Another student question....Media Ethics

[farmerjerome]

My school career is quickly coming to an end, and I'm trying to figure out what to write for one of my final papers.

As the topic suggests, I'm taking a media ethics class. I'm writing a paper on ethical concerns at small papers.

One of the main themes in the paper has to do with journalists who want to spend most of their career at one paper (an increasingly dying breed). Do these journalists sometimes back off a bit because their homers? Or because they're trying to make connections in an area they're planning to be in for a long time? On the flip side, are journalists who are using papers as a stepping stone apt to be more negative because they don't give a ****?

What? Crickets chirping?

Feel free to post some alternate topics.

 

[Monday Morning Sportswriter]

How to balance objective reporting with hard-lined commentary when it's the same person in charge of both. An editor with a staff of 12 no doubt has to edit the newspaper as well as the editorial page. How can you assign a reporter to write about an issue and then edit their work only to turn around and fire off an opinion about the issue?

How small newspapers with small staffs deal with the pressure to share with advertising. In 12 months with a small daily, I have been asked to have staffers write advertorial stories, have been asked to run sources by the advertising department to ensure we're not writing about a company that owes us money, have been told that new business profiles can only be for new advertisers, and have been told to give the advertising department copies of our budgets for special sections so they can find new advertising leads.

 

[Ace]

Another idea that we are seeing more of is that as the concerns over profits/stock prices seem to mount and the push as many papers is to "brand" the papers on web sites, do the walls between editorial and advertising start coming down a little more or get holes poked in them?

 

[wickedwritah]

MMSW -- not trying to out you or your situation, but what was your answer to thise situations?

At my last stop, I had to write what basically were advertorial stories -- big advertiser opening new offices, etc. And it was accepted. That was life at a 15k (at least this one in particular).

 

[joe_schmoe]

One thing...probably been beaten to death, but always pops up...is the ethics primarily at small to midsize papers who end up with a semi-decent gig (DII college, semi-pro hockey, things like that), and once they hit playoff time (national championshp), they offer to carry the reporter along on the charter flight, etc...
And this is the only way the paper will be able to afford to send the guy.

 

[Starman]

How to balance objective reporting with hard-lined commentary when it's the same person in charge of both. An editor with a staff of 12 no doubt has to edit the newspaper as well as the editorial page. How can you assign a reporter to write about an issue and then edit their work only to turn around and fire off an opinion about the issue?

How small newspapers with small staffs deal with the pressure to share with advertising. In 12 months with a small daily, I have been asked to have staffers write advertorial stories, have been asked to run sources by the advertising department to ensure we're not writing about a company that owes us money, have been told that new business profiles can only be for new advertisers, and have been told to give the advertising department copies of our budgets for special sections so they can find new advertising leads.

"They... are not... ASKING."

 

[farmerjerome]

Thanks for the advice guys, keep them coming.

 

[OTD]

Working at a smaller paper, you also run into the problem it being more likely to encounter people involved with your stories. I had this when I started in the business--if you print something unflattering about someone, chances are you might run into that person in line at the IGA. You're more likely to do this the longer you've been in an area. Since most people prefer to be liked by their neighbors, this can create problems when you're trying to be objective.

The solution, of course, is to get a job in NY or LA. Then you'll never run into anyone you know.

 

[Tom Petty]

I think there are definitely a lot of reporters (at small papers and large ones) who reach a certain comfort zone and that makes them less likely to write controversial stuff. Does it make them homers? Maybe in some instances, but it's more a case of guys getting complacent.

As far as guys who want to move on quickly chasing the controversy because they don't give a ****, I think that happens all the time. If you're at a steppingstone job, you want to make your mark so you can build an impressive portfolio and move on... These guys tend to be the most aggressive because they're not worried about pissing anyone off...

why would you ever be worried about pissing somebody off? every now and then we're supposed to ask a hard question and write about it.

believe it or not, back when i was starting out as a writer -- at a small daily -- i was agressive because i thought the reader deserved to know the truth. now i don't write so much and don't feel it's my job to stir the pot ... i sure do expect the folks who are writers at my paper now to seek out the truth, though. if you can't ask a hard question, i sure don't want you on staff.

 

[buckweaver]

I think there are definitely a lot of reporters (at small papers and large ones) who reach a certain comfort zone and that makes them less likely to write controversial stuff. Does it make them homers? Maybe in some instances, but it's more a case of guys getting complacent.

As far as guys who want to move on quickly chasing the controversy because they don't give a ****, I think that happens all the time. If you're at a steppingstone job, you want to make your mark so you can build an impressive portfolio and move on... These guys tend to be the most aggressive because they're not worried about pissing anyone off...

why would you ever be worried about pissing somebody off? every now and then we're supposed to ask a hard question and write about it.

believe it or not, back when i was starting out as a writer -- at a small daily -- i was agressive because i thought the reader deserved to know the truth. now i don't write so much and don't feel it's my job to stir the pot ... i sure do expect the folks who are writers at my paper now to seek out the truth, though. if you can't ask a hard question, i sure don't want you on staff.

It's called "maintaining a relationship with your sources." If you **** enough people off, or **** off the wrong people, you ain't gonna have many people left who will return your calls. Then you can't do your job. It's also called "choosing your battles." You can't ask the hard questions on every, minor detail of a meaningless (or relatively minor) story and then expect to get any answers from that source when the big story is going down a month later.

Of course, if you're only going to be there for six months ... ahh, don't worry about it so much. But if you're there for a year or more, you're going to want to have people respect you -- and more importantly, return your calls.

 

[Monday Morning Sportswriter]

MMSW -- not trying to out you or your situation, but what was your answer to thise situations?

Dealing with the objectivity issue is easy for me -- I stay away from editorial page decisions. But I wouldn't be comfortable writing the editorials for stories I ordered up.

As for dealing with advertising, this is what largely worked for me: I threatened to quit.

That helped for a little while.

I flat-out said I would resign before having anyone write, edit or design something because an advertiser had given us money. We forged a bit of a compromise that I still wasn't comfortable with, but it was a step in the right direction. I basically found the advertising department some free-lancers (free-lancers who I wouldn't want writing for me) and they pay them about $100 per story (easy money!). And the ad layout folks would deal with the layouts.

The one part of that I wasn't able to fully fix was photography. Occasionally, the photogs would be told to shoot for an ad -- in fact, the incident that made me aware of the problem involved a four-hour job, and I was livid. My proposal was to send some unused hours to advertising to have them hire a free-lancer with their own equipment, but that got nixed by the guy above me. Instead, I swallowed hard and got the chief photographer to agree to only have part-timers handle advertising assignments. If someone had to do it, I didn't want it to be the young, impressionable photographers

As for the business profiles being open only to advertising, I blocked that pipeline from advertising to us. I said that we would profile whoever we feel is interesting to our readership. The ad department was free to make suggestions, but our department would make the decisions. The ad department whined, but I won that one.

As for giving special section budgets to the advertising department, I was later told that I misunderstood the request, by my boss, who has never admitted to making a mistake, especially after being confronted with an ethical dilemma (he's the guy who told me, before I started, that there were no links between advertising and the newsroom, and then lied when asked about specific inidents.). I am certain I didn't misunderstand, and the e-mail in which my boss requested it was pretty damning.

(Worth noting that my boss also denied that all of these advertising problems were happening, and when confronted, he found excuses for every one of them)

How did I handle that one?

I gave advertising the budget and told my boss to start looking for my replacement.

Problem solved. For me, anyway.

 

[joe_schmoe]

if you can't ask a hard question, i sure don't want you on staff.

I wouldn't worry about that, you've left enough idiotic and worthless posts here that nobody that reads them would want to be on your staff.
Boy, I can't wait for the witty and cunning response to this one. :

 

[Ace]

if you can't ask a hard question, i sure don't want you on staff.

I wouldn't worry about that, you've left enough idiotic and worthless posts here that nobody that reads them would want to be on your staff.
Boy, I can't wait for the witty and cunning response to this one. :

Well, Tom Petty can be abrasive, but I agree on this one. Some folks are hesitant to ask tough questions and the better they know their sources the more hesitant they become.

 

[Tom Petty]

I think there are definitely a lot of reporters (at small papers and large ones) who reach a certain comfort zone and that makes them less likely to write controversial stuff. Does it make them homers? Maybe in some instances, but it's more a case of guys getting complacent.

As far as guys who want to move on quickly chasing the controversy because they don't give a ****, I think that happens all the time. If you're at a steppingstone job, you want to make your mark so you can build an impressive portfolio and move on... These guys tend to be the most aggressive because they're not worried about pissing anyone off...

why would you ever be worried about pissing somebody off? every now and then we're supposed to ask a hard question and write about it.

believe it or not, back when i was starting out as a writer -- at a small daily -- i was aggressive because i thought the reader deserved to know the truth. now i don't write so much and don't feel it's my job to stir the pot ... i sure do expect the folks who are writers at my paper now to seek out the truth, though. if you can't ask a hard question, i sure don't want you on staff.

It's called "maintaining a relationship with your sources." If you **** enough people off, or **** off the wrong people, you ain't gonna have many people left who will return your calls. Then you can't do your job. It's also called "choosing your battles." You can't ask the hard questions on every, minor detail of a meaningless (or relatively minor) story and then expect to get any answers from that source when the big story is going down a month later.

Of course, if you're only going to be there for six months ... ahh, don't worry about it so much. But if you're there for a year or more, you're going to want to have people respect you -- and more importantly, return your calls.

wow buck, you highlight and bold the copy of my reply right up to 'every now and then' and then go on a rant about what maintaining relationships means and continue on with choosing battles.

i fully understand maintaining relationships -- although i enjoyed the sermon -- but at times you do have to ask sources difficult questions if you are a professional. i was responding to the folks who go to places they know they may never leave and do anything and everything but 'rock the boat,' ever.

if you work at a paper that's more than one of those local, 15,000-circ. homer rags that nobody respects, you have to ask the tough question at some time or you'll find yourself in the unemployment line. (note: many 15,000-circ. papers aren't afraid to ask the tough question and that's why they're respected.)

never rocking the boat makes for some lame-assed journalism, and people who are afraid to ask that question should find another profession where they can hike their skirt up while on the clock.

 

[Tom Petty]

Thanks for the sermon, Tom. :

no problem buck ... i just thought you'd choose your battle better.

 

[farmerjerome]

Buckweaver and Ace are both right.
So how you you find the balance between picking your battles and asking the tough questions.

Is it all a judgement call?

 

[Tom Petty]

Thanks for the sermon, Tom. :

no problem buck ... i just thought you'd choose your battle better.

Didn't think I was battling, but OK. Just answering your question -- "Why would you ever worry about pissing somebody off?" -- with the answer being, sometimes you've got to choose whether that particular story is worth asking the hard question if you're going to have to maintain a relationship with that source in the future. It's not a be-all, end-all situation of "if you can't ask a hard question, I don't want you on my staff." There's a time and a place for everything, hence my "sermon" about choosing your battles.

If you thought I was being sarcastic, I wasn't. Looks like my font's broken again. Don't take it personal.

well yeah, buck, there is a be-all, end-all to asking the tough question. either you can do it and belong in journalism or you can't and should find another line of work. people put 50 cents in racks to get the truth, not some lazy-assed writer who squirms in his chair when it gets a little hot.

i didn't think people earned their pay by being buddies with their sources. hell, you can ask all the tough questions you want to get to the truth, and only after asking that question can you decide how you're going to play it in a story. but, if you never ask the question, you never know the truth.

 

[Ace]

Let's assume the judgment call isn't whether the question needs to be asked, but whether the story needs to be pursued.

If the answer is yes, you need to ask that question. But you can be smart/sensitive about it.

For example, say a parent calls to complain that Coach Doe favors certain kids and makes others, who are just as good if not better, ride the bench. Bet you would find that one of the "better" kids is the son of the caller.

I would brush that off. Say it's the coach's decision. You're not gonna call Coach Doe and say, "Why aren't you playing Timmy, even though he's better than those guys who get to play."

Now if the caller says that the coach favors kids who pay $250 to go to his summer camp and has told parents that players who don't attend aren't likely to play for him, you may have a story.

You could dig a little see if there is a correlation. Ask others if this is standard or unusual, then have at the guy.

If you are just fishing or swining out of the blue asking tough questions, you are gonna get a bad reaction or let the person dance out of it. If you are prepared, hey, you're just doing your job.

Kind like buying a new car. You go in and demand to know what the invoice price is and say you'll only pay $100 more, you won't get far.

You go in knowing what the car cost the deal and show him you are prepared, he will deal with you.

 

[Tom Petty]

Let's assume the judgment call isn't whether the question needs to be asked, but whether the story needs to be pursued.

If the answer is yes, you need to ask that question. But you can be smart/sensitive about it.

For example, say a parent calls to complain that Coach Doe favors certain kids and makes others, who are just as good if not better, ride the bench. Bet you would find that one of the "better" kids is the son of the caller.

I would brush that off. Say it's the coach's decision. You're not gonna call Coach Doe and say, "Why aren't you playing Timmy, even though he's better than those guys who get to play."

Now if the caller says that the coach favors kids who pay $250 to go to his summer camp and has told parents that players who don't attend aren't likely to play for him, you may have a story.

You could dig a little see if there is a correlation. Ask others if this is standard or unusual, then have at the guy.

If you are just fishing or swining out of the blue asking tough questions, you are gonna get a bad reaction or let the person dance out of it. If you are prepared, hey, you're just doing your job.

Kind like buying a new car. You go in and demand to know what the invoice price is and say you'll only pay $100 more, you won't get far.

You go in knowing what the car cost the deal and show him you are prepared, he will deal with you.

ace - you're absolutely correct on the parent thing, those things you brush off.

on the other matter, when i routinely wrote a helluva lot more than i do now and covered preps, i had great relationships with a great deal of my coaches and athletic directors and asked what a lot of people would interpret as awkward questions just to get them out there and not let 'em fester. parents talk, a lot, and therefore make a ton of things up in their own minds and would whisper **** into my ear.

i'd turn around, openly talk with athletic director from school B and say: 'hey dave, there's a rumor mill running rampant and i have to ask to either extinguish the rumor or dig further into the matter ... but, parent A (without being IDed) said ... is there any truth to that?'

99 percent of the time the AD would laugh and give a '**** man, (long explanation)' and it would be over. parent A would come back, i'd explain the situation and 95 percent of the time the parent would be happy because: A) what was being said wasn't true and B) the paper was doing its job and they had someone in me who wasn't afraid to 'get it out there.'

but, one of those times, i came to learn that a coach, at our second largest school, rationalized abusing kids, actually striking them and i had a two-part series with a column. people respected the fact i had the nuts to ask the guy the question straight up.

i don't understand why so many on this thread believe 'getting it out there' is a bad thing and destroys sources. actually, most of the time, you're doing everyone involved a favor by having a sack.

 

[DyePack]

Let's assume the judgment call isn't whether the question needs to be asked, but whether the story needs to be pursued.

If the answer is yes, you need to ask that question. But you can be smart/sensitive about it.

For example, say a parent calls to complain that Coach Doe favors certain kids and makes others, who are just as good if not better, ride the bench. Bet you would find that one of the "better" kids is the son of the caller.

I would brush that off. Say it's the coach's decision. You're not gonna call Coach Doe and say, "Why aren't you playing Timmy, even though he's better than those guys who get to play."

Now if the caller says that the coach favors kids who pay $250 to go to his summer camp and has told parents that players who don't attend aren't likely to play for him, you may have a story.

You could dig a little see if there is a correlation. Ask others if this is standard or unusual, then have at the guy.

If you are just fishing or swining out of the blue asking tough questions, you are gonna get a bad reaction or let the person dance out of it. If you are prepared, hey, you're just doing your job.

Kind like buying a new car. You go in and demand to know what the invoice price is and say you'll only pay $100 more, you won't get far.

You go in knowing what the car cost the deal and show him you are prepared, he will deal with you.

ace - you're absolutely correct on the parent thing, those things you brush off.

on the other matter, when i routinely wrote a helluva lot more than i do now and covered preps, i had great relationships with a great deal of my coaches and athletic directors and asked what a lot of people would interpret as awkward questions just to get them out there and not let 'em fester. parents talk, a lot, and therefore make a ton of things up in their own minds and would whisper **** into my ear.

i'd turn around, openly talk with athletic director from school B and say: 'hey dave, there's a rumor mill running rampant and i have to ask to either extinguish the rumor or dig further into the matter ... but, parent A (without being IDed) said ... is there any truth to that?'

99 percent of the time the AD would laugh and give a '**** man, (long explanation)' and it would be over. parent A would come back, i'd explain the situation and 95 percent of the time the parent would be happy because: A) what was being said wasn't true and B) the paper was doing its job and they had someone in me who wasn't afraid to 'get it out there.'

but, one of those times, i came to learn that a coach, at our second largest school, rationalized abusing kids, actually striking them and i had a two-part series with a column. people respected the fact i had the nuts to ask the guy the question straight up.

i don't understand why so many on this thread believe 'getting it out there' is a bad thing and destroys sources. actually, most of the time, you're doing everyone involved a favor by having a sack.

Speaking of asking the tough question:

Have you ever been kicked in the sack?