Ethics case study: A pedophile pastor and a publisher.
In his first interview with the owner of a small Midwestern newspaper, a local church pastor threatened to vilify the newspaper owner from the pulpit if she printed anything derogatory about him.
The publisher thought that strange until she learned the priest had been accused of raping a 14-year-old boy in New York. She wrote about that, and lost readers and advertisers who complained the publisher was trying to destroy the popular priest.
Then the publisher learned that the priest had been involved in another incident of sexual misconduct in Florida and was reassigned twice before landing in the publisher’s parish.
The publisher called the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists, asking if she should reveal the priest’s history of continuing sexual misconduct. But doing so could cause another community backlash, with further loss in circulation and advertising which could force the publisher out of business.
Put yourself in AdviceLine’s place. What advise would you give to the worried publisher? Report the facts, or withhold them in an attempt to protect her newspaper and staff?
This is an actual case handled by AdviceLine.
***********************************
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.
Professional journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.
As presidential debate moderators go, they didn’t stack up to the likes of revered Walter Cronkite.
Moderators of the 2020 Donald Trump and Joe Biden debates were critiqued, criticized, chastised and lampooned.
Gone are the days when such moderators were unquestionably beyond reproach and in charge of the debates. Those who served as moderators were lofty media figures of their time.
The first televised presidential debate (of four) in 1960 between Sen. John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon was moderated by Howard K. Smith of CBS. Twenty-nine media figures have filled that role, including esteemed broadcasters Edwin Newman, Pauline Frederick, Barbara Walters, Bill Moyers, Jim Lehrer, Bernard Shaw and Tom Brokaw, to name a few. Cronkite served on a panel during one of the debates, but not as moderator.
Played by the rules
Those debates largely were cordial and played by the rules, respecting time limits. Not until 2020 would one of those debates be described as an undisciplined brawl.
Three presidential debates were scheduled for 2020. But one was canceled, leading the candidates, President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, to schedule competing town hall meetings on the date of the canceled presidential debate that had viewers switching from one channel to the other. Trump was on NBC and Biden on ABC.
The first 2020 presidential debate on Sept. 29 in Cleveland was moderated by Chris Wallace of Fox News. It went so badly, the headline on an article by conservativedailynews.com read: “Chris Wallace Lost the First Presidential Debate.”
Even Wallace admitted it was a disaster, largely because President Trump refused to stop talking when his time was up and because he repeatedly interrupted when Wallace tried to ask questions.
A train wreck
Media reports described the debate as “off the rails,” “chaos,” “unwatchable,” “a train wreck,” a “hot mess” and a “shoutfest” overwhelmed by interruptions and disregard for the moderator, largely by the president.
Wallace is the anchor of “Fox News Sunday” and the son of legendary “60 Minutes” reporter Mike Wallace. He also moderated a 2016 presidential debate between Trump and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
After the debate, Wallace appeared on “Bill Hemmer Reports” to reflect on that debate. His first reaction, said Wallace, was “this is great” because the explosive interaction between Trump and Biden suggested “we were gonna have a real debate here.”
Bitter frustration quickly set in, with Wallace holding up a copy of the debate rule book that both sides had accepted but were ignoring.
Interrupted 145 times
“It became clear, and clearer over time that this was something different and that the president was determined to try to butt in or throw Joe Biden off…. I saw another Fox analysis that indicates the president interrupted either Biden’s answers or my questions a total of 145 times, which is way more than one a minute. And he bears the primary responsibility for what happened on Tuesday night.”
Wallace said he had prepared for a serious debate. “I had baked this beautiful, delicious cake and frankly, the president put his foot in it,” so that the American people “didn’t get the debate they wanted and that they deserved. And that’s a loss for the country.”
The second presidential debate on Oct. 22 in Nashville, Tennessee, was different, in part because new rules imposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates included a mute button on each candidate’s microphone to prevent interruptions and enforce time limits.
Moderator declared winner
“Moderator Kristen Welker Won the Presidential Debate,” declared the headline on a huffpost.com story about the second presidential debate. An NBC News correspondent, Welker “did an exceptional job that received wide praise,” wrote Alanna Vagianos. “She asked tough, substantive questions while ensuring that the debate moved at a productive pace. Many colleagues applauded her for being respectful, but not backing down from fact-checking both candidates on big issues.”
Wallace admitted on Fox News, “I’m jealous,” according to a report on The Daily Beast. NPR said it was “a real debate.”
“Kristen Welker is putting on a master class in how to moderate a presidential debate,” tweeted Philip Rucker, the Washington Post’s White House bureau chief. She is the second Black woman to moderate a presidential debate solo.
Complaints
But that does not mean Welker went unscathed. Before the debate, Trump described Welker as “extraordinarily unfair,” “a radical left Democrat” and “a very biased person.” He was genial toward her during the debate.
Though the Oct. 15 dueling town hall meetings don’t qualify as presidential debates, they drew their share of heat and controversy.
“Savannah Guthrie, George Stephanopoulos Draw Praise, Hate After Trump-Biden Town Halls,” read the headline on a story by Cydney Henderson in USA Today.
NBC News’ Savannah Guthrie hosted Trump’s town hall meeting in Miami, Florida, “which proved to be contentious from the start as moderator and candidate sparred over questions on COVID-19 and white supremacy,” wrote Henderson.
Moderator debates candidate
Trump “pretty much debated Savannah Guthrie,” Fox News host Sean Hannity said. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani called Guthrie “hostile, argumentative and contradictory.”
The Guardian praised Guthrie for “keeping Trump in check” and a tight rein on the meeting, but she was criticized for monopolizing time intended for questions from the audience.
“While many of the voters asked carefully crafted questions that were focused on Trump’s policy stances concerning hot topics….., Guthrie took it upon herself to interrupt and even steer the question in a different direction,” wrote Jordon Davidson of thefederalist.com.
Conspiracy theory
Guthrie and Trump clashed when she asked the president about his retweet of a conspiracy theory that Biden orchestrated to have Seal Team Six killed to cover up the fake death of Osama Bin Laden. It was described by Kathryn Watson of CBS News.
“Why would you send a lie like that to your followers?” asked Guthrie. “I know nothing about it,” Trump said. “You retweeted it,” Guthrie pointed out. “That was a retweet, that was an opinion of somebody, and that was a retweet. I’ll put it out there, people can decide for themselves, I don’t take a position,” the president responded.
“I don’t get that,” Guthrie countered. “You’re the president — you’re not like someone’s crazy uncle who can just retweet whatever.” Guthrie was accused of “grilling” the president.
“Totally crazy”
Later, Trump retaliated, saying that Guthrie had gone “totally crazy” during the interview. “Everyone thought it was so inappropriate. Savannah – it was like her face, the anger, the craziness.” He called Guthrie “unfair.”
Simultaneously, in contrast to the Guthrie “grilling” in Miami, the Biden town hall meeting moderated by ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos in Philadelphia was called a “smoochfest.” It featured no ill-tempered outbursts or answers running long beyond the time allowed.
USA Today reported the Biden-Stephanopoulos back-and-forth was calm in comparison with their counterparts. Stephanopoulos took some flack, though, for allegedly taking it easy on Biden. Giulianii said: “Stephanopoulos let Biden speak endlessly and never interrupted him.”
Pressing questions
Stephanopoulos turned questions almost immediately over to the audience, but periodically interjected questions, such as pointing out that Biden did not call for social distancing and mandatory face masks early in the pandemic. Several times, Stephanopoulos asked to “press you” on topics, including the economy, the supreme court, fracking and the Green New Deal. Overall, the tone was professional and cordial, as in the Walter Cronkite days.
Those addicted to political debates no doubt tuned into the vice presidential debate Oct. 7 in Salt Lake City, Utah, moderated by Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today. The debate between Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris proved to be as difficult to control as it was for Wallace to control the Trump/Biden debate.
Page had trouble keeping Pence and Harris within their allotted speaking times and often resorted to saying “thank you” as a prod to stop them, without success as they continued to talk over her.
Scolding
Practically scolding the candidates, Page said at one point: “Your campaigns agreed to the rules for tonight’s debate…. I’m here to enforce them, which involves moving from one topic to another, giving roughly equal time to both of you, which I’m trying very hard to do right here.”
Civil discord, it is said, is a result of the contentious polarization that divides Americans. The presidential and vice presidential debates mirrored that breakdown.
There was a time when being asked to moderate a presidential debate was considered a high honor, a sign of respect for those who achieved eminence in journalism. Today, it’s a job that should come with hazard pay.
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago Professional Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.
Professional Journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.
A reporter for a military publication contacted the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists and asked this question in 2008:
“May I reprint information in our newspaper that is from websites if I provide proper attribution, but without permission? There is no guidance about this in the AP style book; but we have tried before to get permission and it takes too long for people to respond and we have to go to press.”
You be the ethicst. What would you say to that reporter?
AdviceLine is a free service, staffed by four university professors who are experts in ethics. AdviceLine advisors do not tell professional journalists what to do, but engage them in a discussion of benefits and harms involved in the case, leading journalists to reach decisions based on best journalism ethics practices.
AdviceLine is partnered with the Chicago Headline Club, a professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.
Our goal is to assist each caller make ethical decisions that:
*Are well informed by available standards of professional journalistic practice, especially the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics.
*Take account of the perspectives of all the parties involved in the situation.
*Employ clear and careful ethical thinking in reaching a decision.
**********************************
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago Professional Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.
Professional Journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.
Journalists face many responsibilities toward their communities. Sometimes they conflict.
Foremost is the responsibility to report news and information. This makes journalists highly informed about the politics and needs of their cities and towns, making them desirable candidates to serve on civic organizations. Sometimes an unspoken goal of these civic groups is the hope of getting some favorable publicity.
Editors and publishers especially are targeted for such invitations, which is why an editor of a Minnesota newspaper in 2004 called the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for advice.
Pressures to join
Editors, especially in smaller cities, regularly are pressured by management to become involved in community service, like the United Way board, she said. A benefit for the editor is learning more about the community. It also supports the newspaper’s message to the community that the paper cares about the community. Those are good things. But, said the editor, it sends a mixed message to your reporters because, at a minimum, it looks like you are breaking the barrier between editorial and business, that you are schmoozing with the community’s power brokers like a publisher does, rather than staying on the news side of the organization. So what, asked the editor, should she do about this?
Clearly, much has changed since 2004. The Covid-19 epidemic for one, restricts the kind of public gatherings that were common almost 20 years ago. And volunteering time toward civic organizations today is less common at a time of staff cuts and vanishing news organizations.
An historical footnote
But the answer that David Ozar, an Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists staff advisor, gave to the Minnesota editor could be helpful to journalists or media executives who continue to be asked to serve on civic groups. Or even as an historical footnote to an earlier time in the history of journalism, when requests of that kind were more common.
“The first thing to say is that an editor who has to do such things needs to make sure she does not influence reporting about these organizations at all, because that would clearly break the barrier between reporting and business influence,” wrote Ozar in his report on this case. The editors comment “was that she is scrupulous about not being involved in reporting about them, by leaving that entirely to the reporters assigned to those beats. Her concern is not that this activity is actually compromising anything in that way, but that her staff see her going out to these things and wonder if there is compromise involved.
Sit down and talk
“I suggested that she sit down with them and talk it out, how she is being pressured by the owners for this and its benefits to the newspaper, but her concerns about the ethical barrier, etc. She could ask them for advice about it and elicit their help in making sure that the barrier is properly protected. She thought this was a good way to proceed.”
Ozar taught ethics at the time at Loyola University Chicago. He was professor of social and professional ethics in the Department of Philosophy.
Usually, AdviceLine does not know what journalists do after getting guidance from AdviceLine. In this case, AdviceLine’s manager called the Minnesota newspaper six months later and spoke to the managing editor.
What happened
AdviceLine’s manager wanted to know if the newspaper adopted any policies on staff members or executives joining civic groups. The managing editor said he discussed the issue with the editor who called AdviceLine, but “I can’t remember if we put anything in writing.”
But that changed in 2005, when a privately owned publishing company with a handbook on ethics and standards bought the Minnesota newspaper.
“In general, it says it encourages journalists to be involved in the community,” said the managing editor. “It says any involvement that is a conflict of interest or appears to be a conflict of interest should be avoided. We have a photographer who teaches a photo class at the university in town. He gets a paycheck. Is that a conflict? We leave it up to the editor and publisher. If it appears to be a conflict of interest, we say we can’t do it. For that one, (involving the photographer) we’re letting it go.”
Pressures, great and small, besiege newspapers. Some are old and some are new. Journalists probably always will be targets of invitations to join one group or another because they know a lot about their cities, towns and villages.
AdviceLine is a free service, staffed by four university professors who are experts in ethics. AdviceLine advisors do not tell professional journalists what to do, but engage them in a discussion of benefits and harms involved in the case, leading journalists to reach decisions based on best journalism ethics practices.
AdviceLine is partnered with the Chicago Headline Club, a professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.
Our aim is to assist each caller make ethical decisions that:
*Are well informed by available standards of professional journalistic practice, especially the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics.
*Take account of the perspectives of all the parties involved in the situation.
*Employ clear and careful ethical thinking in reaching a decision.
Put yourself in our shoes. What advice would you have given to the Minnesota editor? Was there a better way to answer her dilemma? You be the ethicist. What ethics resources would you cite to answer her query?
**********************************
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.
Professional journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.
Keeping control of an interview is one of a journalist’s basic jobs.
That might sound easy, but it can be difficult if the ground rules are not spelled out in advance so both the journalist and the person being interviewed know what to expect.
This was the key issue in a 2018 call to the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists from a magazine editor in New Zealand.
Making ethical decisions in journalism can be difficult. That’s why the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists, founded in 2001, exists. It serves as a sounding board for journalists who want to do the right thing, but are not always sure how to do that. Written reports are kept on every inquiry.
Audio recording and notes
“I conducted an interview with an individual who knew that an audio recording was being made, in addition to my note-taking,” said the editor. “I wrote up the article and gave him the opportunity fact-check it. He removed several key statements because he said that they could result in him losing his job. At no point did he say that I had misquoted him or taken his comments out of context, merely that the statements were controversial.
“The comments he made on tape are an accurate representation of his actual feelings, but I know for a fact that he tells different things to different people in order to ingratiate himself with them. Am I required to run his approved version of the article, or can I run my original? Am I permitted to let anyone else listen to the taped conversation? It’s a dilemma which is weighing pretty heavy on my mind, so I’d really appreciate any advice you can offer.”
The call-taker in this case was David Ozar, who taught ethics at Loyola University Chicago, and was professor of social and professional ethics in the Department of Philosophy.
“There are a bunch of professional ethical issues here,” Ozar wrote in an email to the editor. For starters, he suggested consulting the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, where “you might find a number of them referred to and advice offered.”
A mutual understanding
“My first thought is that it does not sound like you and the interviewees had a clear mutual understanding of what was going on. He clearly did not expect you to publish what you heard, but only what he accepted for publication. So the SPJ’s advice to ‘be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises you make’ is relevant. If you were to reveal his actual words without informing him, you would almost certainly be violating the unstated agreement he though you and he were making. So there is an ethical question whether the shortfall in the agreement was yours or his, and my instinct is that it was yours for not making your intentions clearer.
“So I think you need to inform him of the problem and get his OK to publish what he said rather than the redacted version he provided. If he fails to agree and you want to publish (or otherwise take that information beyond just you and him by showing it to someone else), the only exception to doing what he asks that I can think of is identified in this advice from SPJ: ‘Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.’ That is, you have to determine if acting surreptitiously (by publishing what he has not in confidence (said) to you and has not approved being published) involves information vital to the public, and ‘vital’ is a pretty strong criterion.
“And even if you do that, your report would need to say that you were publishing this against the will of the person being quoted. Those are my first thoughts, but obviously I don’t know any more about the situation than you left in your brief message online. I would be happy to chat more by email if I have missed anything important about the situation. Let me know if that is the case.”
Editor’s response
The New Zealand editor responded by email, saying: “Thank you so much for replying to my query. I certainly appreciate your insights and the additional resources, and will be sure to bear these pointers in mind in the future. His ‘approved’ version of the content is the one which went to print. It felt like the morally appropriate thing to do.”
This case demonstrates the type of ethical issues confronting professional journalists, and what the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists does to help them.
From a journalist’s perspective, showing a story to a source before it is published carries risks. Before doing so, it would be wise to stress that you want to check facts, or the accuracy of specific descriptions or explanations. It is not an open invitation to rewrite the story as the source might have written it. Another way to do this would be to read back to the source a sentence or paragraph of the story that the journalist wants fact-checked. This keeps the focus on what you want fact-checked. Otherwise, when confronted with their own candid words, sources sometimes decide they want to put their own spin on the story to sound smarter, diplomatic, funnier or politically correct.
AdviceLine is a free service, staffed by four university professors who are experts in ethics. AdviceLine advisors do not tell professional journalists what to do, but engage them in a discussion of benefits and harms involved in the case, leading journalists to reach decisions based on best journalism ethics practices.
AdviceLine is partnered with the Chicago Headline Club, a professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.
Our aim is to assist each caller make ethical decisions that:
*Are well informed by available standards of professional journalistic practice, especially the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics.
*Take account of the perspectives of all the parties involved in the situation.
*Employ clear and careful ethical thinking in reaching a decision.
Put yourself in our shoes. What advice would you have given to the New Zealand editor? Was there a better way to answer her dilemma? You be the ethicist. What ethics resources would you cite to answer her query?
**********************************
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.
Professional journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.
Elections often are seen as a chance to toss the rascals out of office.
But what if a reporter is worried that his work might allow a rascal to get into office?
That was the dilemma facing Victor Crown, assistant editor of Illinois Politics Magazine years ago. It was a dilemma that often faces political reporters: How information harmful to one political candidate might favor an opposing candidate.
Crown called the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists, a free service partnered with the Chicago Headline Club, a professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. It was among the first calls to AdviceLine, which began operating on Jan. 22, 2001.
Something Bad to Happen
“I am about to do a story that may cause something bad to happen,” Crown told Dr. David Ozar, an AdviceLine call-taker who taught ethics at Loyola University Chicago.
Crown was writing an article about alleged conflicts of interest by republican U.S. senator Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois — described by Crown as a banking lawyer, a bank stockholder and a bank director — and his voting record on banking bills.
Publishing the story could prove helpful to a Fitzgerald political rival, and Crown feared that might be the worst of two evils.
“So he is wondering if he should sit on the story and not publish it, in order to avoid the potentially good consequences for a (rival) public official he does not trust or respect,” Ozar wrote in his report on this case.
AdviceLine cases usually are considered confidential, but Crown gave his permission for his case to be made public.
Someone To Talk To
As in most calls from journalists, Crown was looking for somebody to talk to about his ethics-in-government dilemma. Journalists sometimes call to confirm whether the manner in which they handled a story was ethically correct.
“We talked at length about weighing the professional obligation to tell the truth with courage against the potential negative effects of doing so…,” wrote Ozar. “Since conflict of interest on the part of the person being investigated is in itself a subtle ethical matter, there was also a lot of conversation between us about harmful versus non-harmful conflicts…”
In effect, Ozar urged Crown to follow one of the leading concepts of the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics: Seek the truth and report it.
Releasing The Information
In the end, Crown put all of his investigative information on a web site, so it could be examined by other journalists and the public to determine how well his evidence supported his report on Fitzgerald.
Crown took this action after discussing it with Ozar, who wrote: “I also judged that this is the most impartial way to release this information.”
Ozar concluded that Crown decided to publish “because it is the professionally right thing to do and because the other moral/ethical considerations in the matter are not sufficiently weighty to outweigh his professional commitments.”
Fitzgerald served in the U.S. senate from 1999 until his retirement in 2005, when he decided not to run for reelection. He was followed by democrat Barack Obama, who won in a landslide, becoming the senate’s only African-American member.
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists has handled about 1,000 inquiries since it began operating in 2001.
*************************************
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.
Professional journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.
Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists 