story demonstrates the challenges journalists face when it comes to honoring the values of accuracy, context and fairness. Certainly reporters have an obligation to get the facts right in a story, but they also have an obligation to get the right facts into the story. Journalists must make important journalistic and ethical choices about which facts to write about and how they are used.

Just how important is it for reporters to regularly refer back to what Capriati did and didn’t do off the court during her teen years? To be sure, part of the charm of her current, compelling success story is Capriati’s ability to finally win the big ones that many expected of her a decade ago. Her triumphs are a tale of perseverance and maturity, lessons for all of us.

But the question of fairness still exists. Is it legitimate journalism or just lazy reporting to keep dropping the police rap sheet references into present-day stories? Is it fair to Capriati to constantly connect her current success to her teen troubles?

I don’t believe journalists should relegate her history to a locked file cabinet. I do believe they should be much more thoughtful and deliberate in how and when they trot out the teen-troubles angle.

While I don’t advocate an absolute standard for "statute-of-limitations" in cases like Capriati’s, I believe journalists must ask themselves tough questions every time they consider tying her tennis success story to her teen troubles. Yes, reporters must be truthful in their reporting, but we often leave facts out of stories because they are not relevant or important.

There is inevitable tension between factual accuracy and fairness. One way we handle this tension is to use proper tone and proportion in our stories when we include someone’s pejorative past.

I like how WTVT-TV sports reporter Kevin O’Donnell in Tampa used reasonable tone and appropriate proportion for a recent profile of Capriati (who trains at nearby Saddlebrook Resort).

He put her current championship form in context by conservatively alluding to her past problems. O’Donnell said the "precocious adolescent buckled under the pressures of her early success" and she has now succeeded in spite of the "twists and turns her career has taken."

As journalists we too often use permanent markers to label people and what they’ve done. That’s dangerous.

I don’t think Jennifer Capriati — or other professional athletes for that matter — should forever wear the scarlet letters "TT" for troubled teen.

I see no legitimate journalistic purpose in the decision by The Boston Phoenix, an alternative paper in Boston, to publish horrific pictures of the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

Phoenix publisher Stephen Mindich has allowed his emotional rage and ideological fervor to trump journalistic principles and compassion for human beings.

Mindich and Phoenix editors first used the paper's website -- in their words -- "to link to the video made by Islamic terrorists who murdered… Pearl. It vividly illustrates the human toll of terror."

On Thursday, June 6, The Phoenix published pictures taken from that video, including a photo of what is believed to be Daniel Pearl's severed head being held by a man who may be one of the killers.

Background

Paper Prints Photo from Pearl Video - AP, June 6, 2002.

Phoenix publisher Mindich told readers that "This is the most gruesome, horrible, despicable, and horrifying thing I've ever seen. The outrage I feel as an American and a Jew is almost indescribable…. That our government and others throughout the world, who have had this tape for some time, have remained silent is nothing less than an act of shame."

Some critics suggest that showing the video or publishing photos from it just plays into the hands of the terrorists, giving them a platform for their messages. That may be true, to some degree, but that's not my main concern.

I just don't believe there is any journalistic imperative to show these terrible images of Daniel Pearl's death to the general public. I don't believe we learn anything substantive or new. Granted, we may get a vivid reminder of just how barbaric Pearl's killers are. But that doesn't carry enough weight in the ethical decision-making equation compared to the profound negative consequences

Journalists and their news organizations have a moral obligation and professional duty to show respect for human beings...

Journalists have ethical obligations beyond seeking and reporting the truth about substantive issues and events. Journalists and their news organizations have a moral obligation and professional duty to show respect for human beings and compassion for those who are very vulnerable. The primary principle for journalists is to seek the truth and report it as fully as possible. But journalists must balance that principle with another principle that I call "minimizing harm."

Journalism is inherently intrusive and invasive. There are many times -- in our obligation to be fair, accurate and authentic -- when we must tell the painful truth with words and images. But we should strive in our reporting techniques and publishing decisions to avoid causing unnecessary harm.

The Phoenix and publisher Mindich lost sight of that principle -- to minimize harm -- in publishing these images of Daniel Pearl's death. Any journalistic purpose in publishing the photos of his death is considerably outweighed by the emotional harm to Pearl's widow and family. At the least, publishing these photos is insensitive and disrespectful. It may be cruel.

I'm not opposed to the use of graphic photos and video. There are times when the journalistic purpose is dominant even as we search for ways to minimize the harm to vulnerable stakeholders.

Any journalistic purpose in publishing the photos of his death is considerably outweighed by the emotional harm to Pearl's widow and family.

I remember watching the televised footage, in June of 1979, when ABC News correspondent Bill Stewart was shot to death. Stewart was covering the fighting between government troops and Sandinista rebels when a Nicaraguan soldier executed him. It was painful and emotionally wrenching to watch that footage, and I'm sure extremely difficult for Stewart's family to have it broadcast. But the circumstances were different in that case than the Pearl case. There was a substantive journalistic purpose to televising that footage that outweighed the harm principle. The public was able to connect what was happening in Central America -- with all its public policy implications here in the States -- to the visual images of what just happened. There was an immediacy element to the release of the images that was important.

I believe that same justification applies to the decisions many news organizations made in October of 1993. An American soldier serving in Somalia was killed in action and his body was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Many U.S. papers published a photo of that terrible scene. There was a strong journalistic purpose in showing that picture that outweighed the harm principle. The information contained in the visual image was an essential element of an important story that had just happened.

Therein lies a major difference between those two cases and the Daniel Pearl case. There is no journalistic imperative in now publishing -- many months after Pearl's death -- the photo of his severed head.

Granted, these certainly are not easy ethics calls. In fact, for thoughtful, professional journalists they are extremely difficult decisions. In the end, it's a judgment call based on principles and practices.

I just don't buy the judgment The Phoenix made in publishing the horrific images of Daniel Pearl's death. The harm far outweighs any benefit.

Archived Discussion 

"Not just the bark-but the TREES

6/18/2002 11:52:27 AM Posted By: Fred McCall The WSJ and their journalists don't want certain pics published because it is like holding a red cape before a bull. Or painting a huge RED cross at eye level for auto drivers to see as they go down the highway. SOME people will faint at the sight of bladent red, others won't. There are some things NOT stated out of ignorance. Such as homosexuality. Arabs have less objection to such things, or less fear. That doesn't mean that they indulge. The Dutch don't have as much cigarette smoking, and they have more virgins than "strict" countries. The ists think their ALLAH is better then Judo-Christian GOD. Did journalist ever try to "bowdown" on a prayer rug FIVE times a day? What would it do to one to try it? And religion in general--who really believes that Jesus's mother really wants to be "worshipped", or would ANYbody want that; Elvis certainly never did. Am I getting through to any of you? Get out of the BOX for crying out loud!!It is NOT a sin to breathe!!

bowdlerizing

6/14/2002 11:30:23 AM Posted By: John Leonard People need to be reminded constantly what terrorists are capable of. Why, when those selfsame terrorists hand you a reminder like the Pearl video, would you decide that the public sensibility is too delicate to handle something so gruesome? This is no time to be bowdlerizing the news. People need to know that these are sick, murdering bastards, not freedom fighters, who will do to anyone who opposes them what they did to Daniel Pearl, Pakistani or not, Muslim or not. People need to see what they did, not just hear about it. Just this morning, they killed eight of their countrymen while trying to make their "point," whatever that may be. The Revolutionary Afghan Women's Association has photos of Taliban atrocities on its Web site every bit as graphic as those the Phoenix ran. Are they trying to be sensationalistic, too?

Cultural Relativity

6/14/2002 10:01:49 AM Posted By: Andrew Zeigert Sometimes I wonder what it is that encourages "extremist" behavior. I also wonder why most of this extremism seems to be coming from the Middle East. Granted, American news sources probobly have an unintentional bias which has made the entire world forget about the IRA, the Koreans, and even some groups within the U.S. while instead focusing on the Arab nations. Let's assume for a moment that a majority of extremism and terrorism does stem from groups in the Middle East. Why are they sore at us? Why do the media not cover that? Would the knowledge of how WE created much of the hatred against us in the Mid-East encourage individuals as to what our nation's plan of action should be? I believe so. The Dan Pearl video was used by a terrorist organization to "further its cause." Has any journalist questioned in what way this might further the cause of any organization? A terrorist group succeeds by creating terror among it's victims. It is not neccessary for the group to kill the entire population, just enough to catch everyone's attention. Then they create terror in their target group. Terror is the weapon these organizations use to influence an amazing amount of control over another nation, despite the fact that they may have no nation of their own. Despite what Bush says, the attacks on the Trade Center and the Pentagon (does everyone forget this part of the attack?) have created a great deal of terror among Americans, and therefore were successful. The attacks have shown that the U.S. itself is vulnerable, no just its ships or its embassies, but the hearts of American pride: New York City and our own capitol city. Both attacks were wildly successful because they did what they intended to do, send a shiver of fear and vulnerability up the spine of America. News sources provided nonstop coverage of events, even repeating them just so they could have something to talk about. Images of every new development are plastered everywhere. And again, despite what Bush says, we are weak. We are vulnerable to being afraid. And the Dan Pearl tape/photos are just another weapon terrorists use to attack. The difference is it is just a tad more subtle than blowing up a building. So I would say no, there is no need to publish these photos as #1 news stories, or even a graphic description of what the video is about. Instead of covering this as if it were the top story, put it on the bottom of the front page. Put the Laker's championship as the banner story. In this way, we win. We aren't terrorized. The media exert a powerful influence over individual's opinion of the state of things. We need to be aware of the bad things that are happening, but there is definitely a lack of balance in the news. The terrorists knew how American media outlets would react, and they were counting on it. Now the question is will we follow through like they expect us to every time something happens? I certainly don't recommend we not publish the story at all, lest we put ourselves back in the blissfully ignorant state we were pre-9/11, but we musn't pretend we are living in wartime. And the media should not encourage this by overpublicizing events, which only aids the effects of terror.

The Anti-semitism behind Pearl's death

6/13/2002 10:16:24 AM Posted By: P. Cheek All of the points made in the discussion group have some validity. However one issue that seems to be skirted is the issue of whether Pearl met his fate because he was a Jew, or because he was a journalist. As a journalist, a quick research on his printed work at WSJ reveals a moderate approach to the Islamist expansion push - now taking place in Israel and Kashmir. An urban myth perhaps, but several sources have told me that Pearl was forced to say 'I am a Jew' three times before being executed. If there is any truth in this then his death could be viewed as a racial/religious hatred crime, rather than a statement against journalists. It would be intersesting to hear other peoples' views on this angle and the implications it has for all Jews all over the world.

The Anti-semitism behind Pearl's death

6/13/2002 10:16:19 AM Posted By: P. Cheek All of the points made in the discussion group have some validity. However one issue that seems to be skirted is the issue of whether Pearl met his fate because he was a Jew, or because he was a journalist. As a journalist, a quick research on his printed work at WSJ reveals a moderate approach to the Islamist expansion push - now taking place in Israel and Kashmir. An urban myth perhaps, but several sources have told me that Pearl was forced to say 'I am a Jew' three times before being executed. If there is any truth in this then his death could be viewed as a racial/religious hatred crime, rather than a statement against journalists. It would be intersesting to hear other peoples' views on this angle and the implications it has for all Jews all over the world.

Plenty of Journalistic Purpose

6/13/2002 1:36:21 AM Posted By: Paul Bryant I am glad I saw the Pearl execution video for one reason alone: Before I saw the video I had envisioned Daniel Pearl speaking or reading a statement, when suddenly an unidentified man slit Pearl's throat *as he was speaking* before proceeding to decapitate Pearl's head as life fled his body. This image struck me as particularly brutal--to kill and decapitate a man without warning while he is exercising the only freedom he has left in captivity, the freedom to speak. After viewing the video however, I learned that Pearl's actual execution was not even in the film, let alone a surprise execution while he was speaking, and that the decapitation appeared to have occurred well after his death. Still unpleasant, but a very different story than cutting the head off a living man with cameras rolling. Indeed, the terrorists had edited the video in a rather silly MTV-style fashion that lessoned the emotional impact of the decapitation by a hundredfold. The important question is why did I have this horrifying and specific vision of Pearl's execution before I even saw the video? Because this was exactly how press reports had described the video, ostensibly with no expectation that the masses would ever view it to evaluate the veracity of the reporting and/or government "sources" that were cited in the report. Does anyone else recall the original press reports of the unseen Pearl video: "For the first two minutes of the cassette he is speaking. He appears calm and he is saying that his mother and father both were Jews and he had himself gone to Israel,’ sources said.... As he is finishing the statement, a hand appears from behind and grabs his head, while another hand appears with a sharp-edged weapon and cuts his throat." - The Nation, Karachi Online Agency, Yahoo News, and others "In a gruesome few minutes of video footage the kidnappers are shown talking to Pearl before one of his captors suddenly lunges forward and cuts his throat with a knife." - The Guardian "His captors filmed him as they cut his throat, and then sent the video to a Pakistani journalist." - The Globe and Mail (Canada) Watch the video, and you can't escape the fact that these press reports were blatantly false and misleading. But you can realize this *only* if you watch the video. Making the Pearl execution video public serves every bit as much "journalistic purpose" as an eleventh hour interview with Timothy McViegh would have--but only for those people who want to remember there were dozens of "confirmed" media reports of additional bombs and defused bombs found inside the remains of the Murrah Federal Building before the government and media branded their lone truck driver theory into the American memory forever. It's not that showing the Pearl video necessarily serves a journalistic purpose. It's that the failure to show it fails to serve the journalistic purpose of exposing manipulative misreporting and half-truths. Even in wartime, government/media manipulation of public opinion should be worthy of journalistic note. If anyone ever wonders how comfortable Americans in the suburbs can throw away millions of tons of prepared food each year while their neighbors starve, perhaps it's because the media never bothers to remind us that many Americans exist under Third World conditions. And if anyone is naive enough to ask "how could this happen" the next time a tragedy the magnitude of 9/11 occurs on American soil, my vote for blame goes to the news media that censors the reality of evil and suffering in this world because they feel it lacks "journalistic purpose".

metaphorical incentive

6/10/2002 8:14:02 PM Posted By: Fran Hutchinson Piking heads to recruit and warn has a very, very long history and not just among fringe groups. Gruesome yes, terrible of course, but it's not "news." Dead opponents are trophies, body counts being the more sterile form. Since a fair amount of Americans had barely heard of the countries involved before the terrorist acts, gruesome photos aren't likely to add to their knowledge of the history or the situation unless maps and timelines are included. "Aren't those people terrible." This is news? Why are people shocked that extremist groups, who have stated they will do anything to further their ends, brutalize other innocent people? If people don't grasp the concept of terrorism from the long history available to them, a few pictures aren't going to turn on the light. No question that unpleasant photos can enlighten and educate. If anybody can come up with convincing arguments that the Pearl photos do the same I'll possibly change my mind. But until then I remain convinced this is gross-out "journalism" designed to sell papers.

Reality

6/10/2002 7:35:33 AM Posted By: Shawn Conroy-Hargrave There's no correct answer to the question of whether or not the Pearl photos should have been made public. Yet I believe, or at least claim to believe, the argument over the photos is a quintessentially puritanical American one and that the question of right and wrong obscures the most fascinating, albeit grisly, information on the war against terrorism that we can now cull from in the video tape/photos. We all knew from press reports that Pearl was decapitated, but how many people knew that the terrorists then hoisted his severed head by the hair, using it as a trophy and metaphorical incentive to sign up fresh recruits to the terrorist cause? Yes, it's ghastly. Yes, it's news.

need to see?

6/8/2002 2:47:50 AM Posted By: Fran Hutchinson The Phoenix can safely step down off of its high and righteous horse now, and take its place with the Weekly World News and other voyeuristic rags that cater to the lowest common denominator. Peddling severed heads in exchange for circulation is very far from the realm of journalism. Not for one single minute do I believe the paper is upholding some unique standard of journalistic ethics. They are after a buck, fueled by the knowledge that this could grab the public that keeps things like "Animal Attacks" and "When Stunts Go Wrong" pumping out the sequels on television. It has become popular to insist that overwhelming events cannot be "real" or "connected to" by average people unless they see graphic images of the disasters. Anybody who doubts the inefficient nature of images in recording reality need look no further than the famous "before and after" Russian photos with/without Trotsky. In general photos and images convey nothing more or less than their creators vision of reality. Terrorists torture and kill people; sometimes in groups, sometimes one at a time, always because they have decided their agenda is more important than anybody's life or well being. Surprise! Nobody is being educated here. To look for more subtle distinctions is to muddy the water... all terrorists share the same dedication to agenda over everything else. And I reiterate, they frequently kill in horrible fashion to further that agenda. The notion that I can't "grasp" such concepts without full color pictures as visual aids is a gross insult to my intelligence. All this being said, it also remains at the bottom line that if a paper can't convey the story of a terrorist kidnapping and murder without relying on photos of and links to severed heads, it may just be time to hire better writers.

no journalistic purpose?

6/7/2002 5:06:51 PM Posted By: Frank Lewis Question the Phoenix's motivations if you like, but your argument that the other horrific images you mentioned served a journalistic purpose and the images of Pearl's death do not is thin, to say the least. Loath though I am to see anything play into George Bush's absurdly simplistic, "good vs. evil" world view, I don't see how making this video available to anyone who wants to see it does more harm than good. Quite the contrary. And if I died that way, I would hope that other journalists would do the same for me.

Dale Earnhardt

6/7/2002 10:50:36 AM Posted By: Ellen Sung I think the comparison to Dale Earnhardt is way off, for a couple of reasons. It's my understanding that the Orlando Sentinel never sought to publish Earnhardt's autopsy photos. It sought the right to *examine* them and have a head injury expert look at them. The purpose of the investigation was to determine how Earnhardt really died. There is no such mystery in the case of Daniel Pearl.

Tough call

6/7/2002 10:47:32 AM Posted By: Larry I've seen Kennedy’s head explode in slow motion now about ten thousand times. I've seen Oswald being shot a hundred times or so. I've seen a U.S. soldier shoot a Vietnamese guy right in the head a few dozen times. And now I've seen Daniel Pearl killed. Out of the four, I think the Pearl video is the most important to be seen by the public because it shows an impending threat to all of us, one that people mostly choose to ignore. There are groups of people all over the world that wish the same fate on all of us. If it takes showing stills or the video to make people understand this, than I would support it. And if it haunts them for several days afterward like it did me, that might not be the worst thing either. It is a slippery slope when journalists try to shield the public from fact.

non-issue

6/7/2002 9:25:08 AM Posted By: A. DeBartolo any image, sound or thought that helps convey the seriousness of the situation we find ourselves in, collectively and as individuals, is worth getting out there, regardless of whose sensibilities get trampled upon ...as long as material such as the pearl video isn't shoved down anyone's throat (i.e. broadcast), but instead is made available to those who wish to see it (i.e., the 'net), i don't see this as an issue ...

Who Do We Serve?

6/6/2002 6:35:46 PM Posted By: David Poland The big question here is not whether the Boston Phoenix has lost perspective on their responsibility to the Pearl family. In my opinion, that's a rationalization that allows us to discount what makes us uncomfortable. The question is, who does the media serve? If the goal of media is to let people spend all of their time discussing concepts that are beyond their emotional grasp, then hide images like those of Pearl being murdered. I may sound callous in saying it, but the blip on the radar screen that came from the first attack on the World Trade Center versus the sonic boom on 9/11 wasn't a matter of body count, but of the power of the images of both the crashes and the collapses. I am a journalist and therefore, I am a cynic. But the image of Pearl's head being cut off like a hog in a butcher shop will stay with me for a long, long time… far more deeply than the conceptual horror of his abduction and murder. It is impossible, I would suggest, to just shrug your shoulders after looking at that tape. How many non-journos outside of the Top Ten media markets do you really think can even remember Dan Pearls name at this point? More importantly, I believe that by protecting "our public" from the truth that only eyewitness or camera-witness can offer, we are doing them a huge disservice. If you believe in capital punishment, you should be forced to watch every execution your state performs. See a man die, then tell me how you feel, as a human being, about state-sponsored murder. I'm not calling for this because I am sure that it will keep us from killing convicted criminals. Maybe it won't faze people. Maybe it will create greater bloodlust. It's not my job as a journalist to make that decision for people. I believe in one man, one vote, even when the result disturbs me. But the truth is there, in the execution chamber. And if I choose to keep that image from the public, however well-meaning my reasons, I am not doing my job as a journalist. The Pearl video will stay with me, like most of life's memories, in the most obscure of details… his clear sense that what was about to happen wasn't going to happen… the blood on his shirt… the cleanliness of the severed head. But perhaps the most profound thing to me will be how the murderers who cut together this video, did not show everything. They edited the piece of tape rather judiciously. Even in propagandizing, they seemed to understand that by showing everything, they would not arouse people to their cause. As horrible as this tape is, they made it easier to digest. Truth is not always pretty. And it sure isn't selective. Showing this tape is not sensitive. But it is truth. Not showing a tape of a body hitting the ground at the World Trade Center is editorial judgment. But not ever showing images of bodies falling… that's censorship. The image of a body falling says everything that needs to be said. The Pearl tape is different. His beheading is the story here. The list of demands is the story. The choices that the editors of the tape made is the story. There is no avoiding it. Ironically, I don't see the point in the Boston Phoenix culling the image of Pearl's severed head for their print publication. I guess they figured that it would have the power of the tape. But it doesn't. It can't. Context is critical to the power of this tape. Additionally, as a printed image in an entertainment paper, the image of Pearl is inherently invasive. In a more benign analogy, I recently ran a film festival and filmmakers would send in photos for the catalog. Having seen all the films, I was often struck by how the images didn't really tell the story of the film in any way. The filmmakers were trying to sell their movie. But we aren't filmmakers. We are journalists. In my opinion, Pearl's severed head as a single image is not the truth. But the videotape of Pearl's murder, edited by his murderers, not cut to just the bloody parts - something that will end up happening somewhere on the internet - or to just the speech - which has already happened - is the truth. And as hard as it is to look at, we have a journalistic responsibility to do just that… and to trust our readers/viewers to do the same.

Pearl Photos

6/6/2002 5:12:54 PM Posted By: Thomas Davis The WSJ and their journalists don't want the pics published because Pearl was a journalist. It's hypocritical, but true. It's a different game when it's one of your own. However, when it's Dale Earnhardt's autopsy photos, though, all bets are off.