I’m speaking to Professor Nick Daniloff’s Journalism Ethics and Issues class at Northeastern University tomorrow. Since the topic may be of general interest, I thought I’d post the slides in advance.

Jim Romenesko

Time was when a young journalist could recover from a lapse in judgment, learn from his or her mistake and get back on the career ladder. As NPR’s Nina Totenberg once said about having been fired for plagiarism when she was a 28-year-old reporter for the National Observer, “I have a strong feeling that a young reporter is entitled to one mistake and to have the holy bejeezus scared out of her to never do it again.”

Those days are long gone. Whereas well-connected miscreants such as Mike Barnicle seem never to go away, young reporters caught stealing are briefly held up to national ridicule and then banished into some black hole. My friend Mark Jurkowitz calls it the “Romenesko Effect,” in tribute to Jim Romenesko’s compulsively read media-news site at Poynter.org.

The latest example is a reporter for Connecticut’s Middletown Press named Walt Gogolya, who left the paper after he was caught ripping off large sections of a story from the local Patch.com site. (I wouldn’t name Gogolya except that Romenesko writer Charles Apple — Romenesko himself is heading toward retirement — already has.)

The article falls into the news-of-the-weird category, as it involves the arrest of a man for field-dressing a deer in a parking lot. Those details may have made it harder for Gogolya to get away with his thievery. Worse for him is that the Press is owned by the Journal Register Co., which, under CEO John Paton and Connecticut regional editor Matt DeRienzo, has embarked on a public campaign of maximum transparency. Gogolya was not quietly asked to leave — he was thoroughly exposed in this editor’s note from DeRienzo. From there it was but a short hop to Romenesko and industry-wide humiliation.

I’m not entirely sure what to think about this. I think DeRienzo deserves credit for being open with his readers about what happened and how the company responded. I also did some poking around the tubes and discovered that Gogolya is not some kid fresh out of J-school. Nor do I have a problem with Romenesko airing such matters — quite the opposite, in fact. Yet these good decisions, defensible in themselves, may add up to something that’s disproportionate to the offense. Not that this is an excuse, but I’d be curious to know what Gogolya’s workload was like. Those are not easy jobs. But guess what? There’s no going back.

Essentially, young journalists need to know this: the world in which Nina Totenberg began her career no longer exists, and hasn’t for some time. When it comes to journalism’s two cardinal sins, plagiarism and fabrication, it’s now one strike and you’re out.

I think it also means that those of us who teach journalism need to be as diligent about these matters as we possibly can. Far better to suffer an “F” and a trip to the student disciplinary board at 20 than to have your career ended just as you’re getting started.

Michele Kearney

Now, here is an interesting ethical dilemma.

Last Friday morning, the New Haven Independent posted its final revision of a story reporting that the city’s police union had approved a “no confidence” vote in Chief Frank Limon by a margin of 246-21.

The New Haven Police Department has been beset by controversy since Limon’s arrival last spring over accusations of police brutality and over incidents involving officers’ confiscating cameras from people trying to record their actions. Last week, a group of African-American activists demonstrated in favor of Limon, claiming that the chief is working to reform a troubled department.

But I digress. The story closes with a quote from and a photo of a custodian who works at police headquarters. The custodian, Michele Kearney, says:

There’s been a lot of tension ever since he’s [Limon] been here. There is not a lot of morale here. The last chief [James Lewis] was more understanding of what needs to be done. From what I have seen he wanted to hear their opinions and try to work with them. This one here [Limon] seems like he is working against them and not with them.

The story drew 108 comments — a very high number for the Independent. On Thursday at 3:23 p.m. (in response to an earlier version of the story) a commenter who goes by “da hill” criticized the Independent for quoting “unrelated entities” such as Kearney. Editor and publisher Paul Bass responded:

Thanks for the input. Our feeling was that someone who’s in the building cleaning the floors every day, talking to officers, and watching what’s going on, does in fact have a valid perspective to offer on morale and the overall feeling in the building.

At 5:21 p.m., “NO CONFIDENCE” wrote: “I am so happy to see a civilian like Michele, pictured above, tell the citizens of New Haven how Chief Limon treats his officers.  She works in the police department and is definitely well qualified to make those statements.”

A short time later, “Our Town” posted this: “I sure hope ole Michele is in a union, becuase I have a feeling she might not have a job tomorrow for speaking up.”

Then, at 11:06 p.m., there was this, from “Ken”:

The maintenance girl was fired immediately and we heard it came from, you guessed it, the chief. This is his MO if don’t agree with or lie for him you’re in trouble. City Hall has demanded she be re-hired by O,R&L.  I guess the The Chief never heard of the First Amendment. OR&L should be questioned about it and if they lie they should lose the city contracts. If it came from the Chief he should be terminated.

O,R&L is a private contractor hired by the city to maintain its buildings.

On Friday at 3:49 a.m., “unbelievable” wrote: “She was FIRED and escorted out of the building like a CRIMINAL! and you talk about wanting to do your best for this city!? … Well New Haven Independent, what are you going to do now??”

What the Independent did was post a story by Bass reporting on Kearney’s situation. The events of the day were convoluted. Kearney was fired; no, she’d been placed on leave. Mayor John DeStefano’s outgoing spokeswoman said the mayor had asked O,R&L to reinstate her. DeStefano said he’d done no such thing. The mayor’s incoming spokesman then said the company had informed the city that Kearney had been reinstated.

And, most controversially, the Independent posted the cell-phone number of the O,R&L supervisor assigned to police headquarters, urging readers to make their feelings known. “Members of the public can call him there if they want to express their opinions on the matter directly,” Bass wrote.

For Kearney, the story had a reasonably happy ending. According to the final version of Bass’ story, posted on Friday at 1:59 p.m., she was reinstated with no loss of pay. For Bass, though, the experience was not quite so happy. A sampling:

From “Unreal”: “Reported [sic] gets dissed so they retaliate by publishing a cell phone number?! Completely unprofessional. I don’t agree with the firing the employee however, I will refuse to support the Independent after that juvenile reaction!”

From “Steve B”: “Bush league. At least respectable journalistic ventures make an attempt to appear objective. Would you care to publish your personal cell phone number, Mr. Bass? You do yourself no favors with this kind of trashy behavior. It’s stuff like this that gives readers a reason not to take the NHI seriously.”

From “ricky perwood”: “so lets get this straight. NHI asked a woman who was in no way part of the story and she gave her opinion. Ok that happens, but why did they publish her quotes and her picture ? and now they publish someones cell phone number to try and get out of their major mistake ? This site and its editor have no journalistic integrity. NONE. I cant believe how vindictive whoever write this article is.”

On the other hand, “ASL” wrote: “I am not sure what the uproar is over the publication of the cell phone number. Is there some sacred right to keep your cell phone number private? I don’t take issue with privatization but if you are a private contractor paid with public dollars, you should expect to be held accountable to the public.”

Still, as Bass himself acknowledged, far more commenters thought he’d erred by publishing the number.

Here is what Bass wrote in the comments to explain why he published the supervisor’s cell-phone number:

Thank you for the feedback on the cell phone number. I knew it was an extraordinary measure. Here’s my thinking:

What the company and that manager did to Michele Kearney was so far beyond the pale of any legal or ethical or moral behavior, a lukewarm “please don’t do that again” response from the press would be pathetic.

I did not burn anyone or violate any confidential information in publishing that number. His cell phone number is widely available. That’s why I got it.

It is common practice to publish phone numbers for people to call to register dissatisfaction. Especially numbers of public entities. I think it’s a canard to pretend a company hired to do a public job is not privy to the same demands put on government. I have personally been up to the state Freedom of Information Commission to fight this question. I have never lost.

We feel very good about quoting a custodian about conditions in a public building. She has as much right to have her voice heard as does a paid corporate flack or high government official. The Independent is dedicated to letting everyone’s voice be heard.

If anybody tries to mess with people who choose to exercise that right, we will stand behind that person 1000%. You’re all on notice.

Now, before I go any further, I want to point out that Bass is wrong about Kearney’s having the “right to have her voice heard.” Although the Independent deserves praise for seeking out non-traditional sources, no one has a First Amendment right to talk about his or her employer’s clients. O,R&L’s reaction to Kearney’s comments was outrageous, and I’ve got no problem with the Independent putting heat on the company in order to reverse the injustice that had been done to her. But she did make a mistake.

On Friday, Bass and I got on Gmail chat to discuss the ethics of his decision to publish the supervisor’s cell-phone number. What I wanted to know was whether Bass had obtained the number as a reporter with the understanding — tacit or explicit — that he would use it to get a comment, not to publish it for all his readers to see.

I’m satisfied that Bass didn’t do that. He told me he called the company as though he were simply a member of the public, not a reporter, and was given the number with no restrictions. Moreover, Bass said, the cell-phone numbers of government employees are a matter of public record in Connecticut, and O,R&L is performing a government function.

“I felt he had the same role as any government supervisor — they just happen to call him a private contractor and deal with him that way to bypass the union,” Bass told me.

Emphasizing the point he’d made in the comments, he added, “What really galls me is this idea that news reporters shouldn’t quote custodians and let them speak in articles. I feel there’s an important principle at stake here about who gets to talk.”

And again, I agree — except that Kearney did not have the right to endanger her company’s relationship with the city.

So, did Bass do the ethical thing in posting the cell-phone number? I’d say yes, based mainly on the fact that he got it just as any member of the public would. If he’d identified himself and said he was a journalist when he called the company and asked for the number, he’d have a problem.

Did Bass do the smart thing? Here I have to say no. I have no problem with his decision to pressure O,R&L to reinstate Kearney. The Independent engages in advocacy journalism, and I think that’s one of the things that makes it interesting.

But Bass could have posted the company’s phone number (it’s got two offices in Connecticut) or the mayor’s number. And he probably would have accomplished just as much.

Our online chat ended with Bass telling me, “Hey, the company just called — she got her job back! They promised me on the record she faces no threat of dismissal, and she will lose no pay. I have no idea if the cell was a factor. I do think we sent a message.”

Bass had a tough call to make, and he didn’t have the luxury of thinking it over for a few days. A woman was on the verge of losing her job because she spoke to one of his reporters. I think he got it partly right and partly wrong.

Not sure how much conversation I can generate about this story, but I’d love it if this were just the beginning. I’d especially like to hear from O,R&L, the mayor’s office and any media ethicists who happen to be reading this.

Photo by Melinda Tuhus for the New Haven Independent. Republished by permission.

Julian Assange

The latest WikiLeaks document dump gives us all much to think about. Unlike the earlier materials, about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latest revelations might actually make it more difficult for the United States to conduct foreign policy.

Is the world safer or less safe today now that we know King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has urged the U.S. to take out Iran’s nuclear-weapons-in-the-making? Or doesn’t it matter? And would the documents be seen in a different light if the New York Times, the Guardian et al. had done nothing and let WikiLeaks release them on its own accord?

Like most journalists, I want to see as much information out there as possible. When government officials talk about the need for secrecy, I’m naturally suspicious. Yet as Timothy Garton Ash observes in the Guardian, secrecy is surely a tool that the State Department needs to use on occasion. He writes:

How can diplomacy be conducted under these conditions? A State Department spokesman is surely right to say that the revelations are “going to create tension in relationships between our diplomats and our friends around the world.” The conduct of government is already hampered by fear of leaks. An academic friend of mine who worked in the State Department under Condoleezza Rice told me that he had once suggested writing a memo posing fundamental questions about U.S. policy in Iraq. “Don’t even think of it,” he was warned — because it would be sure to appear in the next day’s New York Times.

U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., sounds as though he wants WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be tried and executed. I think we can safely dismiss rants like that while still wondering whether there was a legitimate need to keep these matters secret.

I have not yet come up with an answer to that question. What I do know is that information technology now makes it possible for a group like WikiLeaks to dump far more dangerous documents than these into the public realm. Say what you will about traditional news organizations like the Times, but at least they give the government an opportunity to make a case as to why such documents shouldn’t be released.

One thing’s for sure: if the government is serious about keeping its secrets, it needs to do a much better job of protecting them.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

NPR journalists may not participate in marches and rallies involving causes or issues that NPR covers, nor should they sign petitions or otherwise lend their name to such causes, or contribute money to them. This restriction applies to the upcoming John [sic] Stewart and Stephen Colbert rallies.

Most of Weiss’ admonitions are a matter of common sense. Journalists should not put bumper stickers on their cars, donate money to political candidates or do anything else that would amount to political involvement. But if I were an off-duty NPR reporter, I’d be offended at being ordered not to attend a rally, whether it be Colbert’s “Keep Fear Alive” event or Glenn Beck’s recent gathering.

Good journalists want to check things out whether they’re working or not. There’s a proper role for a reporter on a busman’s holiday, and it neither requires staying home nor involves waving fists and posters while chanting along with the crowd.

It’s called attending, observing, learning.

“Something’s out of whack at the feisty local tabloid,” writes Carroll.

Desirée Rogers, in White House kitchen, is to Michelle Obama's immediate right.

The New York Times fronts an article by Peter Baker on the ugly departure of White House social secretary Desirée Rogers. Go ahead and call it a classic “Who cares?” story, but I’m shallow enough to admit it’s the only one I’ve read in the Times so far today.

What really hit me, though, was this:

And while she [Rogers] is unwilling to discuss her story publicly, several associates shared her account in the belief that her side has been lost in the swirl of hearings, backbiting and paparazzilike coverage.

Go ahead and read the story. I have no doubt that Baker did, indeed, interview “several associates.” But it also seems crystal-clear that Rogers sat down with Baker and gave him an extensive interview, all of it premised on an agreement that she would not be quoted either by name or on a not-for-attribution basis. I believe that’s called “deep background” — not that there’s any agreement on what the term means.

The whole point to such an exercise is to provide Rogers with plausible deniability, and I don’t think Baker did that. Of course, assuming Baker stuck to their agreement, that’s Rogers’ problem, not his. Still, from an ethical point of view it’s at least worth chewing over.

A final caveat: I am, of course, guessing at what happened. It’s possible that Baker got Rogers’ side solely on the basis of interviews with her friends, and that she herself refused to speak with him. But that’s not how it looks from here.

White House photo by Joyce Boghosian. More information at Wikimedia Commons.

That was quick: If you follow the link now (1:41 p.m.), you’ll see that Radar has retracted the item.