Fred Brown: News folks shouldn't be the news

A gyrocopter lands on the Capitol lawn, and it turns out the Tampa Bay Times knew about the stunt well in advance but waited until the last minute to tell authorities. Rolling Stone retracts a long article about a gang rape on the University of Virginia campus after its primary source is shown to be unreliable.

Trusted newscasters Brian Williams and Bill O’Reilly are called out for exaggerating, though the consequences for each differ markedly.

And that’s just the most notorious of the recent journalistic misbehavior. There is no shortage of bad examples.

Journalists should be reporting news, not making news. But all too often, journalists have been the focus of news stories that raise serious ethical questions.

Monday, April 27, marks the start of what the Society of Professional Journalists has designated Ethics Week, when SPJ puts particular emphasis on the importance of responsible reporting. Ethics Week began in 2003, and today it's as important as ever – maybe more important, given recent events – especially in a media environment where there are an unfortunate number of unreliable sources.

This year’s Ethics Week comes a few months after SPJ completed more than a year of effort revising its Code of Ethics. It's a voluntary code, advisory and not enforceable, but for decades, it has been the go-to standard for news organizations.

Many news media outlets have their own codes of ethics; a lot of them use the SPJ code as the starting point. Employers’ codes are more detailed, and there’s a price to pay if they aren’t followed. Journalists can lose their jobs for violating the company standards, and some have.

Those employers’ codes tend to go into great detail about what constitutes a conflict of interest. For many people, in journalism and out, that’s the major part of ethical behavior – avoiding conflicts of interest. But for responsible journalists, ethics goes well beyond that.

Ethical journalism is rooted in accurate reporting and responsible behavior.

Those have been guiding principles throughout the 88-year history of the SPJ code, and remained the touchstones when the code was updated. It had been 16 years since the code was last revised. Some of the language was outdated, especially provisions that mentioned specific technologies and processes.

Some critics wanted the code to be more specific and instructive; some felt transparency should be stressed over independence.

Ultimately, the revision committee decided that basic principles don’t change when the technology changes. The four major principles remain the same: Seek truth, minimize harm, act independently and be accountable.

The committee made the final provision “Be Accountable and Transparent.” Transparency is good, we felt, but not a substitute for being aware of one’s biases and wary of outside influences.

The committee is in the process of adding explanations and examples as links to the online code (accessible at spj.org) – elements that can change as journalistic practices evolve.

In the end, the revisions committee made the code itself as broad as possible, to focus on abiding principles and avoid ever-changing technologies, in the hope that such a “constitutional” approach would survive for decades.

The importance of those abiding principles is illustrated by recent media misbehavior.

The Tampa Bay Times stressed storytelling and didn't pay enough attention to minimizing the possible harm that could come from a stunt played out on the Capitol grounds.

Rolling Stone worried too much about minimizing harm and let protecting its source get in the way of truthful, accurate reporting.

Brian Williams and Bill O'Reilly represent opposite approaches to the principle of accountability. NBC suspended Williams for his off-camera embellishments; Fox instead criticized the media that were criticizing O’Reilly.

All this might lead one to accept the tired old joke that journalism ethics is an oxymoron. It isn’t. But it is a constant challenge.

One week a year isn’t enough, but at least it’s an opportunity to focus on the axiom that serious media need to be reliable and responsible, 52 weeks a year. Journalists need to be constantly aware that their job is to report the news – accurately, compassionately, independently and responsibly – and to stay out of the headlines.

Fred Brown is a former president of the Society of Professional Journalists (1997-98) and co-vice chair on its ethics committee. He writes a column on ethics for Quill magazine and served on the committee that wrote the society’s 1996 code of ethics.

Mr. Brown officially retired from The Denver Post in early 2002, but continues to write a Sunday editorial page column for the newspaper. He also does analysis for Denver’s NBC television station, teaches communication ethics at the University of Denver, and is a principal in Hartman & Brown, LLP, a media training and consulting firm. He has won several awards for writing and community service, including a Sigma Delta Chi Award for editorial writing in 1988. He is an Honor Alumnus of Colorado State University, a member of the Denver Press Club Hall of Fame, and serves on the boards of directors of Colorado Public Radio, the Colorado Freedom of Information Council and the Sigma Delta Chi Foundation.

Karen Gross: Truth, transparency, trust and the nearby gorilla

 

In the space of a few weeks in February, we lost the well-regarded journalists Bob Simon, David Carr and Ned Colt, while NBC’s Brian Williams was dethroned amid scandal. In all these cases, the words “truth” and “trust” and less commonly “transparency” have taken center stage. Quality media professionals succeed because they are truthful, and there is transparency in verifying that truth; together, this breeds trust. Trust is the one value central to anyone involved with reporting news.

The words “truth,” “transparency” and “trust” recently have taken on renewed importance in higher education. The reporting and handling of sexual assaults, athletic cheating scandals, Muslim student deaths, the intrusion into the admissions process by college/university presidents forcing acceptance of new students who are politically connected, and fraternity hazing among other inappropriate activities have run headlong into efforts to determine the truth, demonstrate institutional transparency and establish and maintain trust among the wide range of stakeholders.

One example: The “facts” that appeared in a Rolling Stone article related to an alleged rape at a fraternity at the University of Virginia were later retracted. Before this occurred, actions were taken by the university against that fraternity. When the implicated fraternity challenged the factual assertions, a different version of the “facts” emerged, then challenged by the rape victim and some of her friends. The university changed its stand. Then and not without controversy, sorority women on the UVA campus were directed by their national organization not go to frat parties because of safety risks.

The problem with the three “t” words is their complexity—within and outside higher education. Determining “truth” is not easy. Consider the Rashomon effect; different people witnessing an event perceive and describe that event differently. This may be because of faulty memory or unconscious personal bias or unspoken leanings toward a desired outcome and other reasons. Usually, witnesses do not self-perceive as liars. Evidence of challenges of fact-finding abounds in the handling of disciplinary matters on campuses across the nation, raising the need for independent investigators in Title IX cases.

Another distortion of truth can come from “not seeing” all that is there. In the oft-seen film clip showing the students throwing a basketball to each other, a gorilla crosses the room. Because the viewers have been asked to focus on and count the number of throws, many never see the gorilla in the room. Really.

Our capacity to “see” and “share” the truth also depends on what “truth” we are addressing. The truth of some facts—like the world is round—are easy to establish. Other perceived facts like “there is a God” are surely debatable. In classrooms early on, students often seek to identify “the” answer only to learn there is no answer, a frustrating reality for many students.

Transparency, a term that is oft used to refer to the need for government openness, is equally complex. When information reflects badly on a college or university, there is often an effort to bury that truth, lest parents or new students learn of it. But with the Internet, failure to disclose is fraught with risk, as the negative information will be found, worsening the absence of transparency. It is vastly better that institutions, rather than outsiders, control their own bad news.

There are times when telling the truth will produce serious adverse consequences. In the movie The Imitation Game, even with its adaptations of history, there is proof positive of the devastating consequences of “truths” contained in the decoded messages, knowledge that forced individuals to make choices to protect the larger good. On a campus, too, disclosing information like the identity of a victim of rape can have serious consequences, particularly if the rapist is a popular figure on campus.

Establishing trust, animated by both truth and transparency, is hard. It takes time and we test its limits. We know a child’s development is impaired if a parent cannot be trusted. But losing trust is easier. One or two false steps can erode trust, and rebuilding it is not always possible—despite a myriad of past positive decisions. In a relationship, for example, trust undermined by infidelity can sometimes be overcome depending on the individuals, the circumstances and the gravity of the offenses.

Education leaders and campuses must build trust. College presidents know that if they lose the trust of their boards, their faculty, government officials and sometimes their students, their jobs are at risk. Of late, too many presidents have lost their positions because the trust others held in them was eroded beyond repair. No one is suggesting that university and college presidents be flawless. But, they must ferret out—and often quickly—what is fact and what is fiction. They must spend the time to think through the words they use to describe volatile situations. Above all else, they need to own the truth, whether it is good or bad.

In education circles, we often talk about truth-seeking. The word appears in college insignias. Consider Veritas. We use the phrase: And the truth shall set you free. But, perhaps genuine “trust” (which rests on truth and transparency) better embodies what we need to develop on campuses today. Some students have trusted their sexual partners only to then experience harassment and assault. Students have trusted that they and their colleagues can truly imbibe ad infinitum, only to later realize the deadly impact of alcohol poisoning and drunk driving. We trust that the academic community will protect us from killings and discrimination, a trust that is eroded by events like the shooting of Muslim students.

Judging from current events, trust on our campuses is eroding, including in our leaders and within the student population. Without trust, the connectivity so central to the creation of community and the capacity to learn and take risks diminishes. We need to spend more time rebuilding and valuing trust, not just divining and sharing truth.

Maybe the lessons from the three trustworthy media giants who died contrasted with the Shakespearean fall of now less than trustworthy Brian Williams will help education leaders and their communities refocus on the value of trust in its many dimensions. That, in a world of bad news, would be good.

Karen Gross is former president of Southern Vermont College and former senior policy adviser to the U.S. Department of Education. This originated in the Web site of the New England Board of Higher Education (nebhe.org).

Robert Whitcomb: That's show biz; corrupt NYC condos

 

I’d lay at least part of the tempest about Brian Williams’s exaggerations/lies/amnesia regarding his Iraq, Katrina, Mandela adventures, etc., to coverage cutbacks by the big TV networks. While 30 years ago, the then Big 3 – ABC, CBS and NBC (Mr. Williams’s employer) -- had dozens of correspondents, including some abroad, there are far fewer now, as with big newspapers.

So the celeb known as ‘’the anchor’’ has garnered an ever-larger percentage of networks news’s money and attention. These hosts are under persistent pressure, fueled by the necessary narcissism and vast salaries, to promote themselves as world-historical personalities – making themselves players in great events, albeit leavened by (a stagey) self-deprecation.

The networks lavish so much attention on the anchorpersons that relatively few Americans know the names of the other network journalists, who, more accurately, should be called entertainers anyway.

Meanwhile, these enterprises, to push aside charges from the right that they’re leftie elitists, get the anchors to very self-consciously present themselves as comrades in arms with U.S. troops. This can often seem forced. As Tom Lehrer once sang in “Send the Marines”: “We’ll send the best we’ve got, {the film stars} John Wayne and Randolph Scott.’’)

Television journalism is mostly an entertainment/personality/emotional vehicle, not a serious ‘’content’’ medium. At best, it’s a highly theatrical headline service. So Mr. Williams, et al., are tempted to embellish stories to emphasize their centrality in the news and their emotional bonds with viewers. (Of course, even a “rigorous reporter’’ covering, say, the bond market, should have a bit of the entertainer’s knack for holding an audience.)

Spending more money to obtain and verify more “content’’ (i.e., ‘’facts’’) isn’t part of networks’ business plans. Most Americans are more interested in opinion and personality anyway. And unless U.S. troops are fighting abroad, Americans, except the affluent and some intellectuals, usually have little interest in foreign things.

Of course, like Mr. Williams, most of us redact our pasts, though usually not so much for career reasons, as with an anchorman. We forget, reconstitute and transpose events and chronology. Then we try to untangle the lines of contingency and intention that made us. (In so doing, we pile up even higher hills of regret until, if we’re fortunate, the sense of accelerating time leads to a weary acceptance of our messy histories.)

One of the best current specialists in the flimsy architecture of memory is the English novelist Julian Barnes (See “The Sense of an Ending’’). Proust may be the king of this domain.

But Brian Williams seems to have set out early to publicly/officially mislead, and he could have long ago corrected himself. Perhaps he will in his memoirs, with which he’ll make more millions. Another prediction: Mr. Williams will host a talk show. He, of course, has the gift of gab, and he seems to actually like people, unlike, say, Johnny Carson (whose basic aloofness I always liked).

****

The Feb. 8 New York Times story headlined “Hidden Wealth Flows to Elite New York Condos’’ detailed how vast quantities of foreign wealth (much of it ill-gotten) has flowed into American real estate, much of it through dummy companies. While this flow has helped send housing prices soaring in some sexy U.S. cities, and thus driven from them more of the middle class, there’s happier sign here.  See: http://www.nytimes.com/images/2015/02/08/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf

It’s a reminder how nations, such as America, with the rule of law, including clear property rights --instead of arbitrary governance by the crooks who run such places as Russia -- are rewarded. Police/gangster states are not reliable places to keep your money. You never know when the rules will be changed without warning and the rulers demand a bigger cut.

If not for certain ruthless individuals but certainly for entire nations, honest and orderly legal systems, subject to constant review by uncensored news media and democratically elected officials, create far more wealth than can a dictatorship. Only a fool would put most of his money in places like Russia and China.

Indeed, Mr. Putin reportedly has billions salted away in nice nations. See: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/09/13/Putin’s-Billions-Just-How-Rich-Russia’s-President

****

We just got back from staying at a relative’s place in Florida, whose warmth and that you can walk with little fear of fracture on the ice especially entices cabin-fevered New Englanders this winter. It’s enough to make you tolerate the Sunshine State’s grim grid in many places of too-wide roads; strip malls, and relentlessly chewed-up countryside.

(I was on vacation when the Williams crisis exploded – it’s the perfect vacation story, as People magazine is perfect for doctors’ waiting rooms.)

Robert Whitcomb (rwhitcomb51@gmail.com) oversees New England Diary (newenglanddiary.com). He's a former Wall Street Journal, International Herald Tribune and Providence Journal editor, a Fellow of the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy and a partner in a healthcare- sector consultancy.