As the New York Times wrestles with the aftermath of the Jayson Blair debacle, newsrooms everywhere are asking, "Could this happen here?" Poynter faculty members Bob Steele, Pam Johnson and Kelly McBride share their thoughts from three distinct perspectives. As the Ethics Group Leader, Steele frequently uses his expertise to help newsrooms improve their methods of making decisions. Johnson is a former executive editor of the Arizona Republic, where she supervised a newsroom of 350 people. McBride is a former reporter for the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Wash.
"Many editors are unwilling or unable to develop sound principles, clear guidelines, and practical protocols for addressing key ethical issues, plagiarism and fabrication included." Bob Steele, Ethics Group leader: What Jayson Blair did was wrong. Terribly wrong. He stole the work and the words of other journalists. He cheated on his editors. He was unfair to the people in his stories. He lied many times to many people, including his readers. Why Blair carried out this dance of deceit and self-delusion remains unclear beyond his brief reference to personal problems.
One shouldn't and can't condone what this reporter did. We must scrutinize his actions to learn more about what happened and why. We also must rigorously examine what it is in our profession that allows these ethical explosions to keep happening.
From Cooke to Barnicle to Smith to Glass and to many more who are not as well-known, the examples are there.
Editors say, "Everyone knows the rules on plagiarism and fabrication. We shouldn't have to tell people what the rules are and to obey them."
The reality tells us otherwise. We can ascribe some of the blame to individuals who knew they were doing wrong, but that ignores a range of other related factors. Many editors are unwilling or unable to develop sound principles, clear guidelines, and practical protocols for addressing key ethical issues, plagiarism and fabrication included.
Too many editors who do write things down fail to practice good ethical decision-making on a regular basis, using the guidelines as benchmarks.
News organizations are notoriously stingy and uncommitted to substantive professional development and skills training for their staffs, for both the less experienced and the veterans, whom we know can be just as bad or boneheaded on ethics as the rookies. Journalism spends less than almost any other industry or business sector on training, yet we scratch our heads each time there's a big problem and wonder why we don't learn.
Too many editors are weak themselves in the skills of ethical decision-making. So they are ineffective as role models and incapable of effectively coaching their journalists on ethics. A leadership failure translates into ethical failures.
"I don't want scapegoats ... But what was said just wasn't enough for me -- a regular reader of The Times." Pam Johnson, Leadership & Management Faculty: I give high praise to The New York Times for its investigative report and corrections of stories written by Jayson Blair. It was a significant step in cleaning up the journalism mess Blair created.
I wanted to hear more, though, about how The Times' leaders view what's at issue inside the newsroom.
Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, in a segment at the end called "The Lessons," said there would be no newsroom search for scapegoats. "The person who did this was Jayson Blair," he said. "Let's not begin to demonize our executives -- either the desk editors or the executive editor or, dare I say, the publisher."
He referred to building better lines of communication. And Executive Editor Howell Raines said a staff committee would identify lessons learned. I don't want scapegoats, either. But what was said just wasn't enough for me -- a regular reader of The Times. This is severe. The questions are many, and here are just a few that I hope are part of the internal agenda:
- How clear are The Times' journalistic standards and how regularly are those standards discussed and put into context in the newsroom?
- How clearly are new staff members informed about those standards? How are values, standards and ethics discussions incorporated when applicants are interviewed?
- What's the integrity of the editing process? Are the voices of line editors strong? What kinds of development do they get to help them grow as content editors?
- If they have a problem reporter, what kind of advice and resources are available to deal with the issues? How much are they involved in personnel issues, promotion and hiring decisions?
- What kinds of steps will help newsroom communications? What other processes, procedures and policies might be evaluated in light of what happened?
- How are decisions made in the newsroom? Do editors have authority to act on the responsibilities they are given?
Finally, I hope The Times shares what it learns with readers and journalism colleagues. Those insights will help explain why Jayson Blair was able to operate without standards and values inside The Times.
"The result of the 'I'm on the on-ramp' culture is subtle deception in the newsroom." From Kelly McBride, Ethics Faculty: Examine the specific sins of Jayson Blair and you will find the common transgressions of everyday journalism. Blair put them together in a spectacular fashion to create a beast that is bigger than the sum of its parts. It's time to stop shaking our heads at Blair's audacity, which was immense, and focus on the habits of journalism.
Datelines -- Blair violated N.Y. Times policy and clearly deceived his readers by putting a dateline on a story when he had reported the story over the phone and had not physically traveled to the location in question. But this happens frequently. In fact, there is not agreement in the industry over when to put a dateline on a story. Some reporters say the story must be written and filed from the location, others say just written. Some people think the story can be just reported from the location in question. Some journalists will put a dateline on a story even if the reporter never left the office.
Reconstructing scenes -- This technique is becoming more widespread since narrative writing has become a common tool of the newspaper. Blair did so by looking at photographs and using personal recollections of the people he interviewed. (He also did so using the work of others, according to the N.Y. Times report Sunday.) If the story is a reconstruction, the reader should be told, and so should the editor. Disclosure can easily be made with a sentence in a story or an editor's note.
Borrowing details and quotes from other publications -- Sometimes this is deliberate, sometimes unintended. The Internet and newspaper databases allow a reporter to download the work of others into word-processing files that can be mistaken for genuine notes or intentionally cribbed. It's hard to tell when this is happening because often times, sources say the same things to different reporters.
Deceiving readers about the circumstances of interviews -- some writers find it clunky to constantly insert phrases like "interviewed Friday at her home," or "she said during a phone conversation last week." In the wake of Blair's deception, this transparency takes on a heavier weight. Whenever it's not clear how an interview was obtained, we should make it clear. The readers deserve more information, not less.
Use of unnamed sources -- To their credit, many newsrooms have tightened their policies on unnamed sources. This work should be accelerated, particularly when it comes to reporting inside the Beltway. Unnamed sources should only be used when the information in question is of a high public interest. Even then, reporters should reveal the name of the source to one editor (and sources should be told this is part of the deal), the information should be corroborated, and the readers should be told why the source is not being named.
Read the N.Y. Times report on the investigation into one of its own and you will see clearly the traits editors value in young reporters. Repeatedly, editors say they were impressed with Blair's ability to work long hours. "He seemed to constantly be working," the story says. As a crime reporter for The Times, the paper said, "He churned out article after article about the crimes of the day, impressing his colleagues with his lightning-quick writing ability and his willingness to work long hours."
This business has little tolerance for young reporters who want a little balance in their lives. Older reporters get a little more slack, but not much. The result is a culture where journalists must always be "around the corner" from the story or otherwise on the way. There is little leeway given to people having a bad day, so reporters and photographers learn early to keep their bad days private. Editors begin conversations with, "Where are you?" not "How are you?" It's the same among reporting colleagues who adopt the police jargon of "What's your location?" What they are really asking is, "Why aren't you there yet, and how much longer is it going to be?"
A fellow journalist once advised me to answer such questions with "I'm on the on-ramp (to the freeway.)" "If it's not the truth, it can be in a matter of a minutes," he said.
The result of the "I'm on the on-ramp" culture is subtle deception in the newsroom. Editors and even other staff members frown at reporters and photographers who request personal time. It's all too easy to not mention you are taking mom to the doctor, or going to counseling sessions, or even having lunch with a spouse. When these common and legitimate absences go unmentioned, it makes it less clear for a young reporter trying to distinguish them from the more critical sort.
Taken to extremes, this culture of busyness and hustle makes it impossible to have the conversations that would bring clarity to the specifics of datelines and borrowed material and transparency about interviews. If the environment in your newsroom is so intense you can't admit to being human, it will certainly be hard to admit you did the interview on the phone instead of in person. Small transgressions, left unchecked, could lead to the kind of explosions the N.Y. Times is cleaning up this week.
Editor's note: In 1996, Jayson Blair attended Poynter's one-week College Newspaper Editors Ethics and Leadership seminar.
[ Share your thoughts on preventing plagiarism ]
It's fascinating to see writers from some quarters blast Blair...
