Bob Steele
The Nelson Poynter Fellow for Journalism Values

What coverage issues are on your mind?

Now that there's another coal mine story out of West Virginia, we'll watch how news organizations cover this situation. What lessons did we learn from the coverage of the tragedy two weeks ago? What's the proper tone and proportion to the coverage on this story to give it the proper weight? Will we scrutinize the comments of mine officials and government officials more rigorously this time? Will the cable news channels show more restraint in their coverage?

And, there's another of those cases where newspapers take a hit for what I'd call "back-room deals" by writers. Here's the Romenesko piece on the AP story:

The Birmingham Times contributor who was paid to write positive stories about the former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy says: "I sat in that courtroom for six months, and I did everything possible to advocate for his cause." Audrey Lewis received $11,000, but "Scrushy promised me a lot more than what I got."

Birmingham Times publisher James E. Lewis says he was unaware of Lewis-Scrushy deal. "Had I known the young lady was being paid by someone, I'd have called Richard Scrushy and told him he could have bought an ad for a lot less money."

Clearly the writers who are taking money to spin stories are failing ethically. We also have to question what has happened to the "quality control" system at those news organizations. Do they have clear, strong guidelines that say this is wrong? Do the editors apply some level of vigilance to try to detect these ethical concerns before they become problems?

The coverage of the Jill Carroll story has been intriguing, from the original decision by The Christian Science Monitor and other news organizations to delay reporting her kidnapping to how journalists across the country have covered this unfolding story.

I've heard many journalists say they've done nothing unusual in holding back on the original revelation of her kidnapping at the request of the CSM; that we would have done the same thing if the kidnap victim was a nonjournalist. That's a position worth examining.

Have journalists been as agreeable to holding back certain stories and certain information in the cases where nonjournalists have been at risk? And, what criteria should we apply if someone asks us to hold back on a story? What threshold applies in terms of the consequences that go with reporting such a story, the value of timely and accurate reporting versus the risks to a person's life?