Ethics in Political Journalism

Having been on both sides of the pen, as well as being a consumer, I have mixed feelings.

Both as a reporter and as someone who has been misquoted frequently when I have shown up in newspaper articles I know how challenging it is to get quotes right.  In addition, putting comments in quotes which are really paraphrases is a pet peeve of mine.  So, from the standpoint of accuracy I like the concept of quote approval as a means of ensuring that the information conveyed in the story is accurate.

The challenge for me is when the factual quote approval becomes editorial approval for someone who just doesn't like how the story turns out (or how s/he comes across in the story).  But I think, even then, some quote approval is appropriate in certain circumstances.  For a single interview on a single subject - not so much.  As an interviewee, do your research ahead of time, and make sure you are generally comfortable with the journalist's style and integrity, and do your editorial thinking before you open your mouth - even if that extends the interview because you are thinking carefully during the interiew as you are speaking.

For access over an extended period of time, I am more tolerant of some editorial control.  I'm sure everyone occasionally does things they would not want published on the front page of the Washington Post - or even the local paper.  If I have a journalist tagging along 24/7 over a period of weeks or months, that journalist may be exposed to some things I do or say of that nature; things which I have the energy and discipline to pay close attention to over an hour or so - but not over a period of days or weeks.  If there is no post-writing editorial control, the president has to choose between granting extended access - and paying as much attention to everything he says or does over an extended period of time - and not granting access.  Given how much energy it takes me for an hour or so interview, I hope the president would decide that is not an appropriate expenditure of energy.  So that leaves me on from the consumer side deciding whether I like seeing some of the details I might not normally see, in exchange for knowing that the president likely vetoed some of what the journalist believed was newsworthy.

Bottom line, what is more important to me than whether there was a deal for quote approval in connection with a grant of extended access is that the details of deal be made clear to the readers up front - in a way I did not see in the article you linked to.  I just skimmed the article, but that kind of editorial control ought to be clear enough that it jumps out at anyone skimming the article - and nothing jumped out at me.  In other words - post writing editorial control ought to be rare, and when it is present it should be blatantly transparent.

Posted Dec 11, 2012

This conversation is interesting. There are three points I'd like to chime in about.

1- Nancy's point about transparency is spot on; if an article was vetted by the subject(s) before publication for purposes of quote approval, there should be a disclaimer at the start of the article. I believe even those who support quote approval should demand this as standard practice. 

2- The problems of quotation go beyond misquoting a source to journalists taking quotes out of context. I would hope that "not editing a quote in a way that distorts the speaker's meaning" is basic principle of journalistic ethics. That is my proposed litmus test for the use of ellipsis or paraphrasing: if a miscellaneous reader could still reasonably understand the speaker's argument.

If the journalist feels she can make the speaker's argument better than the speaker? I don't know what should be done there. Perhaps dilemmas such as these could be minimized if journalists set out to know their subject before they know what they want to say about the subject. 

Of course these issues with quotation are amplified by the status quo of news consumption. Who has space in a Tweet for a quotation that accurately captures a speaker's argument? Who has time to fully explore a subject when your editor/boss requires that you post five stories a day?

3- Dan's comment about the journalist-source relationship prompted me to wonder. What is the role of the journalist-- is it storytelling or reporting on a story? I view storytelling as a process that endeavors to engage the subject and the audience in the story, whereas reporting on a story entails conveying relevant facts. Journalists obviously employ both methods at various times, sometimes even within a single piece. Which method gets closer to the truth? I can see both sides: storytelling involves a dialectical depth that is lacking when one reports only on the facts, yet reporting the facts independent of any editorializing, explicit or implicit, can maintain focus and the consistency of voice  that can help readers' comprehension. 

Maybe this is a false dichotomy. Your thoughts?

Posted Dec 11, 2012

There are two things on this issue I would like to highlight.  One is related to the quote approval issue but in the case of journalists working on international issues and interviewing "administration officials."  The problem, particularly expressed in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, has been journalists giving government officials anonymity in their reports.  This practise leads to all sorts of misinformation and lack of accountability but it persists.  Perhaps, the issue of access to high ranking officials by reporters drives the practise.  If so, we have a real disfunction in our media and how it holds power accountable.  

The second issue is not directly related, but it concerns what consitutes objectivity for reporters, particularly foreign based reporters.  Again, there are too many cases of major daily reporters exhibiting either profound ignorance of the socieities they are covering or replicating political bias.  The most recent case is Judi Rudoren, the NYT's bureau chief in Jerusalem.  I've linked the response from the NYT public editor. 

What do folk think?

Jim--that's a strong point. Would you be able to suggest a threshold for reporting?

Posted Dec 11, 2012

Jill, start a blog. (Seriously. It would be god for your community and for your community paper to have another voice out there.)

Posted Dec 12, 2012

1.Should reporters clearly acknowlege quote approval in their articles as well as any other deals made to gain access?

2.What should we do if they aren't transparent about those  deals that they made in order to gain access?  

Posted Dec 12, 2012

Should we ask/demand our media to hold themselves to this higher standard?

Obviously, most will ignore such requests, then should we post our dissappointment with their lack of compliance on their social media?

Posted Dec 12, 2012

No cheekiness intended but they should write like they talk - which is to say, they shouldn't put out into social media anything that they otherwise wouldn't put their name on or stand by. In terms of whether they use personal standards versus professional standards, it's easy to see the danger of a journalist not making it clear, even just in their Twitter profile, for example, as to whether they're using that social media tool for themselves or their outlet. Again - transparency would seem to be the best policy for them. And, to be fair, their employers should have guidelines and those guidelines should be clear and communicated to the political correspondents.

Posted Dec 12, 2012

Interesting you raised this question.  I'll just add a specific example as a link, without comment, to see where it takes the discussion.

In the NYT case, the public editor seemed to be saying that the policy of monitoring reporters social media would only apply to the Jerusalem office.  I think that says some important things about how the NYT and US media in general cover that part of the world.  But also, I think this row was healthy and I feel that reporters should be allowed to behave on social media as they see fit.  It gives readers a particular window into the beliefs of those presenting the world to them. 

Posted Dec 12, 2012

If it's even possible anymore, maybe we have to hold to the hypothetical existence of objectivity. (How did humanity ever believe it in the first place? or did we?) Or maybe that's too old-school.

We all have to be prepared to do more analyzing of information we absorb if we want to move in a meaningful way to transparency as the information model. I believe it's worthwhile, by the way. But it creates a new ecosystem for news in addition to anything the shifting sands our business models create. Maybe having so many media outlets now leaves us no choice but to work in this new ecosystem.

To answer your question with a question, Dan, what if we did nothing about the fact that journalists are human. What if we just understood that?

Posted Dec 12, 2012

Peter, I fully accept that any thinking person should and does have opinion. My first concern is that while we may accept this fact, many journalists feel that their perspective is unbiased, middle of the road and can I add "fair and balanced." I have my own strong opinions and want to hear opinions from other perspectives. I lose patience when reporters pretend to be unbiased while only presenting facts which align with their opinion.

Posted Dec 12, 2012

Yes, objectivity is overblown and a bridge too far.  Perhaps the question is what is the bias and where does it come from?  Again, in the case of Rudoren at the NYT the original complaint from Philip Weiss was within the context of other aspects of Rudoren's previous reporting that suggested she came to Jerusalem with pre-existing biases directly relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  And while she did a good job trying to respond to critics and expressing remorse over the "ho-hum" comment, its hard not to see her bias as believing that Palestinians do not value life as much as we or Israelis do.  The sad thing is that such views about people in Africa and Asia have a history in American culture.       

Posted Dec 12, 2012

Dan, I'm not sure that is a useful question in the current setting.

Journalists used to have similar training, radio stations and the three major networks were licensed by the FCC which required them to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced.  Major cities had one or two major newspapers, which were relied on by people across the political spectrum to fill in the gaps that couldn't be covered in a half hour or hour news broadcast.  To a large extent all of those factors reinforced the useful fiction of objectivity.

Today subscription services, at least in the realm of television broadcasts - and increasingly in radio - have outpaced broadcasts over the public airwaves, the Fairness Doctrine has been eliminated, blog based sites like the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos are more frequently the primary source for news than the daily newspaper, and many of the people providing content for the newer media have little to no formal training in journalism.

An even bigger problem for objectivity is that people are increasingly seeking out echo chambers, and the newer media outlets are - by and large - providing them.

Aside from a few big events (like the debates), does it even make sense to talk about objectivity?

It seems to me a chicken and egg thing, and the question I think it might be more productive (although perhaps off topic for this discussion) to probe is how to we create a new generation of news consumers who demand journalism that provides coverage which is in depth, balanced, and presented in a manner that is objective or transparent about the biases of those reporting it - rather than coverage which superficially echos their own pre-existing beliefs?

Posted Dec 12, 2012

Sorry for the length I have been stewing and reading.

Perceived bias?  Let's see Bush was vilified for a hurricane and the failure of FEMA.  FEMA and the Obama administration was a dismal failure in Sandy and what do we hear?  Crickets....   Benghazi is a coverup that goes far beyond Watergate what is the coverage?  Silence....  A patroit in Pakistan is being tortured for helping us get Bin Laden, what do we hear ..... silence.  And then there is the whole rich v poor nonsense.  We have to penalize the rich to save the country.   Even though raising taxes will not fix anything, only cutting ridiculous spending and waste will resolve the issue.   The media seems completely in the tank for the liberals on that one.   As a side note, you do realize that the income I earn has nothing to do with what someone else can earn if they get off their dead, lazy butt.  Nothing.... Do I need to bring up the budget deficit and the huge implications....nothing meaningful or truthful from the media.  We are now discovering huge negative impacts that the Healthcare will create, what is the story in most of the media?  I just sat through an hour presentation on impacts...I wonder how we will survive, there was no media present.

I know most of you are young-uns, but I seem to remember Bush being crucified when gas prices approached 3.00 a gallon...what do we hear today when gas prices are over $3.00?   

Then there is the whole election campaign.  Completely false and biased coverage?  Can I mention again that the President, flew to a campaign stop while our guys were being murdered in Benghazi.   Does that seem irresponsible for the "commander and chief"  

Bias.... it is way beyond bias.   I have been personally impacted by a media that completely spins what I say in meetings to create a an interesting tail, which bears little resemblance to the truth.  

And let me make one last point which may highlight a point on bias....it is interesting that one of the first topics that is discussed on a topic of ethics in the media is misquoting.   Hello, misquoting is expected, by politicians and anyone having anything to do with the media.  Where are the real ethics issues, like a media that refuses to do any indepth, or medium depth, or even a shallow depth story that is accurate?   There is a complete breakdown in the media..  I see no one  pursueing fact based journalism... I will point to the real story behind government waste.  It is very easy to discover government waste if a "journalist" would make the least effort.  I could show you millions upon millions of dollars of government waste.   Come to a NOACA meeting some time.   Sit in a comissioner meeting and look at the complete nonsense that are Federal mandates and grants.  So you know I am balanced in my view, I will point to the republican side of the aisle.    Ask about the real story behind an Attorney General that pushed to have a law passed to outlaw internet cafes.  Ask yourself the question, why would the focus be on these little businesses, when the big dogs are making billions?  There is a back story that would curl your hair.   No one has the energy or "ethics" do try and find the real story.  Journalist today have their agenda and every story is a way to build a case in support of that agenda.

In todays world we havef th Daily Kos or Moveon.org and MSNBC... Ethics...and Journalism are not two words that should not be used in the same sentence talking about these guys.

Do I sound a bit cynical and/or frustrated?   Perhaps it is because the fantasy that I used to believe in that honesty, morality, and honor were ideals that rose above petty ideology.  I believed that all a journalist cared about facts and truth setting aside their own bias.  I have discovered NOT so.  Too bad ... can we bring Cronkite back?   Let's have a real conversation about ethics and not this soft and feely nonsense about misquoting or quote approval.  That is not about ethics so much as it is about taking good notes.  Which seem to be a lost art. 

Posted Dec 12, 2012

I agree with Jim's recommendation about campaign coverage. However can we trust, or even reasonably expect, political journalists to be sufficiently informed and competent to explain policy implications? That's probably an ideal all journalists aspire to but it is an awfully high standard. Maybe leave that analysis to policy experts at think tanks? On the one hand I do think that proposal has the benefit of specific subject matter expertise whereas political journalists are probably subject matter generalists. On the other hand, I don't think policy wonks are bound by same (aspirational) obligation to clearly explain things to the public. Plus there are institutions that masquerade as self-proclaimed "think tanks" when all they do is espouse a particular political party's agenda. It's a difficult problem to untangle.

To generalize this question: what is the difference between a political journalist and a policy expert who publishes her analysis? [Not a joke but feel free to contribute witty punchlines.] Is the latter a subset of the former? Are they different points on a single continuum?

Posted Dec 13, 2012

When politicians make clear factual errors, I expect journalists to correct them.  To do otherwise falls into the category I refer to as press release journalism, where a news outlet essentially just reprints whatever is in the press release from an entity, as if it were piece created by the media.  That is the height of laziness and irresponsibility, and turns the media into nothing more than free advertising for whoever sends out a press release.  (Not that I have any strong feelings about this...)

That said, I am not sure either of your examples falls into that category - although I find the second closer than the first.  Not being in the head of the writer who drafted the phrase "acts of terror," I don't know what thought went into choosing that ambiguous phrase.  A lot of what I do to pay the bills is writing, and when I use an ambiguous phrase (which I do frequently), it is typically because what I am trying to say is unclear and I am attempting to be accurate without being very specific.  That may well have been the case in crafting that phrase, and the possibility (or even likelihood) that Bhengazi attacks would be included if they were proven to be terrorist attacks - but the phrase would still be true if the attacks turned out instead to be a riot triggered by an offensive amateurish movie.

With the second example, there are two issues - the first is implying (and sometimes stating directly) that the Affordable Care Act will cut $750 billion in Medicare benefits.  The cuts in the Affordable Care Act are reductions in how much Medicare reimburses hospitals and private health insurance companies, not cuts in benefits to Medicare recipients.  That should be corrected by journalists whenever the assertion is made (or implied) that the plan cuts benefits.  The second (the one you point out) is omission of similar cuts included in the Ryan budget plan.  When Ryan attempted to distinguish himself from the Obama team by using the Medicare cuts, his own proposal should be reported.  It is less clear when Romney attempts to distinguish himself from Obama.  The proposed budget is Ryan's, not Romney's, and I was never sure which parts of the Ryan budget Romney supported.

Two examples that are more clear cut, from my perspective:  from the Obama team - the often repeated claim that the savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could be used to to start paying down our debts.  Since the wars were financed by borrowed money, ending them does not create money that can be used to pay down debts - budgeting those "savings" for domestic purposes will only continue to create more debt, not pay down existing debt, and that misuse of facts should be reported.  From the Romney camp - the allegation that Jeep is thinking of moving all production to China, referring to Jeeps's plans to produce Jeeps in China to sell in China (not move production there).

Posted Dec 13, 2012

Dan,

I am curious about this aspect of the conversation. How exactly is this dialogue being used by KSU, Journalism Accelerator, and Poynter? Assuming this conversation continues - and I hope it does! - how will future content factor into this study? Similarly what are the next steps, what's the civic outcome we are aiming for?

Posted Dec 13, 2012

I do not see best practices in journalism as mutually excluding the he said, she said format from a  focus on fact checking, or vice versa. It is a stringent discipline in practice, but that's what separates the wheat from the chaff in terms of what is published.  What should the balance be between those two practices? I would think that depends on many factors but again, not separate from an overarching concern that journalists will get it right and keep it (the he-said-she-said in particular) in context of the facts.

Posted Dec 13, 2012