All right, readers. Time to put on your ethics thinking caps again. It’s Round 2 for our Journalism Ethical Scenarios.
When last we met in this particular setting, we discussed Scenario 1, whose specifics dealt with the possible Klan involvement of a deceased town father. (The column discussing the first scenario is still available on the www.-courierjournal.com Web site.)
The centerpiece for today’s discussion — which comes to us from the Media Management Center, associated with Northwestern University — has to do with the tricky territory of the personal and the professional, and some of what constitutes conflict of interest for the practicing journalist.
To refresh your memories, the scenario and important questions from The Newsroom Brain: A Working Guide to Journalism Decisions, and used with permission:
”Your education reporter wants to march in a pro-choice rally. Because abortion is not part of her beat, she argues, it is not a conflict of interest. Further, she states, she has no intention of ever working on the social issues beat that encompasses the abortion debate at your paper. Your reporter states that she never gave up her rights as a citizen in a democracy when she became a journalist. But the paper has always had a policy against political participation that represented a conflict of interest. Is this a conflict of interest?”
Questions to ask yourselves: ”How might a conflict of interest matter to readers? Is it unfair to prohibit a reporter’s participation to keep up appearances before a public who will probably never know? Do you let the reporter attend?
Readers were not monolithic in their responses to this dilemma.
Jennifer Humphreys: ”My feeling is the employee should not participate in the pro-choice rally for two reasons: First, her job at the newspaper clearly comes with the policy of nonconflict of interest. She can maintain her personal views and privately support the movement through contributions or in low-key ways. But to attend a rally is a very public event. As a public figure, she would be representing her newspaper indirectly and could very much cause undue harm to the organization for which she works. Secondly, as an education writer, there could very well be instances in the future where the pro-choice issue intersects with education — so she cannot say with truth that she will never be able to work on that beat.”
Earl Stigger: ”I am sure The Courier-Journal would let her attend since they are clearly pro-choice. I doubt that they would nod if it were pro-life; it would be considered a conflict. I would let her attend as a private citizen in either case. She would have no license to report in either case, nor could she carry anything connecting her with the paper.”
Ron Wolf: ”This area is a little gray. Sex education is a subject in many, if not most, schools. Various districts still have discussions as to the contents of the sex education curriculum. When reporting on this area, as part of the normal course of duty, can she remain completely objective in her reporting?
”Now the gray part. I firmly believe that everyone has a right to take part in the political process. I don’t care what your occupation is, everyone has the right to support a candidate, issue, cause, etc., as long as that effort isn’t done on the employer’s time.”
The readers bring up important points in what can be a frustrating argument: Sometimes beats, or areas of coverage, are not clearly delineated. Yes, reporters are people with private lives, but they represent more than themselves. They also represent an institution. Credibility is as much about newsgathering standards as it is about what gets into the newspaper.
I asked Courier-Journal Metro Editor Jean Porter to respond to this scenario:
”The reporter is wrong. She did give up some of her rights when she made journalism her career. We have an obligation to avoid conflicts of interest — and even the appearance of conflict.
”So as reporters and editors, we don’t sign petitions; we don’t get involved in political campaigns; we don’t publicly protest against something; or publicly lobby for something else.
”That’s not to say we don’t have views that we share privately with friends, families and co-workers, that we don’t vote, or that we cannot be involved in our community. But, we must avoid taking a public stand on controversial issues.
”This reporter could participate in a breast cancer awareness walk, for example — there is no controversy there. But attending a pro-choice rally is a public stand on an issue that still divides most communities. And, high-profile or not, she may well be identified by sources at the rally as a reporter for the newspaper, and seeing her take a stand like this, a source might incorrectly infer that her stand is the newspaper’s stand.
”In addition, although she may be on the education beat, there is no guarantee that she’ll remain on that beat forever; nor is there any guarantee that a reporter won’t be pulled off his or her beat to cover another issue — a debate about abortion, for example.
”If an anti-abortion advocate saw this reporter at a ‘prochoice’ rally and then later was interviewed by her, he might fear that his views were not going to be handled fairly.
”Journalists often are people with strong views on issues. Our charge, however, is to do our best to keep those views out of our news decisions, stories and photographs.”
The source material from the Media Management Center includes information about a lawsuit that dealt with this sort of conflict-of-interest issue:
”On Oct. 6, 1997, The Supreme Court rejected without comment an appeal from Sandra Nelson, who lost her reporting job (she was made an editor) with The News Tribune in Tacoma, Wash., after she refused to stop her off-the-job political activities, including work on behalf of gay rights. The rejection left intact a ruling giving all newspapers in that state the same authority to act as The News Tribune did. Editors watched the case closely as a test of a newspaper’s right to protect its credibility by exercising control over the off-duty activities of its editorial employees.”
Which is not to say this offthe-job net doesn’t rankle reporters and editors who wish to become involved in an issue.
Personal experience: As long as I’ve had a child, I’ve been a school volunteer. Once we settled in Kentucky, I wanted to be a member of my daughter’s sitebased decision-making team. After talking it over with my boss, Executive Editor Bennie Ivory, I withdrew my name from contention. His point was that something could come out of that committee that the newspaper would report on, and there I’d be in the middle of it as one of the decision-makers. Although that situation appeared to be a long shot, I knew it was conceivable, so I dropped out. I am sorry not to be involved to that extent, but I understand why it wasn’t a good idea. Instead, I’ll be chaperoning dances (much to my daughter’s chagrin) and helping some students with reading.
Which brings us back to the bigger point of conflicts of interests for journalists, or even the appearance of conflict. Again, from A Working Guide to Journalism Decisions:
”Critics (of the no-marching stance) raise two points: What if readers never know — after all, would you recognize a reporter leading a march? And isn’t it more honest to come clean about political positions so we can better evaluate a reporter’s work?
”But these objections miss the largest point. In the first case, the overwhelming possibility of getting away with something doesn’t mean it’s acceptable. The newspaper must constantly guard not only things that seem to be biased, but also situations that can create bias.”
We’ll get to Scenario 3 next week.
