I mentioned these rules in passing in this week’s column “Behind the media contractors’ veil” to offer context for the military’s practice of shielding the identities of some media-services contractors, including large U.S. firms, by designating them in public records as “miscellaneous foreign contractors.”

“The section about ‘tightening the flow of information’ is flat-out wrong,” Marine Col. Dave Lapan, acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations, told me by e-mail. “Secretary [Robert M.] Gates spoke directly about this issue at his recent press briefing (July 8). Specifically, he said, ‘This should not infringe or impede the flow of accurate and timely information to you or to the public. That is not my intent, nor will I tolerate it.’”

I respectfully disagree on the issue of what effect the memo will have. I believe it is far more likely that Public Affairs officers and others down the chain of command will be inclined to read, interpret and seek to follow the Secretary’s published rules and guidance offered in his July 2 memo rather than comments he made a week later to reporters described as angry over the memo. And the way I read the memo is that it will have a chilling effect on the free flow of information.

Readers can make up their own minds.

Below is the full text of the Secretary’s July 2 memo and attached rules, as well as an excerpt of a Pentagon transcript of the Secretary’s remarks to reporters on July 8. All were kindly provided by Colonel Lapan for posting at my request.

The Secretary’s memo also included a copy of Directive 5122.05, the Defense Department’s equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act, which is linked to here and below, in his memo.

Readers are encouraged to post their own interpretations and analyses in the comments section of this blog.

— — —

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
1000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1000

JUL 2 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
UNDER SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE
COMMANDERS OF THE COMBATANT COMMANDS
ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ASSISTANTS TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

SUBJECT: Interaction with the Media

It is important that the news media have appropriate access to many aspects of
DoD activities and operations. Consistent with applicable laws and procedures, we are
obliged to ensure that the information provided to them is timely, accurate, credible, and
consistent. I have said many times that we must strive to be as open, accessible, and
transparent as possible.

At the same time, I am concerned that the Department has grown lax in how we
engage with the media, often in contravention of established rules and procedures. We
have far too many people talking to the media outside of channels, sometimes providing
information which is simply incorrect, out of proper context, unauthorized, or uninformed
by the perspective of those who are most knowledgeable about and accountable for inter- and intra-agency policy processes, operations, and activities.

We must deal with the media in a manner that safeguards information protected by
law and that maintains the integrity of the government’s internal decision making
processes. Leaking of classified information is against the law, cannot be tolerated, and
will, when proven, lead to the prosecution of those found to be engaged in such activity.
Revealing unclassified, but sensitive, pre-decisional, or otherwise restricted information
is also prohibited unless specifically authorized.

Current DoD policy, outlined by Directive 5122.05, “Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs,” (attached) states that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs is the sole release authority for official DoD information to
news media in Washington, and that all media activities must be coordinated through
appropriate public affairs channels. This policy is, all too often, ignored. Accordingly, we must enhance our internal coordination mechanisms to ensure that Department officials are aware of the most current departmental and inter-agency information and perspective on the topic at hand when they engage the media. We need to ensure that, as they do so, we avoid misunderstandings and miscommunications caused by insufficient situational awareness.

Accordingly, prior to interviews or any other means of media and public engagement with possible national or international implications, all component leaders or their public affairs officers must notify OSD Public Affairs which, in turn and as
appropriate, will ensure that senior Department officials with the relevant overall
knowledge and situational awareness have been consulted.

I have asked the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs to work with
OSD component heads, military department heads, and combatant commanders to
implement the attached additional guidance.

[Signed,
Robert M. Gates]

Attachments:
As stated

• Leaders of OSD components, military departments and combatant
commands will coordinate directly or via designated representatives the
release of official Department of Defense information which may have
national or international implications, both internally and with OSD/PA.

• OSD components, military departments and combatant commands will
review their respective organizational staffing framework to assure those
delegated command release authority have the experience, acumen, and
perspective necessary to responsibly fulfill the obligations of coordinating
media engagements .

• OSD components, military departments and combatant commands will
work with OSD Legislative Affairs and OSD Public Affairs to ensure
information of consequence provided to the Congress is synchronized with
OSD Public Affairs as appropriate.

• OSD Public Affairs will coordinate briefings for OSD components, military
departments and combatant commands on the rules, regulations and
responsibilities regarding the release of information to the public and the
media (attached).

• OSD component heads, military department heads and combatant
commanders will reinforce to their subordinates the importance of
protecting classified information from public disclosure, and the legal
consequences for those who do not.

— — —

Excerpt of remarks by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates to reporters on July 8, 2009, regarding media policy, as transcribed and provided by the Department of Defense:

I would also like to take this opportunity to say a few wordsabout the guidance I issued last week dealing with this department’s engagement with the news media.

For starters, when I took this job more than three and a half years ago, I spent my first few months on the job telling military audiences that the press was not the enemy and that to treat it as such was counterproductive and self-defeating. Accordingly, in my approach to media relations I’ve attempted to be as straightforward and cooperative as possible and encouraged this department’s leaders to do the same.

None of that has changed.

In short, last week’s memo was not about how the media does its job but about how this department’s leadership does ours. It is not a change of policy but a reaffirmation of an existing policy that was being followed selectively at best. It reflected the fact that for some time now, long before the recent Rolling Stone article, I have grown increasingly concerned that we have become too lax, disorganized, and, in some cases, flat-out sloppy in the way we engage with the press.

As a result, personal views have been published as official government positions, and information has gone out that was inaccurate, incomplete or lacking in proper context. Reports and other documents, including on sensitive subjects, are routinely provided to the press and other elements in this town before I or the White House know anything about them. Even more worrisome, highly classified and sensitive information has been divulged without authorization or accountability.

My hope and expectation is that this new guidance will
improve the quality of press engagement by ensuring that the people the media talk to can speak with accuracy and authority. This should not infringe or impede the flow of accurate and timely information to you or to the public. That is not my intent, nor will I tolerate it.

An additional personal observation. Over the last two years, I have lost a first-rate Central Command commander and an outstanding commander of ISAF in Afghanistan due to their own missteps in dealing with the media. I’ve had to recall a combatant commander to Washington for a verbal reprimand for speaking out inappropriately on a sensitive foreign-policy issue. I’ve had two very different presidents each on several occasions express concern to me about senior Defense officials, both civilian and military, speaking out inappropriately on foreign-policy issues.

These instances together with my own frustration — with premature disclosures of personnel, budget and other options under consideration — led me to conclude several weeks ago that we need greater coordination and discipline.

Effectively communicating what we do and how we do it remains a top priority for me. In fact, I consider it my duty. It’s a responsibility I have, not only to the commander-in-chief and to you in the media, but to the American people. I take it very seriously. And I expect everyone else in this department to do the same.

This column was originally published in Stars and Stripes on July 15, 2010.

During my 18-month tenure as ombudsman, no one topic has moved readers to write more than this one. From the front page to the classified section, Times readers want to know how and why the newspaper’s editors make the decisions they do. And they’ve never been shy about expressing their opinions.

And, perhaps not surprisingly, it is the concept of opinion that moves readers most. I’ve fielded dozens of comments from readers about the perceived bias of reporters, editors, columnists, photographers and letter writers.

One week a reporter is too liberal; the next he is too conservative. One day the paper excludes right-leaning letters; the next it excludes left-leaning letters. How can reader perceptions vary so wildly when they are reading the same newspaper?

Part of the reason is that some readers increasingly seek out only ideas and opinions that mirror their own and reject the legitimacy of all others. But that doesn’t pertain to everyone who sees bias.

Some readers perceive bias because they don’t know the background or affiliation of the writers, especially on the editorial pages. Some readers believe that full transparency is necessary on every page of the papers. Reporters, columnists and letter writers alike should declare their political interests so that readers can apply the appropriate filter on what they read, according to some readers (and more than a few pundits).

I may be naive, but I still trust in the ethics that govern all journalists. I believe journalists at the Times really do work hard to keep their work free from their own biases, and shouldn’t have to declare such affiliations.

Letter writers and guest columnists, however, are not held to the same standards that journalists impose on themselves. They should be identified if they represent an agency or point of view that could lead to a conflict of interest. Identification helps readers better understand the motives of a writer.

A recent “My View” column provides a good example. In a piece headlined “Obama’s contempt for the governed,” writer Walter G. Bilowz accused the White House of aiming to redistribute wealth and “give amnesty to illegal aliens and register them to vote (Democratic, of course).” Bilowz identified himself to the Times only as a Chatham resident. He failed to mention that he is chair of the Chatham Republican Town Committee, a fact that could have provided readers, who responded en masse to the piece, further insight into his column.

Some opinion writers self-identify their political affiliations; often they do not.

In the interest of transparency, I call on all Times letter writers and opinion columnists — from local folks like me to national columnists like Maureen Dowd and Kathleen Parker — to declare their political leanings when it is relevant to the content of the work they submit for publication.

Transparency is also the reason I’ve decided to step down as ombudsman. This summer I accepted a position with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, an organization whose work is featured in the news nearly every day. Although I feel confident that I could have remained objective about any news story, including those about WHOI, I feared that readers could perceive bias. I advised Editor Paul Pronovost and Editorial Page Editor Bill Mills that I should step aside, and they agreed.

Unfortunately, Pronovost decided that my departure provided a good opportunity to discontinue the ombudsman position. On that, we do not agree. Times readers want, need, and appreciate an ombudsman who will keep them and the newspaper honest. They’ve had three over the years, and I hope they’ll have another one day soon.

Although my job as ombudsman has been to field complaints and concerns about coverage, I’ve been thrilled to serve in this important role. Many thanks to Pronovost and Mills for their confidence in me and the freedom to define this position. Thanks also to the Times staff, who always greeted my inquiries with grace and often went out of their way to address concerns.

Lastly, Cape Cod Times readers deserve my most enthusiastic gratitude. We didn’t always agree on the issues they raised about the pages of the Times, but they challenged me to consider community journalism — especially in the Internet age — in new and exciting ways. Please know that your comments continue to be welcome and taken seriously at the Times. Keep writing.

This column was originally published in The Cape Cod Times on Sept. 5, 2010.

Better — although it’s worse for me — another reader spotted the inaccuracy in Horn’s Aug. 29 letter, which happened to appear on the page opposite the one where I was again citing my “pet peeve” (inaccuracies on the Internet), which followed my Aug. 22 full-blown rant on the same topic.

“I understand that these are reader opinions, and that you all simply published what was written,” the reader’s e-mail jabbed.

“But,” he added, “it sure is sad that you all’s Your Turn editor was somehow forced to print (spread) what would appear to be a ‘fable’ or … ‘false news.’ And that, unfortunately, detracts from your comments.”

No excuse, sir, but there was no intent on my part to mislead or lie. I failed to do the job I was supposed to do, and it was there for all to see. It’s embarrassing.

But when we err, our ethics policy says: correct it.

The other difference between what newspapers do and what those who use the Internet to spread lies is you have someone at a newspaper to complain to. Try and reach the characters who create and send that garbage you get on the Internet.

More on letters:

Have any of you who have had letters published in Your Turn ever received abusive telephone calls or U.S. mail or e-mails from people who object to your viewpoint? The National Conference of Editorial Writers wants to know. I occasionally hear from a reader who says this has happened. Let me know if you’ve had a bad experience.

On that point, we don’t share letter writers’ contact information. If you want to speak to a person whose letter was printed, give us your contact information and we’ll get it to the targeted letter writer, who may or may not answer you.

As noted above, we limit letters to one per month per reader. We prefer letters of fewer than 200 words. Think 100-yard dash, not marathon. Gifted letter writers know how to make a point in a few words. That’s why you see their names, month after month.

The late Leonard Dallas, who’d be in the E-N Letter Writers Hall of Fame, if we had one, once told me he had almost 400 letters published here.

Another prolific letter writer, the locally well-known atheist Catherine Fahringer, told me shortly before she died that she used 18 aliases in letters to the editor. I don’t understand her motivation, but I always wondered why the heathen (her term) community seemed so well represented here in letters to the editor.

When I was a young fellow (late 1980s/early ’90s), I thought most letter writers were crazy or mean-spirited, and it put me in a bad mood to edit their “stuff.”

That remains an accurate description for some contributors, but I was too harsh. Now, I believe people who are passionate enough to get involved and express themselves are patriots on the front lines of this great experiment we call democracy. They sure keep us honest.

This column was originally published in the San Antonio Express-News on Sept. 5, 2010.

Reporter Karen Grigsby Bates was describing U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to overturn California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. [His decision is now on appeal.]

At the end of an interview with All Things Considered (ATC) host Melissa Block, Grigsby Bates added:

Walker “is a really interesting guy, Melissa,” she told Block. “He was appointed by the first President Bush – George H.W. Bush. He is generally considered to be very thoughtful, very thorough. And he’s gay. He’s gay and out.”

That was news to Triplett, who is gay. He’s also a lawyer who writes about gay issues and serves on the board of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.

“I really don’t think it’s ever been verified as a fact that Judge Walker is gay,” said Triplett, who later wrote that the judge’s sexuality, whatever it is, should not be a public issue. “He’s never spoken on the record about it. The way Karen said it was clearly that she viewed it as not a big deal.”

Saying matter-of-factly that Walker is gay, without his confirmation, violates NPR’s policy against publishing or airing rumors, allegations or reports about private lives of anyone unless there is a compelling news reason to do so.

Deciding when there is a compelling news reason to mention someone’s sexual orientation is a tough ethical decision.

But, in a case such as this, the first obligation is to verify that the person is gay and that can only come from Walker or close personal friends or family who are quoted by name. As far as I could determine, Walker has never openly said he is gay.

That Walker is gay seems to be an accepted fact among some news media. In February, a column in the San Francisco Chronicle said that Walker’s sexual orientation was an “open legal secret.”

The column did not quote anyone on the record who knew for a fact that Walker is gay. When I asked about sources, NPR cited the Chronicle column, a dozen or so Internet links to show it was widely discussed in California and gay press – and that Walker isn’t denying it.

Almost all links NPR provided referred back to the Chronicle story. A New York Times profile of Walker said “published reports have stated that the judge is himself gay.” For evidence, the Times cited the Chronicle. If nothing else, this demonstrates how one report, once posted on the Internet, can become an accepted “fact” that is then picked up endlessly.

“Both the SF Chronicle and The LA Times, as well as other national publications, have done stories in recent months about him, characterizing him as openly gay,” said NPR west coast editor Philip Bruce, in an e-mail. “So have lots of smaller Bay Area papers. On the afternoon of the ruling, CNN’s Gloria Borger was among many who described the judge as gay.

“For months,” he added, “the blogosphere—-including many gay and lesbian publications—-have been filled with speculation that the right would attack the Judge because of his sexual orientation.”

ATC host Melissa Block said she first heard about Walker being gay from Grigsby Bates. On a follow-up story after the decision, Block wrestled with the question of whether Walker is out and, if so, what does that mean?

“I had seen a reference in the Washington Post that morning (Aug. 5) that said he had neither confirmed nor denied public reports,” Block told me, “so given what we had reported the night before, I had been struggling to figure out a few things beforehand.”

NPR’s library provided her with links to two Los Angeles Times stories that flatly stated Walker was gay; neither story provided sources. Block also interviewed David Levine for the Aug. 5 show. He’s a law professor at the Hastings College of Law, who supports same-sex marriage and provides legal analysis on Prop 8. He cites the Chronicle.

BLOCK: And [Walker] is, according to numerous published reports, himself gay.

Prof. LEVINE: Yes. Certainly, that’s common knowledge in San Francisco. It was in the San Francisco Chronicle. And when that came out in the newspaper, all the lawyers in the case, you know, I think it’s fair to quote “Seinfeld” and just say, they all thought, not that there’s anything wrong with that. The defenders of Proposition 8 certainly could have raised that to the court as a basis for disqualifying Judge Walker, and they just let the issue of his sexuality slide. I mean, everybody has a sexuality. You have one. I have one. And you have to be able to decide cases.

Block said Levine’s comments in a pre-interview helped her feel comfortable mentioning Walker’s sexual orientation on air. She felt since supporters of a ban on gay marriage brought up whether Walker should have recused himself, that that elevated the discussion beyond speculation to the case itself.

“It had been widely reported in the California press,” she explained via email. “Those people following the story closely – including the parties involved – would most likely have known it. It seemed to me an omission to NOT bring it up, that that would give the impression of us withholding information for no good reason.”

But let’s say he is openly gay, so what? Is Walker’s sexual orientation relevant to the story about Proposition 8?

No, in my view it clearly is not.

The real issue is the law: Is the voter-approved ban on gay marriages constitutional, and how well-reasoned is the judge’s 136-page decision overturning that ban? His sexual orientation has nothing to do with these legal questions. [Read decision]

It only becomes relevant if there is a conflict of interest, and then the news media is obligated to report it.

“If the judge had actively participated in the Prop 8 debate in some fashion – fundraising for advocates or opponents – that would be significant,” said Bob Steele, an ethicist with the Poynter Institute. “Such activism would likely disqualify him from this case no matter what his sexual orientation.”

If the judge confirmed he is gay that might be an interesting factoid. But since we expect judges to be impartial – even though all judges have some conflict – then it’s wrong to assume Walker or any judge can’t be objective on a topic that may have something to do with his personal life.

The “buzz” about Walker’s sexuality did become relevant after Prop 8 supporters lost and then said they didn’t get a fair shot because the judge is “openly gay.”

Even so, Walker’s sexual orientation is a side issue. At the most, a new organization could mention briefly that it is being reported without confirmation and move on.

In May 2009, NPR was criticized for not reporting charges in the movie review of Outrage that certain closeted gay politicians vote and campaign against gay interests and are protected by the mainstream media. Then, NPR said it would not use the names because the politicians are entitled to privacy about their sex lives unless it’s relevant to the news.

If NPR wouldn’t publish the name of a particular politician mentioned in the movie review of Outrage because he has not acknowledged he is gay, why is it OK to mention Walker’s sexual orientation? Similarly, why did NPR apologize for saying an actress is gay because she has not confirmed it?

In another story, when someone is openly gay and it is relevant to the story, NPR did not mention that fact.

This happened with Mary Kay Henry, who in May was elected president of the 2.2-million-member Service Employees International Union. Henry was the first woman elected to that post and has been out and fighting for gay rights throughout much of her life.

She is also a founding member of SEIU’s gay and lesbian Lavender Caucus. NPR did a May 12 mini-profile of her but didn’t include that fact. Correspondent Don Gonyea said he didn’t because the story was about challenges facing Henry and not a full-fledged profile of her. But it did have biographical material and, I think, mentioning she’s a lesbian would have added another dimension to the story.

Talking about someone’s sexual orientation can be uncomfortable, raises difficult ethical questions – and, as NPR’s policy says, should be done only when there is a compelling news reason.

But since NPR does not seem to be following its own policy consistently, the company should clarify it and make sure all staffers understand the rules on how to report on issues of people’s private lives, including their sexual orientations.

This column was originally published on NPR.org on Aug. 17, 2010.

“Is this what it takes to be talked about all over the world?”

Writer Elizabeth Dwoskin broke the story that was talked about round the world for a few days in June. Her cover story in New York’s Village Voice about Debrahlee Lorenzana, the “shapely” woman who was fired from Citibank and subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming she was let go for being too attractive, went “viral” within hours of hitting the web. At one point, Dwoskin’s story was the seventh most popular English-language Google search in the world.

As the story evolved, and other media jumped on it, revealing that Lorenzana had previously had two breast augmentation surgeries, hers became the 32Ds talked about and ogled around the globe. Google her name now and you’ll find 66,000,000 entries for a woman who had been relatively unknown before this story broke.

The tale of the woman who is allegedly too sexy for her job was widely covered by mainstream newspapers, wires, radio and network and cable television — though it received modest play in the Star: one 469-word wire story on Page A29 in the newspaper, with a photo of Lorenzana looking both businesslike and hot. Online, we published the same photo and story, promoted on the home page, and one more brief follow-up story.

Elsewhere, coverage was far more sensational. Photos and video of Lorenzana in form-fitting office attire and outfits that revealed even more of her assets were featured on YouTube and photo-sharing sites. This story was blogged, tweeted and commented on endlessly. On the Village Voice website alone, Dwoskin’s story received nearly 600 comments — nearly 10 times more than any story she’d ever written.

Is this indeed what it takes to be talked about around the world? Dwoskin’s question is one many journalists are wrestling with in our digital era in which the “herding mentality” of the web means that news and information can be transmitted further and faster than ever before in history, potentially amplifying traditional markers of journalistic “success” — the reach and influence of a story.

As Dwoskin writes in a thoughtful analysis entitled “Watching my story go viral in twenty-four hours,” published in this month’s Columbia Journalism Review: “Having one’s story go viral has become a huge barometer of success.”

But should it be? Dwoskin says the Lorenzana story was neither her best nor most important story. “No one expected the media frenzy that followed. . . In the span of 24 hours it had transformed from a very interesting feature to something like breaking news of national and even international import.”

Neither Dwoskin’s CJR article nor this column are intended to be rants about how journalism is going to hell in a handbasket because of the Internet. The Lorenzana story, while not the sort of news that serves to better democracy in any significant way, still turns on a lawsuit against one of America’s largest banks. At its heart are eternal themes about power and beauty, money and influence and the battle of the sexes.

It’s a compelling human interest story — “the ultimate water cooler story” a friend of the writer suggested. And no one doubts that the alluring photos of the stunning brunette banker drove this story.

Dwoskin posits that the story was “fascinating in its own right but its success also depended on the herding mentality and the web’s tendency to legitimize commentary as news.”

For me, Dwoskin’s piece provides a fascinating case study in the ongoing evolution of media and journalism and the perennial question of how to appeal to audiences while remaining faithful to journalism’s higher ideals. It’s also an intriguing example of the power of a technology that links all the computers in the world in real time, offering the potential to connect and communicate as never before.

The CJR piece raises many questions. How much do the vagaries of what titillates people online now influence the news agenda? When something goes viral online, does that make it news? Should the herd set the news agenda? This week, both, the Star and the National Post devoted prominent space to stories based on events that went viral on YouTube. The Post gave over most of its front page to video images of a kitty in a dumpster. Increasingly, the mainstream media are spotlighting viral videos.

How should journalists harness the vast reach and power of the digital universe? Shouldn’t we aim for a more significant measure of success than a “water cooler” story going viral?

It’s hardly surprising to see a story about a sexy banker with ample cleavage go viral. But if this is the new bar for journalism, perhaps that too is something that should be talked about — even if that debate doesn’t quite go viral.

This column was originally published in The Toronto Star on Aug. 28, 2010.

The basic challenge is that information is often unreliable and sources are hard to find.

In the past two weeks, the damsel in distress has been Juan Tamayo, who, if not quite grizzled, is about as veteran a reporter as you will find from the days when reporters were mostly scuffed-shoe males.

In two major front-page articles in The Herald and El Nuevo Herald, he reported on the divisions between Fidel and Raúl Castro in one and, in the other, about apparent plans in the Obama administration to lift some travel restrictions to the island.

Careful readers will note that the articles rely largely on sources who are either unnamed in Washington or once-removed from decision makers in Havana.

For some information, Tamayo went swimming in the turbulent waters of the Cuban exile community, where there are many informed experts, and also many axes to grind, too.

Can we trust the articles? The question takes on particular weight because The Herald is the country’s leading mainstream media source on Cuba, and both stories dealt with major matters.

Here is the top of one: A clearly revived Fidel Castro marks his 84th birthday Friday, officially out of government yet holding veto power over brother Raúl’s plans for economic reforms and hopes for improved U.S. relations.

That much is pretty certain, said analysts in Cuba and abroad who have watched Fidel make a dozen unusually public appearances after a near-fatal health crisis in 2006 that forced him out of the limelight.

What remains less clear is the balance of power between Fidel and Raúl, amid reports of tensions between the brothers and hints that the succession from the older to the younger Castro is far from settled.

Here is the beginning of the other: The Obama administration will soon ease some restrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba and other sanctions following Havana’s promise to free political prisoners, according to people close to the administration.

Two people told El Nuevo Herald on Friday the decision has been made and will be announced in the next two weeks. Another said he has heard the reports but cautioned they could be trial balloons.

Who are these “analysts in Cuba and abroad” who know about the mysterious power relations between Fidel and Raúl? Quite possibly, only the two brothers know.

Tamayo named five sources. One was Vladimiro Roca, a dissident in Havana itself and son of a founder of the Cuban Communist Party. The report cited statements by Cuban Cardinal Jaime Ortega to The Washington Post, plus an unnamed “Cuba analyst who asked for anonymity to protect his sources” about what the cardinal told U.S. officials in a recent visit to Washington.

Armando F. Mastrapa, a blogger on Cuba’s political-military affairs, was quoted. So was Domingo Amuchastegui, a former foreign policy analyst with Cuba’s Interior Ministry now living in Miami. Norberto Fuentes, a former member of the Castro brothers’ inner circle who now lives in Miami, was the last of the analysts.

I don’t know any of them, and I suspect few readers do either. We are asked to take Tamayo at his word that these named sources — and one unnamed one — have reliable, informed insights.

The American democratic government is more open than the Cuban dictatorship, yet Tamayo used all unnamed sources for the Washington revelation. He wrote, moreover, that the sources were “close to the administration,” not even in it. He added: “All asked for anonymity because they did not want to be seen as preempting a White House announcement.”

Tamayo did get an administration statement, from Mike Hammer, spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, but it neither confirmed nor denied Tamayo’s information. Tamayo also got a number of on-the-record responses from political and other leaders. His exclusive story later was copied by other news outlets.

We will know in a few weeks if the administration will indeed ease travel restrictions to Cuba. Tamayo was careful to pass on the caution from one source who said some of the information might be a “trial balloon” to test what the political reaction might be.

We may not know about the relation between the elderly Castro brothers until after they die, if then.

But we as readers want to know what we can now. The Castro government usually refuses to allow Herald reporters into the country, and so they regularly sneak in.

Tamayo told me that he has been covering Cuba off and on since 1978. He said that every day, concerning Cuba, he reads some five to 10 unsolicited reports, a half dozen blogs, Granma, Juventud Rebelde and mainstream news sources. He has built up a string of sources he trusts in both countries. He said he is careful to vet that they are not simply circulating rumors among themselves. Tamayo said that he sat on some of the information concerning the brothers for months until he got enough corroboration.

“Cuba is one of most opaque countries in the world,” Tamayo said, but “the Straits of Florida are not an insurmountable barrier.”

“There is much more of a flow of information than one imagines,” he said. “Are my sources always right? Probably not, but at least you get a sense of what is being talked about in the country.”

Tamayo, who has been an editor and foreign correspondent at The Herald, is now a reporter at El Nuevo Herald whose work appears in both papers.

“We have always strived for on-the-record sourcing,” Manny Garcia, executive editor of El Nuevo, told me. “We know it’s a matter of credibility. There are certain beats — in this case Cuba — where getting people on the record on the island is harder. The same holds true with the long-standing battle of the Beltway to get D.C. sources to speak for the record.”

Garcia said that reporters and editors are extra cautious on Cuba stories because Herald readers analyze them “line by line.”

“The advantage we have is that Juan has decades of experience dealing with these thorny stories,” Garcia said. “He reports to City Editor Andres Reynaldo, who also is a Cubanologist so to speak, as are our desk editors.”

This will get me in trouble with the journalism establishment and some readers, but I think that Tamayo and The Herald bent over further than needed to explain their use of anonymous sources. It doesn’t help me to know that some unnamed source didn’t want to upstage the White House, for example.

Such explanations have become de rigueur in recent years as a way to build trust with readers, but they are as formulaic as the old “sources say.”

The Herald is right to avoid anonymous sources, but I trust Tamayo’s stories because he tells me what he doesn’t know as much as what he does, with an evident sense of honesty, deep information and intelligence that leads me to trust him.

Some gurus says that the future of the news business is one in which reporters, not companies, will be brands. These two stories support that possibility.

This column was originally published in The Miami Herald on Aug. 22, 2010.

Look away now if you are easily offended. This column is going to deal in foul language and, in accordance with our editorial code, I won’t be sprinkling it with asterisks but will spell them out. You have been warned.

In nearly 10 years in this chair, I have avoided the thankless task of writing on this subject. Repeat the words complained of and you are accused of gratuitousness; rail against them and you are told you are prim and out of touch, but letters and emails sent after the Observer published an interview last month with actor and comedian Ricky Gervais have persuaded me finally to address the paper’s use of profanity.

The interview acknowledged that Gervais had become a global phenomenon with a comedy empire that reaches millions but, we were told, he is known to be a control freak and has to have the sometimes foul last word, some of which we quoted.

Rebecca Culling was typical in her objection to finding the words fuck and cunt in the interview. “Just why do your have to print such language?” she asks. “Surely it cannot be too difficult to asterisk out the middle of the words? You can’t tell me that reading this kind of language does not encourage people to use it themselves, especially children.”

Our editorial code attempts to tackle these points: “Respect for the reader demands that we should not casually use words that are likely to offend. Use swearwords only when absolutely necessary to the facts of a piece, or to portray a character in an article; there is almost never a case in which we need to use a swearword outside direct quotes. The stronger the swearword, the harder we ought to think about using it.

Avoid using in headlines, pull quotes and standfirsts and never use asterisks, which are just a cop-out.”
Is this guidance being followed? Let’s look at the figures. Bluntly, up to 8 August the Observer published 272 articles with the word fuck and 13 using the word cunt. In contrast, the Independent on Sunday ran 122 pieces containing fuck and 10 cunt.

The Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph were profanity-free zones, so the Observer has the dubious distinction of being the Sunday market leader – but before you think it is sinking inexorably into the mire, figures for the previous year suggest that the paper is beginning to clean up its act. In 2008-09, fuck appeared 293 times and cunt 25, so we can note a modest circumspection.

Nevertheless, this could be explained by the demise of three monthly magazines (Observer Woman, Sport Monthly and Music Monthly), which were prone to running pieces quoting the foul-mouthed without apparent regard to the guidance that they “should not casually use words that are likely to offend”. Too often, it seemed that a desire to be cool outweighed the obligation to think who might be reading.

You’ve probably guessed by now that I hate seeing swearwords in print. I certainly don’t pretend to be pure and unblemished in my own discourse, but I have a visceral dislike of seeing these words in the pages of a newspaper that is read by all ages.

I don’t go along with the argument that the Observer is a grown-up newspaper for grown-up people. Everything we write appears on the internet and is accessible, free, to anyone, whether they are nine or 90.

And how many children cover the kitchen table with pages of the paper when they get their paints out at home? (An expletive-peppered interview with Gordon Ramsay in our sister paper was once read aloud by an eight-year-old in a school art class.)

I would far rather we adopted the policy of some of our rivals and expunged swearing entirely. But occasionally – and I believe the Gervais interview to be a very rare example – it is necessary to report verbatim what somebody says if you are to give a truly accurate picture of their character.

Gervais has a massive following and yet how many of his fans know that he finds it not only acceptable but also hilarious to refer to Ian Hislop as “an ugly, pug-faced cunt” or who says of his critics that they are “jealous lying cunts whose lives haven’t turned out like they’d hoped and they want everyone to be as unhappy as they are”?

It’s unpleasant to read, but it tells you just what a nasty piece of work someone can be… and that’s the job of a newspaper.

This column was originally published in The Observer on Aug. 22, 2010.

Cleveland.com, The Plain Dealer’s Web affiliate, has been around for 15 years. But until only a few years ago, the paper’s newsroom still considered it to be so foreign that we often resisted putting our best stories on the website until after they had appeared in print. Didn’t want to tip our hand.

By contrast, today’s competition for breaking news is measured by the stopwatch rather than the calendar, so now our reporters operate under a “Four in Five” rule. That means a reporter who gets a breaking news story is expected to post at least four paragraphs on cleveland.com within five minutes of getting the news.
The story is then updated throughout the day.

The partnership seems to be working for readers. A current study by the Scarborough Research company identified the Cleveland-Akron region as the top combined print-Web newspaper audience in the country, with 84.7 percent reporting that they read a newspaper or visit a newspaper website weekly. That’s 1 percentage point ahead of Boston.

Editors can measure their online audience in ways that their print-only predecessors never could. In the “Front Page” days, the only numbers editors had were how many papers they sold each day, so they relied on their gut, the ringing telephone and peering over the shoulders at the lunch counter.

But today’s online editors are awash in numbers. They know how many readers they have (Cleveland.com is the dominant news website in Ohio), what they read and how long they read it.

For example, the folks at Cleveland.com know that during the month of July, more than 4 million people came calling on their website. They know this because for the last 18 months they have been using a measuring device called Omniture, which plants a piece of code into every page that’s built on the site, and counts every time there’s a call on that page.

The technology has only been available since January 2009, but even in that short time, the increase has been dramatic: up about a million over the January 2009 number. Since newspapers and websites stay in business by selling advertising, that’s a lot of eyes to lure website advertisers.

We know not only how many, but we know when.

On a typical day, says Jean Dubail, who has been The Plain Dealer’s assistant managing editor/online since 2006, traffic on Cleveland.com starts picking up about 6 a.m., peaks at about 9 a.m., drops off a bit, peaks again at about noon, experiences an early-afternoon trough and then peaks again between 3 and 5 p.m.

After that, it drops off steadily through the evening. (Hmmm. No problem if that seems to coincide with the normal workday, including a midday siesta . . . we’ll take our readers in whatever cubicles we can find them.)
Of course, what’s in the news sometimes drives the traffic. On July 8, the pattern began as usual, with the number of visitors climbing through the morning and hovering around 200,000 through the afternoon. Then at 9 p.m. — right around the time LeBron James was announcing “The Decision” — the number shot up to nearly a half-million and stayed there for a couple of hours.

Speaking of sports — not only do we know how many and when, but we know what. And what people seem to be most interested in is sports, specifically the Browns.

The daily reports on which stories drew the most online interest almost always show the biggest numbers coming from sports, which accounts for a full 40 percent of the website traffic. Some of us have joked that if life were discovered on Mars the same day the Browns signed a backup offensive tackle, the Martians would finish sixth in the website ranking, behind five Browns stories.

Last weekend, for example, the most popular story on the website was about Charles Barkley criticizing James for his decision, followed by a Bud Shaw column on the subject. The two pieces totaled almost 100,000 views. The next seven on the list were about the Browns, before a news story broke through: a story about a police dog dying in a hot car.

So we know how many, when and what. Why people click on the stories they do is a bit trickier. We’ll try to unravel that mystery a bit next week.

This column was originally published in the Cleveland Pain Dealer on Aug. 22, 2010.

Campaign claims by Robert Bentley and Bradley Byrne during Alabama’s Republican runoff for governor were analyzed in a front-page article by Daniel Gaddy on July 10.

The first review of statements by Democrat Ron Sparks and Republican Bentley, nominees for governor in the general election, appeared July 29, when the rating system was introduced in two articles by Gaddy.

Since The Star closed its Montgomery bureau, the paper has made little effort to cover statewide elections other than reporting appearances by candidates in this area and publishing Associated Press stories. This new approach should make a real contribution to area voters’ understanding of the issues.

In the July 29 stories, Sparks’ campaign spokesman commented on the issues raised. The article said The Star couldn’t reach Bentley’s staff. The story should have been held until the Bentley campaign had the same opportunity of comment.

Fairness in reporting

In his July 25 column, Star Editor Bob Davis wrote, “…credibility in what we publish is the gold standard.” The Star works hard to ensure that the facts it reports are accurate. There are other aspects to credibility. Is the information presented fairly? Does it reflect the views and actions of all parties involved?

Fairness can be difficult. All the information may be coming from one party. How can the article be fair to other parties? It is not enough to report, as The Star too often does, that other interested parties “were not available.” Sometimes the story can be delayed while the reporter seeks additional information, or there can be later stories providing balance to the coverage.

The Star published a front-page story headlined, “Local Vietnam veteran drummed out of VFW.” The 25-inch story described how Ken Rollins, a local leader of the Vietnam Veterans of America and a member of the Alabama Board of Veterans Affairs, was suspended for life from the Veterans of Foreign Wars by the Alabama VFW. The charges against Rollins were discussed by his supporters and denied by Rollins.

The article, by Laura Camper, provided a strong picture of an injustice done to a prominent local man. Presumably the facts given are accurate, although the article gave no indication that The Star reviewed documents about the charges or the hearings. The VFW is a respected veterans organization. What does it say about all this? Well, the article reported, “The state office of Veterans of Foreign Wars did not return phone calls about the disciplinary action” (July 9, 1A).

The VFW hearings about Rollins were held in February and May. This was hardly a breaking news story that had to be published that day. Given a few days and some effort, it is highly probable that VFW officials could be contacted.

Star sports writers wrote two articles about sports agents from the Southeastern Conference Media Days in Hoover. They included comments by Alabama Coach Nick Saban about “rogue agents” and “pimps” (July 22, 1B; July 23, 1B). The Star followed with “The story’s other side,” by Michael Casagrande, about a sports agent who is working to improve “the incredibly flawed system….” It rounded out the coverage (July 25, 1C).

Story needed facts

“Golf course not bringing in the green,” by Camper, noted the problems of the Cane Creek Golf Course at McClellan (July 8, 1A). It’s an interesting story, but too much information was left out.

It was reported that Cane Creek costs the city of Anniston $184,000 a year. This is what percent of the total budget of the Parks and Recreation Department? How much does it cost to operate the golf course? The story quoted some players as complaining about increased rates, but readers were not told how much was the increase, what are the present rates and how they compare with rates at five other public golf courses in the area.

Some fine stories in July:

• The July 4th edition. It is hard to find a fresh way to observe our national holiday. The Star did it well, using interviews with 10 foreign-born residents and contributions by Star readers, by Tim Lockette and others.

• “Law sets out municipal lines of authority,” a useful analysis of who has authority to do what in Anniston’s unique form of city manager government, by Camper (July 13, 1A).

• “His brother’s keeper,” a poignant, courageous story about a little boy with a rare disease and a possible cure through his little brother, by Brett Buckner, photos by Trent Penny (July 25, 1C).

This column was originally published in the Anniston Star on July 30, 2010.

I recently returned from a long vacation to hundreds of e-mails and letters from readers and scores of telephone messages I am still trying to return. Among the written comments were these:

• “Two or three stories in the Express-News, in connection with the appointment of a new CEO/General Manager for CPS Energy have referred to CPS Energy as the nation’s largest municipally owned electric utility. I believe this is flat-out wrong. …

“Just an FYI. Keep up the good work — the E-N … has weathered the media downturn better than many other papers. I especially appreciate your willingness to undo cutbacks when you see they went too far — a prime example being restoring a full food/restaurant section into the Sunday paper after it was excised from Wednesday.”

James Maney

• “Hi Bob — I want to congratulate you and the Express-News on your great coverage of the voter intimidation fiasco in Pennsylvania. Your in-depth reporting is beyond comparison. Of course, it really is a minor issue. It only has to do with a citizen’s ability to freely exercise his/her right to vote, one of the fundamental principles of our country. Who in the world would ever be interested in that!

“Pretty soon you and the Express-News will become as irrelevant as the United Nations. And you will only have yourselves to blame. Keep up the great work! You are truly committed to your calling and to journalistic integrity. I hope you can walk around with your head held high and proud of what you do!”

Edward Kowalsky

Maney suggested the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is larger than CPS, and research by Express-News energy reporter Tracy Idell Hamilton confirmed that. Maney’s letter resulted in the Express-News amending its archives. That will make our people who write and edit CPS Energy stories more accurate, and his input is welcome.

Kowalsky’s sarcastic missive, on the other hand, vastly overrated a story even conservative radio yakkers have abandoned. And his overwrought comment prompted this overwrought, smarmy comment from me:

“Thanks. Yes, I am proud of what I do and proud that the Founders thought enough of what journalists do to ensure protections for us in the U.S. Constitution.

“What do you do? How do you like it when people talk to you like what you do is worthless? Not a very nice message, Ed. You need to improve your people skills. But thanks for taking the time to let us know what you think.”

Bottom line: If you seek to criticize, this newspaper or anything, why not do it civilly? Do as Maney did, not as Kowalsky — and I — did.

A man died here this week in a road rage incident because he stopped to pick flowers for his wife and the guy in the car behind him didn’t like it (Page 1, Thursday). The temperatures are rising. Human beings need to stay cool.

As another Express-News reader, clinical psychologist Dr. Tova Rubin, said, in a Friday letter to the editor: “He who angers you, conquers you.”

This column was originally published in the San Antonio Express-News on Aug. 8, 2010.