Thursday, May 1, 2008

By Kelly McBride

It's that time of year. New journalists and young journalists are flooding into newsrooms, ready to change the world. OK, flooding is probably a thing of the past. But many newsrooms still hire summer interns, because they're cheap (sometimes, even free) and you can force them to work weekends and holidays.

Although dozens of journalists, young and old have been called on the carpet for their personal blogs, relatively few newsrooms have developed a meaningful policy that addresses personal blogging. It's time. This generation has grown up on the Internet.

Liz Allen, administrative editor at the Erie Times-News in Pennsylvania, is getting ready for her crop of interns. She wants to set down boundaries about personal blogs at the very beginning of the summer. That's a good idea. Last year Allen had her summer interns create an "official" blog at the paper. But it didn't really work, Allen said. The content seemed stilted. This year she's hoping to create a policy that allows for personal expression, but protects the paper's interests.

Here are a few suggestions about personal blogging policies:

• Write one. Maybe start a blog about policies. But do it now. It's way too late to claim that blogging is just too new of a phenomenon to merit a policy.
• Reconsider your policy if it states: No personal blogs. Telling a 20-year-old he can't blog is like telling a 50-year-old she can't write a holiday letter. You won't win that one.
  
• Consider what you're comfortable having employees discuss in public:
• Nothing about the newsroom at all? That might be unrealistic.
  
• Nothing about stories in development? That seems fair.
• Nothing that puts the company in a negative light? Sure, you've got a right to require that, but you might define negative carefully.
• Nothing about sources? Good idea. Journalists who say things about their sources that they wouldn't put into their stories are treading in dangerous territory.
• Nothing embarrassing or negative about your colleagues. (I had a young journalist once ask me if she crossed a line by blogging about a fellow reporter's bathroom habits. Yes, I told her, I thought that was rude. Maybe not unethical, but definitely rude.)
• I counsel journalists who keep personal blogs to employ a no-surprises rule. Always let your boss know if you have a blog. Ask for guidelines, if they don't exist. Never say anything in the blog that you wouldn't say out loud, to the primary stakeholders. This could all be included in a policy.
  

Social networking has magnified personal expression. Young journalists have always needed a guiding hand as they make their transition into the professional world. Now, in addition to learning how to dress and act like a professional, they must learn to manage their digital lives in a way that puts their professional reputation ahead of other concerns.

Former Poynter Summer Fellow Laura Fries came back after a few years out in the business and taught some of these skills to our crop of 2007 Fellows last year. Here's a link to some extensive thinking on her part.

When your interns arrive, what will tell them about blogging? And if you're one of those interns, what do you want to know from your new employer?



E-mail this item | Add/View Feedback (1) | QuickLink this item: A142640

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

There's been a lot of news on the big credit card security breech at the Hannaford supermarket chain.

Hannaford, headquartered in Maine, is taking issue with the coverage of a local television station, WGME.

For the time Hannaford isn't saying what it objects to, only that the WGME coverage was "overly aggressive." The Portland Press Herald and Maine Sunday Telegram have thorough coverage, complete with its own home page and a cool graphic. Hannaford isn't complaining about that.

Who knows if Hannaford has a legitimate beef with WGME? What's cool is that WGME is cluing the audience in. They did a short piece on air last night, which unfortunately is not available on their website. But they have an audience survey that has sparked a very nice discussion about where WGME's loyalties should reside.

OK, nobody's really using that word, "loyalties." But it's implied. And people get it. Most of the respondents are siding with WGME, because they believe WGME is working on behalf of consumers. But a few folks accuse the station of being sensational. Others point out that Hannaford has a right to spend its advertising dollars where it chooses.

Supermarkets spend a lot of money on advertising. I'm sure the hit to WGME is a big one. Kudos to them for bringing the audience into the conversation in a way that promotes news literacy.

E-mail this item | Add/View Feedback (1) | QuickLink this item: A141161

Thursday, March 27, 2008

By Bob Steele
Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values

“There but for the grace of God….” That was the subject line on an e-mail sent by a veteran journalist today to a Poynter listserv for our Ethics Fellows program. This journalist used that time-honored expression to reflect the angst many journalists across the land could be feeling given what has happened at the Los Angeles Times.

RELATED

Romenesko links

The LA Times has apologized for what appears to be a major journalistic and ethical screw-up. “A Los Angeles Times story about a brutal 1994 attack on rap superstar Tupac Shakur was partially based on documents that appear to have been fabricated, the reporter and editor responsible for the story said Wednesday.” So reads the paper’s own mea culpa account detailing the failures that have produced “withering criticism.”

The LA Times Shakur article was challenged by The Smoking Gun Web site, which said the documents were not authentic and that the Times had fallen for a hoax perpetrated by an unsavory, unreliable source.

The Los Angeles Times reported that its top editor, Russ Stanton, “took the criticisms of the March 17 report ‘very seriously,’” and he has called for “an internal review of the documents and the reporting surrounding the story.”

And well he should. What went wrong and why? And let me suggest that much of the attention in that internal review should focus on how the quality control process at the LA Times apparently fell far short. Here are some questions that might be asked in that internal investigation:

    • Did the reporter on the story – Chuck Philips – have enough substantive conversations with his editor as the story was developing? When did those conversations take place?
    • What questions was the editor asking the reporter? Were those questions rigorous enough given the nature of the story, the scope of the assertions and the weight of the accusations?
    • When and how were the questionable documents obtained by the reporter?
    • What process was used by the reporter and editor to scrutinize the source of the documents as well as the source(s) for other key pieces of information in the story?
    • What process of verification and cross-checking was applied to various pieces of information provided by sources, including the documents that now appear to have been a hoax?
    • Were assumptions made at key points that needed greater challenging? If so, why didn’t that happen?
    • At what point were other editors brought into the process to weigh in on the methods of reporting, writing and editing the story? What expertise and perspective did those editors bring to the process?
    • What questions were those editors asking? What questions were not asked that should have been asked? Why weren’t those other questions asked?
    • Were there contrarians among those involved in the reporting and editing on this story?
    • How and why were decisions made about presenting this story first on the LATimes Web site and then in the newspaper two days later? Were those decisions driven by journalistic purpose or by other factors? Did those decisions affect the checks and balances process for vetting this story?
    • Have recent cutbacks in staffing at the Los Angeles Times and the loss of some veteran editors affected the quality control process on stories like this one? If so, how?

The editors and the top management at the Los Angeles Times have a great responsibility to  examine these matters rapidly and rigorously. What went wrong and why?

And, while that goes on, journalists at other news organizations across the land can and should ask similar questions of themselves about the quality control process in their newsrooms.

• Do we have a sound system of checks and balances that ensures we measure up journalistically and ethically?
• What are the weak spots in the way we work that could erode our journalism no matter how good our intentions?
• How do we improve our quality-control system so we measure up and we don’t find ourselves on the receiving end of “The Smoking Gun.”
 
The “There but for the grace of God” mantra resounds loudly when we see our colleagues stumble badly.

Please add your feedback: What questions would you be asking inside the Los Angeles Times if you were part of the internal investigation of what went wrong on this story? 

E-mail this item | Add/View Feedback (5) | QuickLink this item: A140402

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

By Ellyn Angelotti
Interactivity Editor and Adjunct Faculty

The My Space page and pictures of the woman believed to be the woman involved with Gov. Eliot Spitzer were plastered all over the Internet last week. This has many journalists puzzled about how to best use such online networks, as MySpace and Facebook. I see these online networks as valuable resources for journalists that require much discretion when used.

During the Virginia Tech shooting coverage, journalists began using Facebook as a reporting tool -- one of the first times it was widely used by mainstream media. Now more journalists are thinking critically about how these online networks are used in journalism.

Sixty-four million users have created profiles on Facebook and one-hundred and six million have done the same on MySpace. Journalists would be missing out if they didn't use these communities to find information or leads to sources. However, there are a few steps between finding a quote on someone's wall and publishing that quote in a story.

Here are some questions to consider when using online networks in your reporting:

How legit is the profile page?
About a month ago, I Facebook-befriended one of my storytelling idols, Ira Glass, the host of This American Life. With my request I wrote a long message sharing how much I appreciate his work and the opportunity to network with him.

I was glowing when he accepted my friendship. It granted me access to his personal page. Then my bubble burst when I saw this:

It wasn't really Ira. But, at least they are honest about it.

How can I be sure I'm communicating with the person I think I'm communicating with?
Not everyone who creates a Facebook profile for someone else is going to be as transparent as the Web manager for This American Life.

You can pursue the question by sending a Facebook message to the person. Better yet, if they've posted their e-mail or phone number, contact them that way. Identify yourself. Tell them what you want to use or what you want to know. Ask them to call you, or ask for a phone number where you can reach them.

Once you've verified someone's identity, what privacy issues should be considered?
Online network users need to understand that, unless they set their preferences otherwise, their profile will be broadcasted publicly. But many users don't. By default, user profiles on Facebook and MySpace are public. Both online networks have privacy settings that users may or may not be aware of. I can choose who sees my personal information, (only my friends, my network, everyone in the world) but most people don't take the time to do so. Nor do they understand the consequences of sharing too much information. Users can also deactivate their account if they don't want anyone to find it.

Even when you do find a user who has juicy information on their profile page, consider the harm in posting this information. It someone's public space, yet it can still be personal and sensitive. (See Bob Steele's Guiding Principles for Ethical Decisions)

Be cautious of "friends"
Among my Facebook friends are people I've known for years, contacts I may know superficially and famous people, like Glass, whom I don't know. I have my privacy settings locked up fairly tightly so only my friends can see my page. But still, all 770 of them have access to my profile.

If someone sends me photos or information from a "friend's" Facebook page, I'm a little suspicious as a journalist. What's this person's purpose in alerting me to their "friend's" profile? What's their motivation?

These are just a few tips to consider as journalists try to figure out what exactly their relationship might be with online networks. As new tools and technologies become available, the questions may change, but the steadfast principles of ethical journalism still apply.

Check back on our Poynterevolution blog later this week for an analysis of how news organizations are using Facebook.

What questions do you have about using online networks in journalism?


E-mail this item | Add/View Feedback (1) | QuickLink this item: A139520



Everyday Ethics Archive

View items published between:		and
	(MM/DD/YYYY)		(MM/DD/YYYY)

Or, go back 10 items per page: MORE > | Back to Top