The refrain I hear most often is simple: The Kansas City Star needs to cover the campaigns vigorously, with an emphasis on holding politicians accountable for sticking to the facts.

Late last week, reader Steve Weeks reflected a perennial concern: “When is The Star going to start fact checking political ads and calling out those who distort and lie? I always thought that was a primary responsibility of the Fourth Estate. My question also applies to broadcast media. It’s beginning to seem that profit for owners, and advance of an agenda, is all that counts.”

I asked the editor and reporters who cover that beat, and they tell me they will likely do those types of stories, but there’s no concrete plan for a schedule. Reporter Steve Kraske made a good observation that I hadn’t really thought of: “I think those things are very important if only because that’s how most people intersect with politics.”

The general consensus among the people I talk to seems to be that political ads are getting nastier and stretching the truth further every election cycle. I’m not so sure historians would necessarily agree with that assessment, but I’ve certainly seen my share of claims from across the political spectrum that either tiptoe to the edge of accuracy, or occasionally plunge right over the cliff. And I do agree with Weeks that journalists should be activist in demonstrating when any politician’s assertions distort the truth, whether from a lack of context or a simple misrepresentation of facts.

There are numerous websites devoted to these types of checks. The Tampa Bay Times’ PolitiFact.com and the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.org are two of the best known, and they have both earned praise (and yes, also some knocks) from the left and the right through the years for their work.

But those sites and others like them don’t often look at the issues in Kansas City’s back yard. Like the cable news stations and talk radio shows that steer the majority of the country’s political discourse, they build their audience on the national topics that affect the biggest numbers of people.

“I really hope (The Star isn’t) ramping up to give us the same thing we see on TV all night with these elections,” said a caller recently. Instead, she called on The Star to highlight the issues that really matter to the readership’s immediate area.

“One thing I really miss is the old ‘How They Voted’ box that used to be in the Sunday paper,” she said. “It showed us quickly how our local representatives voted and I looked for it every week. I really wish (editors) would bring it back.” As longtime readers of this column have heard before, that’s not a unique request.

A caller on Friday offered another good reminder for upcoming election coverage: Don’t forget there are more than just two candidates or two parties. “I was wondering why I haven’t been reading about Ron Paul nearly as much as Mitt Romney,” he said. “Even if he doesn’t have a real chance of winning the overall (election), he is still winning (delegates), and the paper should write about it.”

All of these debates about where to devote coverage comes down to a question of newsroom resources, of course, and I understand the editor’s dilemma. On the other hand, I think there’s really something to the chicken-and-egg argument about smaller parties and candidates that some sideline as niche interests.

I’ve heard from many readers who identify with one major party’s economic agenda but the other’s on social issues. “If you don’t report on it, how will people find out about it?” asked one. Fair point.

How can readers best hold media to account?

Is it time for a national press council in Canada?

These are not hypothetical questions. They are some of the critical questions being asked in a public survey on the future of Canada’s press councils that is now seeking your input.

I hope you will respond to this online survey. If you’ve ever had concerns about the Star’s journalism or been unsatisfied with the response to your complaint from either the Star or the Ontario Press Council, now is your chance to speak up.

If you understand that freedom of the press is a Canadian Charter value but also believe — as we do at the Star — that with this freedom comes responsibility and accountability, this survey gives you opportunity to have your say on the most effective ways to hold the Star and other news organizations to account at a time when the digital revolution is rapidly reshaping media and giving you many more ways of consuming and shaping the news.

The survey wants to know how you express your concerns when you are unhappy with a news organization and looking for some accountability. Do you write a letter to the editor, log on to online comments, post your beef on Facebook or tweet your complaint to your followers?

Are you aware that for some 40 years press councils have existed across Canada to consider your complaints about the news? Or do you consider the press councils that now operate in Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic Canada, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia to be largely irrelevant?

What do you think is the role of a press council anyway? Should it adjudicate and mediate complaints about the news or take a more active role in educating citizens about journalistic ethics and the standards you should expect?

This survey is part of a study on the future of Canada’s six regional press councils launched recently by Newspapers Canada with research conducted by Ryerson University’s journalism research centre, under the direction of Ryerson School of Journalism chair Ivor Shapiro. The study is supported in part by an arms-length personal donation by John Honderich, chair of the board of Torstar Corp.

This is an important undertaking at a time when press councils across Canada are floundering with some news organizations even abandoning their memberships. Last July, the Toronto Sun and 26 other SunMedia newspapers pulled out of the Ontario Press Council.

The Star is a founding and committed member of the Ontario Press Council, which was launched in July 1972 to uphold press freedom and ethical standards in journalism and hear complaints from newspaper readers. The council, intended to serve as “a bridge between the press and the people,” was created following the 1970 Special Senate Committee on Mass Media’s recommendation for a national press council.

In that pre-Internet era, newspaper publishers favoured a regional approach to accountability. Now, through this study, Newspapers Canada has put the issue of a national media accountability body back on the table, asking in the survey how effective you think a national press council might be and what challenges this might present in this country.

Certainly the time seems right for action on Canada’s mechanisms of media accountability.

In a 2010 paper, “Existential Crisis! Canada’s press councils’ struggle for relevance in a new media age,” Concordia University’s Brian Gabrial wrote that our press councils are in “serious, if not fatal, trouble” and have become largely irrelevant. His thesis: A “credibility gap” exists because councils have done a poor job of informing the public of their purpose.

This current study aims to engage the public in the process of finding the way ahead. Responses to the online survey will help determine the direction of further research.

“We’re seeking input from anyone with an interest in the issue,” said Ryerson researcher Lisa Taylor, a lawyer and multimedia journalism instructor. “That means hearing not just from journalists and other people in the media business, but from the public at large.

“If you care about the public function of journalism, and how journalism can best be accountable to the people it serves, we want to hear from you.”

The anonymous survey won’t take too much of your time — about 10 to 15 minutes, depending on whether you add comments or simply click through the responses that best reflect your views.

It’s online now at https://survey.ryerson.ca/s?s=2005. Preliminary results will be presented April 27 at the Newspapers Canada annual conference called Ink and Beyond so you’ll need to respond to the survey by April 23.

What do you think? Are news organizations A) Very accountable or B) Not at all? Your opinion matters so please weigh in.

This column was originally published in The Toronto Star on April 13, 2012.

Is there irony in Thloloe being honoured at the moment a radical shake-up is on the cards that could lead to the abolition of his office?

There is certainly irony in honour being bestowed by President Jacob Zuma, who has had a particularly fractious relationship with the media in the midst of a sustained ANC campaign for much tighter regulation of the press.

The commission’s proposals are, of course, a response to that campaign, and it looks likely that the media will experience a move from self- to independent regulation, with a larger role for the public, fines for errant newspapers, tighter restrictions on reporting on children and other measures.

The question many will ask is whether such changes will satisfy the ANC. But, as Thloloe has said, this is entirely the wrong question. The answer is almost certainly “no” and the threat of a media appeals tribunal will be kept in readiness to be deployed when it is expedient. A policy of appeasement is simply a slippery slope leading ever downwards.

The more important question is whether the proposals will improve the quality of journalism — and that is much harder to answer. I am not at all sure that the mechanisms created by the media to regulate itself along with the existing legal measures and other mechanisms of accountability should be thrown out.

Where there are weaknesses in the profession, they seem to have less to do with the systems of accountability than with aspects of the media business. There is undoubtedly a lack of diversity and newsrooms have shrunk dramatically while also having to cope with additional demands as employers chase online audiences.

In any event, the labels are not precise. The current system has significant involvement by public representatives, whereas any alternative will have to have strong media involvement, at the very least at the level of financing. Who else but publishers would pay? The only other option would be official funding and that would take us into the terrain of state regulation.

Although the structures and processes put in place are undoubtedly important, perhaps more decisive will be the calibre of people entrusted with running them.

The current and much-maligned system has been fortunate to have Thloloe at the helm and as its public face. He has lived the history of the South African press and has an involvement in leadership roles that stretches back more than 50 years.

Perhaps one can identify three distinct periods in that history, starting with the time of the long struggle against apartheid.

Thloloe came to journalism from an activist tradition, participating in the Pan-Africanist Congress’s anti-pass march that ended with the Sharpeville massacre in 1960 and being jailed at the young age of 17. Detention, torture and banning followed over the decades, as did combining practical journalism with a role in organising journalists’ unions.

A second period followed during the time of transition when major media institutions sought to transform themselves in line with the changes in the political landscape of the mid-1990s.

Thloloe played a central role in establishing a new ethos as head of news at the SABC before moving into a similar position at e.tv, then still new, and helping to establish and lead the South African National Editors’ Forum.

That period of transformation shaded into the present and a new hostility between the media and the ANC. Thloloe has been described as the media’s elder statesman and this period put him in a dual role: acting against poor journalism in his role as ombudsman and defending media freedom.

Perhaps the real connection between the commission’s report and the richly deserved honour given to Thloloe this week is that it may mark the start of a new period of institutional arrangements regarding accountability.

This column was originally  published in the Mail & Guardian on April 26, 2012.

The  publication of the photos drew the most reaction, ranging from outrage to praise.

The debate was especially vigorous in the military community.

Here’s what a few readers had to say to The Times:

Angela Hughes wrote to the editor: “I am a retired officer from the U.S. Air Force.  I served in Iraq in 2007 before the surge when things were really violent and awful.  Those of us who serve in the Armed Forces do so freely and most of us are honorable and love our country and everything it stands for, including your right to publish whatever you believe to be newsworthy. However, all of us are human and I doubt very seriously you have any idea what it is like to be in a combat zone …  By publishing the photos of the soldiers in Afghanistan, you have willingly put many innocent American lives in jeopardy.  I cannot understand how this was newsworthy.”

Elizabeth Spatz offered online:  “As the wife of a service member currently serving in Afghanistan, I have to seriously question the decision to publish the photos of US personnel posing with deceased Afghans.  I’m no fan of this war and hope and pray for a speedy end and resolution. However, these photos will not get us there. Yes, the American public needs to have information and be well informed, but these images have the potential to put our already overtaxed military members under even more stress and potentially in greater danger. I feel there are other ways — call for a draft, publish pictures of US military funerals, highlight the difficulties injured vets are enduring every day.”

From Strykersville, NY,  Jamie Smith added: “As a parent of two military men, I am very upset with The Times decision to post the pictures in this article. The military personnel that I know would never condone these actions, and yet your article puts them at severe risk. When the media flaunts their “objectivity” it can stir up violence, not just against the few people who showed their lack of military discipline, but against innocent American military men and women around the world, and also friendly Afghan people.”

Julie Thomas commented online: “As the mother of a deployed U.S. soldier, I am outraged that you would put a story and photos that depict our soldiers as cold blooded killers. Unless you are in their “boots” you cannot image the pressure and stress they are under, what they just witnessed or what their “job” as a soldier calls for them to do… I fear for my son’s life every day. ”

Beth Murphy emailed to say: “I feel that there are always a few in every organization that disregard the rules. Most of our soldiers, including two of my sons, are professional, respect our country, and would lay down their life for America’s freedom…  If you are concerned with these soldiers’ actions, I suggest you report it to the proper military leaders for action.”

From Narrowsburg, N.Y., Thomas Prendergast wrote: “I am a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division and am extremely offended by the photos that you ran. Do you do these things to run down our country or are you just that smug?”

Others — many with connections to the military — had different but equally strong reactions:

Wrote John Gregory from Arcadia: “As a former public information officer of the 82nd Airborne Division, I am horrified, angered and mystified by the lack of discipline showed by troopers who posed for photos with body parts in Afghanistan. Kudos to the brave soldier who brought this sad incident to the public’s attention.”

Elizabeth Apana of San Francisco weighed in: “The argument that publishing these photos puts our troops at risk is completely false. The people in Afghanistan witnessed this happening and saw the pictures being taken. The actions of the U.S. soldiers is what has offended them, and that is what will make them angry, and rightly so. If there is retribution, it is because of the actions of these soldiers, not pictures published in the U.S. If it is the stress of sending the same troops back to the battlefield again and again, then why doesn’t the military do something about it? ”

Commented Rose James to The Times: “As a former Army officer, you and the whistleblower are right in exposing the uncivilized treatment by U.S. military personnel. One person commented that these photos should have been given to superiors and investigated internally, but nothing would have been done and a massive cover-up would have ensued. The whistleblower would have been punished and the uncivilized brutes would been congratulated.”

Added John Bute from Texas:  ”Assuming the photos are real, most of the criticism I read is nuts. I’m a Vietnam-era veteran and my father fought his way through North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France….  The security danger is to the Afghans in the pictures.”

In Long Beach, Alan Brooks commented:  ”The Times was absolutely correct in releasing the controversial war photos. This is providing needed information to  the American public who must make decisions about ongoing wars they are paying for. We must understand the price we pay as a society when we take teenagers, give them guns and teach them to kill. And then we cluck like hurt hens when there are psychological aberrations.”

 Finally, Alli Pyrah in New York, observed: “Please ignore all the hate mail you’ll get from those who would like to intimidate journalists attempting to accurately portray the U.S. military. It’s ironic that while claiming to fight for our freedoms, these troops attempt to oppress any opinions that don’t paint them in a positive light. Many of us appreciate the truthful, impartial reporting of The Times.”

This column was originally published on LATimes.com on April 20, 2012.

This is a tale of two phrases. One accompanies the conservative online media-watch site known as NewsBusters, declaring itself devoted to “exposing & combatting liberal media bias.” The other is of uncertain origin but holds that “no good deed will go unpunished.”

Both of these slogans were in play this week as NewsBusters, once again, sought to nail PBS NewsHour senior correspondent and Washington Week moderator Gwen Ifill with a journalistic misdeed.

Just last week I wrote about criticism, inspired in part by NewsBusters, of a NewsHour segment on April 9 in which Ifill described the neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida, George Zimmerman, who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, as “white.”

Now, NewsBusters has come after her again. The headline on their April 18 story by Tim Graham reads: “PBS Anchor Gwen Ifill To Emcee LGBT Fundraiser Hailing HHS Secretary’s Work on ObamaCare.”

Graham wrote, “On Thursday night, Ifill will cross another Obama line by acting as emcee for a fundraiser for the LGBT health and advocacy group the Whitman-Walker Clinic that will honor Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services for her work in implementing Obamacare.” And he published the organization’s invitation to the April 19 event, which said, in part: “Please join Gwen Ifill, managing editor of Washington Week and senior correspondent for the PBS News Hour, and the Whitman-Walker family as we honor … Sebelius for advancements in health care.”

Graham also reported that “Washington PBS superstation WETA — which produces both Ifill shows — did not return a call for comment.” They should have. I’m sure they don’t like NewsBusters, which often is critical of some aspect of the NewsHour and sometimes, in my opinion, uses strident language and alleged motivations in making their points. But when there is another side of a story it is best to tell it at the time. The explanations never really catch up.

Wemple’s on the Case

Ifill did respond both to me and to the online media blogger at The Washington Post, Erik Wemple, who seems to be on top of all such matters in a flash.

Here’s what Ifill had to say:

“This is the second or third time I’ve emceed an event for Whitman Walker. I try to do at least one pro bono event for a Washington charity I care about every year. I’ve also twice emceed events for the N Street Village women’s shelter. I accepted this invitation months ago without knowing who was getting their award. I do not serve in any capacity at WW, had no input into the awardee and did not vet it in any way. That said, when I saw they were giving the award to Secretary Sebelius, I didn’t object. I keep arms’ length from those sorts of decisions on purpose. I am trying to do a good deed, not sit as judge or jury about who they choose to honor. I am not even the one presenting the award to Secretary Sebelius. I open the event, introduce the Chief Medical Officer Ray Martins, and he presents the award. I advise guests to take part in the silent auction, and send them off to dessert, and we’re out of there by 9 if I have anything to do with it.”

She added to Wemple: “It sounds like I’m honoring her,” Ifill said of the official invitation. When, in fact, the clinic is just “using me as a draw. There’s a difference between what the invite says and what happens on that stage tonight.”

Wemple has already opined on this episode as follows: “Unless I come across a NewsHour puff piece on the HHS National Action Plan to prevent health-care-associated infections in the coming weeks, I’m disinclined to grouse about Ifill’s charity appearance.”

And, as I sat down to write this morning, the first email in my inbox was from Kelley Jones of Sacramento, Calif. She wrote: “Please do not validate Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the Media Research Center, with any form of response to his criticism of Gwen Ifill over her decision to serve as emcee at Thursday’s annual fundraiser for Whitman-Walker Health. I hope and trust that PBS will be of service to its listening audience by standing-up to the bullyism, hatred and thinly veiled racism that dominates the American conservative social agenda.”

My Thoughts

In my gut, I agree with Wemple. Ifill is not likely to put her journalistic credentials in jeopardy by going soft in her reporting or moderating as a result of sharing a billing at a charity event with Secretary Sebelius.

But — and there always seems to be a “but” in ombudsman columns — I also don’t fault NewsBusters for pointing this out. There are media-watch groups on the left and right, and tied to hundreds of other special interests. To anybody in the middle or on the receiving end of their focus, they are at times annoying and often anger-producing because they may make a fair point but then use it in unfair ways. Still, the basic points they call attention to are often worthy challenges and need to be addressed.

And, although I am confident about Ifill’s journalistic integrity — having known her, watched her, and worked with her for some years at The Washington Post — my vote would have been to bow out of this event. I felt the same way in 2006 when PBS talk show host Charlie Rose was listed as among the hosts for a New York dinner party honoring the CEO of Wal-Mart a few months after Rose had a rare interview with him.

In addition to the two phrases cited at the top of this column, I would add another for journalists: “When in doubt, don’t do it.”

Ifill is among the most high-profile, widely recognized journalists in the country. The Whitman-Walker Health operation in Washington is also widely recognized for its early and continuing efforts in combatting HIV/AIDS. Both the NewsHour and Washington Week deal, at times, with news surrounding LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) issues. And, of course, Sebelius is closely associated with the president’s health care legislation.

So, while a high-profile reporter with a major news operation would probably feel it foolish for anyone to believe he or she could be influenced by such things, it is not foolish to think that others might, and that the perception just isn’t worth the risk.

Back in October 2008, I also wrote about Ifill in a controversy that also sprung up first on conservative websites and among conservative commentators. It involved her selection to moderate the then high-stakes vice-presidential nominee debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

At the time, Ifill was writing a book titled “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” The title of my column was “The Doctrine of No Surprises,” because questions never were asked by the bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates — for example, are you working on anything we should know about? — and Ifill didn’t bring it up.

When the latest NewsBusters criticism arrived, I messaged producers at both of the programs Ifill appears on and asked under what PBS, WETA or program editorial guidelines is this appearance okay? I haven’t heard back yet, although I did get that candid explanation from Ifill. Producers for both of these programs routinely put out first-class news and public affairs offerings. Yet I suspect — and I stress that I don’t know — that the no surprises doctrine might have been missing in action again and something that seemed like a good deed got punished without being known about, discussed or thought through.

There is still another saying that journalists understand, and that is when you walk into a major newspaper or network, you leave a lot of luggage at the door, including sacrificing some personal freedoms. That is because the credibility of the news organizations is more important than anything else.

This column was originally published on PBS.org on April 20, 2012.

I wrote a snarky blog about it, asking “Whose idea was this?”

But I’m having second thoughts. I just read the Valentine’s Day issue of my daily newspaper, The Seattle Times. Yikes! This paper is smokin’.

Take Page One: There’s a five-column photo of Gov. Chris Gregoire after signing a bill to legalize gay marriage. She’s surrounded by a pumped-up group of legislators clapping ecstatically. Just below is a shot of several young female patrons of the Wild Rose, a well-known lesbian bar.

Anchoring the page is a six-column ad from a local drug store: “Sweep her off her feet!” It features a bottle of champagne, a plus sign, a dozen red roses, an equals sign, and then a beaming couple lying in bed in their pajamas. Some formula!

Page 4 carries an eye-catching story about how Valentine’s Day has become a big deal in Baghdad. A photo shows two Iraqi women shopping in the “central holy city” of Karbala. One holds a heart-shaped pillow that says “love,” just below a big balloon saying “My heart beats.” This is “the nation’s most amorous celebration of the holiday ever,” the story declares. Talk about a surge!

Half of Page 5 is a Starbucks ad showing a laughing young woman clutching her caffe mocha, piled high with whipped cream. The drink “has become a bit of an obsession,” the ad says: “Warm up” with one.

Page 6 and 7 feature jumps (no pun intended) of stories on the gay-marriage bill, with a charming photo of two long-time women partners who now plan to get married. Describing how they met, one recalls: “I walked in and saw her standing there…and it was as if someone plugged her in cause she lit up like a Christmas tree.”

An ad at the bottom of the page states “Valentine’s Day is for lovers.” It adds in small print: “but not if you have a problem with erectile dysfunction or premature issues.” It offers a “FREE Office Visit” including a “test dose of medication” to show how it works. From the smiles on the couple’s faces, it must have.

The local-news section front has a four-column photo of “senior women” at a retirement community. They are all holding up red hearts while rehearsing a musical performance of “Whatever Lola Wants.” Hubba-hubba!

The features page (B3) has two Cupid drawings with Paul McCartney’s face on one and Catherine Russell’s on the other, and a review of their new CDs. Both look a little lost. Maybe they should read a book that’s reviewed on the same page: “The Freud Files.” Or go watch a movie just out on DVD: “The Rum Diary” with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard – she pictured in a low-cut strapless dress.

The Comics & Puzzles pages are also pretty hot. Nearly half the comic strips have a Valentine’s theme. The word Jumble solution: “His Valentine’s Day lunch” was a “Hearty Meal.” The advice column offers “’Tried and True advice’ for a happy marriage.”

Even the Horoscopes are sexy. Mine (Aries): “A productive morning leaves space for a romantic evening; make what you will of it.” My wife’s (Scorpio): “Your capacity to listen makes you more alluring.”

The Sports section has an inside story about women coaching high-school boys’ swimming teams, with an intriguing photo of a woman coach helping one of her swimmers out of the pool. The lithe young boys in their swimsuits certainly could be considered sexy – as could a young woman (the coach’s daughter) sitting at poolside.

Maybe smart isn’t the new sexy, but if newspapers had this much steamy stuff in their pages every day, would their circulation go up along with readers’ temperatures? At long last, a sustainable business model!

This column was originally published on the Washington News Council (WNC) blog on February 14, 2012. John Hamer is president of the WNC, an independent forum for media fairness.

Your summary of readers’ complaints about The Times’s coverage of the reasons to bomb Iran seems fair enough, although one must also question the United States’ right to bomb Iran. Where is the right?

The United Nations Charter prohibits the threat and use of force by states in the conduct of their international relations. Yet, from Vietnam to Iraq, and now Iran, the editorial page of The Times has failed to apply this most fundamental rule of international law to the threats and use of force by the United States. The news pages have done so only sparingly.

More than 40 years ago, publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and editor Abe Rosenthal bravely risked federal prosecution and prison time by publishing excerpts and analysis of the Pentagon Papers. What does The Times risk today by holding presidents and Congresses accountable to laws with which they are formally obliged to comply?

Is this mere legalism? Whom did the illegal wars in Indochina and Iraq benefit? The warmakers and lawbreakers have had their day for too long. Let’s not give them any more.

HOWARD FRIEL

Northampton, Mass.

•

I think your discussion of the Iran issue is fair-minded, but there is an important gap. You suggest that there are two competing narratives: the “narrative of war” and a “counternarrative … of uncertainty and caution.” But that’s really only one narrative: the narrative of war vs. uncertainty about it. Thus even when you are questioning the war narrative, you are not really offering an alternative. Based on The Times’s coverage, how else are readers to think about Iran’s behavior other than “they may be mad mullahs”?

I suggest that the alternative narrative would be a “cycle of mistrust.” This idea is based on the political science theory of the “security dilemma”: a situation in which each side’s efforts to increase its own security threaten its rival, leading to a spiral of escalation that may result in an arms race, crisis or war. According to the mistrust narrative about Iran, reasonable Iranians notice that the Iraqi and Libyan regimes, which gave up their unconventional weapons programs, were destroyed by the West a few years later; while North Korea, which tested nuclear weapons, was left alone. Thus prudent Iranians (especially Iranian officials) want at least the capability to build nuclear weapons, even if they have moral or practical doubts; so they resist international pressure to give up that option. Hard-line Americans’ talk of regime change or of military attack would, in this view, be dangerous, increasing Iranian determination to pursue this regime-saving deterrent capability. This is a real, and plausible, alternative narrative.

STUART J. KAUFMAN

Newark, Del.

The writer is a political science professor at the University of Delaware.

•

You do not need real Iranians in order to get a more balanced “Iranian point of view” regarding American/Israeli plans for a possible war to stop that country from becoming the 10th (10th!) nuclear-weapons state.

Many American professors of politics and history (most notably Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, an expert on Shiite Islam) could disabuse your readers of their constant diet of misinformation relating to Iran having hostile intentions (it has not started an aggressive war in two centuries) and threatening to “wipe Israel off the face of the map” (the original Persian of that oft-cited phrase related to time not place — “the Zionist regime would pass” — and was expressed in the passive voice, implying no agency on the part of Iran in bringing that about).

Occasionally consulting a Persian-speaking source like Professor Cole could help you a lot.

MICHAEL SULLIVAN

Rydal, Pa.

Reporting on Romney

Re “When Packaging Oversteps the Facts” (March 25):

I am a strong supporter of our democratic system and journalism’s role in preserving and strengthening that system. The March 16 article on Uniview Technologies and Mitt Romney’s “connection” to its use of video surveillance by the Chinese government was simply poor journalism.

There was no news. None. And I say that as an Obama supporter.

There is no hypocrisy in having a blind trust (which, by law, Romney can’t direct or control) invest a relatively minuscule amount of money in any company. It may be an interesting aside to note the unusual “connection,” but front-page placement?

This was less a story than a gift to all Romney opponents.

JEFF POZMANTIER

Houston

•

As a lawyer who has negotiated “blind trust” arrangements for executive branch appointees and trust agreements generally, I’d like to add to your commentary:

First, the “blind trust” concept is used by the executive branch to separate decision-making from personal financial gain. In fact, the beneficiary is not supposed to know how the trust is invested. These arrangements are thoroughly negotiated.  That is clearly not the case in the Romney situation since he knows enough to report his holdings on financial disclosure forms, etc.  He and others morph the concept into who has investment authority, which is not the same thing. Among other matters, both the trustee and the investment adviser are fiduciaries, and they are highly unlikely to retain or make an investment in a Bain Capital partnership without the consent of the beneficiaries.

Second, at the time of the Romney tax-return disclosure, the trustee was called on to defend an investment in Swiss francs — a bet against the U.S. dollar. Other articles have covered Bain’s aggressive transfers of jobs offshore, and here it is an investment in a surveillance company. These would not be attractive positions in a presidential portfolio despite the “blind trust” argument and are worth prominent coverage.

ADAM SONNENSCHEIN

Cambridge, Mass.

•

At the risk of simplifying your column, I have to say: “So, what’s new?” Your analysis of the issue was elegant but has been known in newspapers since the American Revolution. My high school English teacher alerted me to how journalism and layout can affect a reader’s perception.

The question I would have liked you to have addressed is: Why? Why does The Times do this and, statistically, on what subjects or political leanings? Why is The Times trying to entice the readership subconsciously with its placement of content, use of type size or front-page prominence?

Among other esteemed style guidelines, your own Times guidelines don’t seem to address this either.

PATRICK D. BATCHELDER

Newark

This column was originally published in The New York Times on March 31, 2012. (Original column)

Orwell maintained that the English relished only a certain type of murder. “The murderer should be a little man of the professional class – a dentist or a solicitor, say – living an intensely respectable life somewhere in the suburbs, and preferably in a semi-detached house, which will allow the neighbours to hear suspicious sounds through the wall… he should go astray through cherishing a guilty passion for his secretary or the wife of a rival professional man, and should only bring himself to the point of murder after long and terrible wrestles with his conscience.”

I was reminded of these words last week when the Observer reported that the murder rate in London had halved over the past decade. There were 222 homicides in 2003, but the figure had dropped to 113 by last year. This good news might suggest that the capital now offers fewer opportunities for tabloid tales of blood and treachery, but in fact the figures reflect faster response times from paramedics rather than any diminution in murderous intent. Modern medicine is saving more lives.

What the story didn’t reveal was the nature of the murders, but society’s strictures have changed so much since Orwell’s time that I would hazard that few adulterous dentists end up in the dock for murder nowadays. His essay went on to decry callous killings “without depth of feeling” and he would certainly have condemned the modern spate of gang knife murders as possessing little of the style of the furtive domestic poisonings that once filled the public prints.

Today’s New Review carries a double-page spread on the killing of Harriet Staunton in 1877 (the Penge Murder) and includes a picture of a small publication that recorded the whole story, promising “the life and trial of the four prisoners”. Readers quick to condemn what they perceive to be unscrupulous practices in journalism today might pause for a moment and reflect on what total fabrications were served up in these pamphlets during the 19th century.

Henry Mayhew, in his riveting London Labour and the London Poor – brilliantly abridged from four volumes by Robert Douglas-Fairhurst (OUP) – reports on the brisk trade in “gallows” literature on the streets of London, promising the “Last Dying Speech, Confession and Execution” of the condemned. He tells of the “death hunters” who sold these bogus accounts and who boasted of their ingenuity in beating the newspapers because: “We gets it printed several days afore it comes off and goes and stands with it right under the drop.”

When there was no actual murder to sell, these “patterers” simply invented the assassination or injury of a prominent figure. With no internet, television or radio for the public to verify their claims, they happily put the Duke of Wellington to death twice, once by a fall from his horse and once in “mysterious circumstances”; they had Emperor Louis Philippe shot and another time stabbed. One told Mayhew he considered poisoning the Pope “but was afraid of the street Irish”. He broke Prince Albert’s leg or arm (he was not sure which), but would not injure Queen Victoria – “it wouldn’t go down”.

So popular were these penny dreadfuls that the established press, while not resorting to fictional murder, could ill afford to ignore the appetites they fed, as Mayhew noticed: “It is very easy to stigmatise the death-hunter when he sets off all the attractions of a real or pretended murder… he does, however, but follow in the path of those who are looked up to as ‘the press’. The Observer, in costly advertisements, boasts of its 20 columns (sometimes with a supplement) of details of some vulgar and mercenary bloodshed – the details being written in a most honest deprecation of the morbid and savage tastes to which the writer is pandering.”

Orwell joined the Observer 100 years later, lured by the opportunity to shape its liberal future, but – who knows – its lurid past might just have been an attraction, too.

This column was originally published in The Observer on April 14, 2012.