$20,000.
That’s what two reporters for the Salt Lake City Tribune were paid by the National Enquirer for information about the Elizabeth Smart investigation.
In the end, 20-grand seems a pittance.
The reporters and their organization paid so much more for a sordid mess that began with checkbook journalism and ended with careers and reputations cashed out.
Last week, the reporters who sold the information, and lied to their supervisors about the extent of their involvement with the Enquirer, were fired. The editor of the newspaper who supervised their work and refrained from firing them until he learned of their further deceptions, has resigned. And the remaining staffers at the Trib, who had nothing to do with any of it, are trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Like the fabled egg of the precarious perch, the credibility of a news organization is both strong and fragile. It can withstand some squeezing, but enough gravity can chip away at, or shatter, its shell, perhaps even its essence.
In our business, credibility is our most prized possession. It is nurtured day by day, story by story, headline by headline, photograph by photograph. It must be earned. It cannot be bought. It is at the heart of what we do.
As stated by authors Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in The Elements of Journalism, “Rather than selling customers content, newspeople are building a relationship with their audience based on their values, on their judgment, authority, coverage, professionalism and commitment to community. . . .”
So when journalists mess up big time, it’s a big deal to us and it’s a big deal to a lot of you. (Even when the error or inaccuracy is minor, in the overall scheme of things, it makes an impression — sometimes an indelible one. I have spoken with readers who can quote an offending headline 10 years after it saw print.)
Some of the major messes make news themselves, {GAa la the Tribune.
In recent weeks, that’s also been the case with the Los Angeles Times and a manipulated war photograph.
And it currently is the case with The New York Times and a fired reporter who apparently made up or plagiarized portions of prominent stories, including some of the newspaper’s coverage of the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings.
Published accounts says The Times has five reporters and three editors deconstructing all the reporter’s stories in an attempt to discover how far-reaching the problem was and is.
And that’s the good news, says Kelly McBride, an ethics faculty member at the Poynter Institute, a journalism training group and think-tank.
While such episodes might damage the credibility of the news media or particular organizations in the short run, McBride said the resulting conversation about standards and practices is productive and goes toward building credibility — as long as the news media are not arrogant or obstructionist about their own failings.
“It (the conversation) has more of an educating effect,” McBride said. “It serves the industry and it serves the reader, who learns how to consume news and how to judge what kind of newsroom it gets its news from.”
I’d like to continue that conversation here by directing you to a great Web site designed for journalists and news consumers alike, www.journalism.org
The site is maintained by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which is, as stated on the site, “an initiative by journalists to clarify and raise the standards of American journalism.”
One of my favorite things on the site is the Citizens Bill of Journalism Rights, and I have the organization’s permission to reference portions of the bill (visit the site to read the entire document):
1. We should expect, above all, truthfulness. The integrity of the reporting should be obvious. The process of verification — how news people made their decisions and why — should be transparent in the work so we can judge the value and fairness of the information for ourselves. What elements would such a piece of reporting contain? . . .
2. We should expect proof that the journalists’ first loyalty is to citizens: This means stories should answer our needs as citizens, not just the interests of insiders, or the political or economic system. There should be a demonstrated effort to understand and reflect the whole community. . . .
3. We should expect journalists to maintain independence from those they cover: It should be clear that commentators, columnists and journalists of opinion are serving the citizen debate rather than the narrow interests of a faction or a particular outcome. . . .
4. We have the right to expect that journalists will monitor power and give voice to the voiceless: The press should use its watchdog power to uncover things that are important and new and that change community thinking. The news media should not squander this constitutional freedom on sideshow or pseudo scandals that research shows may build an audience. . . .
5. We have a right to a forum for public criticism and problem solving: News providers should offer several channels for public interaction — be it letters, e-mail, phone contacts, or public forums — including mechanisms for readers and viewers to make story suggestions or raise criticisms. . . .
6. We have a right to expect news that is proportional and relevant: Journalists should be aware of our basic dilemma as citizens — that we have a need for timely and deep knowledge of important issues and trends, but we lack the time and means to access most of this crucial information. Thus journalists should use their special access to put the material they gather in a context that will engage our attention and also allow us to see trends and events in proportion to their true significance in our lives. . . .
These standards, the ones that cement our credibility with you, our partners in what we do, is worth a lot more than $20,000.
They are, in fact, priceless.
Al Cross reminder . . . Veteran Courier-Journal political reporter and columnist Al Cross will answer your questions about politics and political coverage on the newspaper’s Web site from 10 to 11 a.m. tomorrow. Visit www.courier-journal.com to post your questions in advance and to see Cross’ answers tomorrow.
Better than Hallmark . . . These are not exactly greeting card blurbs, but they speak to the essence of motherhood to me. I dedicate them today to my mother, the strongest and dearest person I know, and to all the mothers who change the world, word by word, deed by deed, child by child.
“Women understand the problems of the nation better than men for women have solved the problems of human life from embryo to birth and from birth to maturity. Women are the survival kit of the human race.” — Councillor Mandizvidza of Mucheke Township, Zimbabwe
And: “Each woman is far from average in the daily heroics of her life, even though she may never receive a moment’s recognition in history.” — from Women and Work (Newsage Press)
And, finally and forever: “Women once knew their place — and so do we. Our home is the universe. Our task is anything we set our minds and hearts to.” — Maya V. Patel
