robot_parade

I know this story is a little bit old, but I just can't get over it.

All professions have standards of integrity. Doctors have the hippocratic oath, lawyers and other 'white collar' professions generally have organizations, standards, and sometimes even laws regulating their behavior. Blue collar workers are generally expected to be honest, deal fairly, do the work they commit to doing, etc.

Journalists also have what is called 'journalistic integrity'.

Let's pretend you are a journalist covering a candidate for president. He invites you and the other journalists covering him to stay the weekend at a five-star resort, all expenses paid, and attend a free 'barbecue', all in a 'no-cameras/off-the-record' atmosphere. It's explicitly not a political or campaign event, there won't be any opportunity to interview the candidate 'on the record', or anything like that.

Do you think attending such an event would violate your journalistic integrity?

Obviously I'm referring to the McCain thing the other weekend:

http://margalis.blogspot.com/2008/03...ess-corps.html

Pretty well matches my views, and includes some excerpts from the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:

And I'm curious - does anyone here on TFP see any justification for this behavior? Anyone willing to defend it?

Willravel

I absolutely would not attend the event and I would report on the invitation so as to prevent other journalists from going. Even if the invitation was from a non-crazy candidate like Obama, I'd never go.

The only way it would make sense is if you were a meteorologist or sports writer who didn't ever for any reason report on politics. Then there would be no conflict of interest. In other words, Al Roker could go but Matt Lauer could not.

Justification? McCain wants to win, and some members of the media have no problem compromising their integrity. I mean it's ribs!

loquitur

Will, I agree that it looks terrible, but let me ask you this: would you compromise your integrity for a plate of ribs?

The_Jazz

I'm sorry, but when it's a mass invitation I don't see any conflict. If it were one organization or favoritism where displayed, then I'd have a problem, but this was an invitation to all the reportered ASSIGNED to the candidate to get to know him on a more personal level. He already transports the pool of reporters from place to place to cover his campaign. The President transports the Press Corp on Air Force One on every trip.

Do you honestly think that the press isn't going to report on something based on a good night's sleep and some barbeque?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

It's like Sophie's Choice, I know.
Do you think Boeing gets military contracts just by providing free flights?

robot_parade

It was a mass invitation to all of the reporters who are supposed to be covering him. I happen to think providing transportation also pushes the line, for that matter. A reporter's job is *not* to get to know the candidate on a personal level.

A good night's sleep (a weekend, actually, if I read the reports properly) at a five-star hotel/resort, with all expenses paid? A chummy barbecue get together?

If one of my buddies sprung for that, my response would be 'Dude, you *rock*!'

What if someone I'm interviewing for a job extended the same offer to all the people who just happened to be on his interview team?

What if one provider of services or products for my company made a similar offer to all of the people responsible for purchasing decisions?

What if someone under indictment made a similar offer to the judge, jury, and prosecutor of his case?

And it's not a matter of what they will or will not report on, it's a matter of bias. You can't help but be biased in favor of someone you've "hung out with" - not to mention if he sprung for all the expenses and extras. The press covering McCain was already too cozy with him before this, IMNSHO - this is just beyond the pale.

shakran

I don't have to pretend. It's happened to me. This is very, VERY common for people with an interest in positive press coverage to do. It's not just limited to the politico types.
Yes.


Defend which side of it? McCain did nothing wrong. He's allowed to try and influence press coverage. The journalist who allows himself to be wined and dined is doing something wrong. Many journos these days do not understand why I won't even take an offered cookie or donut. It's not because my coverage would be influenced. You could give me a Porsche and I'd still nail you to the wall if you screwed up. But the viewer doesn't know that. I won't do anything that jeopardizes my perceived integrity with the viewer.

It's a sad thing really. Most journalists are paid crap wages. I know many who make $17,000 a year. Most starting journos make that. . .if they're lucky. Very tempting to take the free SWAG offered you when you consider ramen expensive, ya know? But it's something that a journo must realize is a consequence of him choosing to be a journalist. Don't like it? You can make more money doing almost anything else. Go into PR and offer the trips to the journos

Jinn

I'd absolutely attend.

It would violate my ethics if an expectation was made in person or in writing that I would "slant" my writing to favor this candidate after attending such a thing.

I think it's actually MORE of an insult to imply that I can be bought off. I don't see anything ethically wrong with taking a $100,000 gift from someone, either, because I'm able to say that it wouldn't effect my ability as a neutral journalist.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

The_Jazz

Sure it is. You, as a voter, don't want to know what makes the man tick? Their job is to report on the relavent facts. Sometimes those facts are whether he's a Yankees fan or a Diamondbacks fan. They're humanizing their subject so that there's more to him than a former POW who can't raise his arms above his head and a problem with authority.

Shakran, I'm waiting for your opinion here.



Interviewing for a job? Probably not appropriate, but it's not really a relavent comparison since the "interview team" is the voters, not the reporters.

Purchasing? That's a clear ethical problem since we're talking about a business transaction. We're not in this case. It's a political campaign. The analogy sucks.

Judge, jury and prosecutor? Seriously? I have to respond to this?

Perhaps the best analogy, if you're going to insist on one, is business auditors. Is it ethical for someone who is externally auditiing my business with the intent to recomend to someone else to buy it to take me to dinner to get to know me? If you check with your local business ethics professor, you'll find that it is, especially if you're discussing business. Which was made clear by the "off the record" caveat.

You know who it's really hard to interview? Strangers. You know who it's hard to figure out who's lying? Strangers.

Was it ethical for Deep Throat to pick Woodward and Bernstein to out CREEP and Nixon? They most certainly profited from it. If you think they didn't, then check the receipts for each of their last books.

And reporters routinely eat for free on the campaign trail, by the way.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Jinn

Are you all so easily bribed by food that you'd actually have an ethical dilemma reporting on someone negatively after attending a party like this?

I just don't understand having such loose morals/ethics that this could become an issue.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

The_Jazz

Obviously this won't work on Shakran, but R_P, if I buy the beer and the nachos, will you blindly agree with everything I post?

Now imagine me wearing a wizard hat and waving my magic wand/crooked stick and asking that.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

robot_parade

I'm not sure if I agree that McCain did nothing wrong. While this isn't a bribe, I think most people would agree that it's wrong to either accept *or* offer a bribe. I think it's wrong to try to buy influence as well as to allow yourself to be bought, and it's wrong to intentionally put someone in a position of conflict of interest...maybe not *as* bad, but still, not all roses ethically.

Yep, and I see lots of signs that (especially in Washington), journalists are way to cozy with the rich and powerful that they are supposed to be covering.

The_Jazz

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

Yes, but the DoD rarely springs for hookers. Boeing? It's a distinct possibility.

I wonder if McCain's BBQ comes with hookers.

robot_parade

I have to say, I simply don't believe you. I'm not saying you're lying outright, but either you're deluding yourself, or you're one ungrateful S.O.B.

How could someone take a $100,000 gift, and not feel grateful? And, feeling grateful towards someone makes you naturally more inclined to be favorably disposed to them.

Even if you can someone not be influenced, the appearance of conflict of interest is harmful as well.

If you don't mind, how about another thought experiment.

Your neighbor sues you for $1 million dollars because he says you caused damage to his property. You did no such thing, and are completely innocent. I happen to be the judge on the case, and I arrive at the courthouse in the new sports car your neighbor bought for me, declare you liable for all damages, and leave for a celebratory game of golf with your neighbor. You complain that I was biased, but I repeats the statement that you just made - "I don't see anything ethically wrong with taking a $100,000 gift from someone, because I'm able to say that it wouldn't effect my ability as a neutral judge."

Thoughts? The only difference I see in this and the case of the journalists and McCain is one of degree - you say the journalists aren't influenced by the lavish gift (ignoring the 'buddying up' aspect of it), and I say I'm not influenced by the nice sports car your neighbor bought for me.

The_Jazz

Will, after all the bitching you've done about strawmen in the past 24 hours, I hope you recognize your post for what it is. Do I need to go get roachboy's red herring attachment for you?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

Comon, you've got to realize that post was made in jest.

robot_parade

Of course not. I'm not saying that McCain has bought these journalists completely. I'm saying it's a conflict of interest, and they will naturally be (even more) biased in favor of him. However, if you buy me beer and nachos - of course I'll feel somewhat more kindly disposed towards you. I'll think "Wow, that Jazz is one swell guy!". If I were put in a position where I were charged with making an unbiased evaluation of you or something you did, I'd feel ethically compelled to disclose our prior 'relationship'. If I was already in such a position, I might feel compelled to decline your offer - beer and nachos would probably fall under a threshold where I would just disclose it instead of declining, as would anything around or below the cost of, say, a lunch.

Now you're just making me all hot and bothered. ;-)

Hookers slathered in BBQ sauce? In that case, I can't really blame the journalists for accepting. Can I change my vote?

Ustwo

McCain has sucked up to the media forever, this is nothing new.

In 2000 I vaguely remember some cutesy named bus where he would kiss their ass on the road while he did his campaigning.

But so what.

As a journalist I'd sure as hell go, how often do you get to really talk to and see the people you report on up close and personal?

There is no code of ethics in journalism because there are no ethics in journalism. The only ethics are from the reporter or the editors. So if you feel a BBQ would make you unable to honestly report, don't go, you are either weak willed or just so worried about looking bad you are going to miss a great opportunity to meet one of US histories trivia foot notes, 'Who was the republican nominee for President in 2008, Hint:Not Bob Dole'.

As a republican I'd happily go to anything like this from Obama or Clinton, and yes maybe my opinion of them would change meeting them on a personal level, but so what, it would be a more valid option than one shaped only by official functions. I'd pass on the Green party of course as that won't be showing up on any triva card.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

The_Jazz

Gotta do this out of order. Sorry.

What? Are you a canibal now? Are you sitting at your computer thinking "mmmmm, barbequed hooker, hot off the grill!" That's a little scarier than me in my wizard hat and crooked stick.

That's the thing - I am a swell guy. I usually insist on buying the drinks. It's what I do. Perhaps that's why I don't see the conflict here. The reporters are going to write what they're going to write, regardless of who filled their bellies. Is one of them going to sit on a story about how McCain is about to sell Alaska back to the Russians because of this barbeque?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

robot_parade

The problem is when said journalists pretend to be unbiased. They claim to have high ethical standards, and they claim to be unbiased, but neither statement is true.

I think getting 'close' to the subject of your reporting is a dangerous thing for a reporter.

I disagree. I think there are ethical standards in journalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal..._and_standards

Sure, many journalists don't live up to those standards, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Also, these ethical standards are a relatively recent phenomenon - but so is public sanitation, and I, for one, am happy about both advances, and want to keep them.

I think more access (up to a point) is a great thing. However, this event wasn't something the reporters covered *as reporters*. It was explicitly intended as an event for the reporters to attend *outside* of their reporting duties. The reporters there were not there covering John McCain the candidate. They were there being wined and dined by him. It was an entire weekend at a spa/resort, and a chummy, relaxed time with the candidate. It was an event clearly intended to court and curry favor with the reporters, and I'm sure it worked brilliantly.

host

Take a minute to watch this vid of the McCain "shindig" with the press assigned to cover him and his campaign:


and it is allegedly authored by 23 years old Meghan McCain. Do you think the journalists covering McCain have violated their professional ethics....they agreed to leave recording devices behind and were "encouraged" to put away their notebooks.

Do you think David Shuster's comments about Chelsea apply to Meghan McCain ? Why would journalists allow themselves to be recorded when they agreed not to bring recording devices to McCain's "cabin"?

McCain is a controversial figure, in that his personal wealth is now $50 to $100 million, it all came from business profits from businesses founded by his late father-in-law, James W. Hensley. Four years after the reporting in the quote box below was published, McCain at age 44, divorced his wife, married Hensley's 27 years old daughter, Cindy, and accepted a job with Hensley as his VP of PR at Hensley's Budweiser beer distribution business. Hensley soon began to contribute large amounts to McCain's initial congressional campaign and his later senate campaigns. It looks as if Hensley began his business investment with money obtained via organized crime activity. Shouldn't the press not simply flirt with reporting of Hensley's 1948 federal felony conviction? Why would their coverage of McCain's background stop there?

Doesn't McCain's choosing to work for Hensley and grow rich from his association with him...he could have refused to be associated with or to accept Hensley's money for any reason....speak to McCain's ethics and judgment....his sense of right from wrong?

Is it about maintaining access to McCain? <h3>Why is access more important than in depth reporting, if access means electing not to report in depth?</h3>


On sunday, the Boston Globe reported this: (Not until the third page of their article)
<h3>....and if the Globe reported those details, why aren't these relevant?:</h3>


http://news.google.com/archivesearch...earch+Archives

<h3>At the link above</h3>, you can only read the short excerpts about Clarence "Teak" Baldwin, but....if you read them and then found that Baldwin was a man who the Hensley brothers hid from the NM Racing Commission as their equal 1/3 stake "business" partner in their horse race track purchase, what would you think of the Hensley's character? How about if you also knew that they were friends with Baldwin and with Kemper Marley in the 30s, 40s, snd 50s, were employed by Marley for at least 8 years, through 2 arrests (1948, and 1953) and one federal felony conviction each?

I've already "shared" these reports with you:

REAL FUCKING INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER Don Bolles got himself dynamited to death in 1976, for reporting these same details about Mr. Marley.

Some of us see "nothing wrong" with anything....ever.

Ustwo

I'm sure that was part of his goal. But if I were a reporter MY goal would be to see McCain the man and see what kind of man he was, and that isn't something you get from a reportable event for the most part. I mean would I report 'McCain passed me the ribs and asked if I wanted hot sauce'?

I understand your view on this, but my opinion of the press is so low that I think this kind of activity could help elevate it a bit if they really knew the people they report on.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

host

Read a little on the career of REAL newspaper reporter Don Bolles, and post whether Don was handicapped by not "seeing the man and what kind of a man he was", when he was developing a story about a public figure. Bolles operated as a private investigator, in the way he assembled his information. Laborious public records checks, developing a rolodex of informer's phone numbers....he interviewed the AZ State Hwy Patrol Superintendent once, and sat on the other side of the man's desk, holding a folder that he would open and glance into, from time to time, as he asked his probing questions. The official grew more intimidated as Bolles checked his folder, and reportedly would not dare to say anything misleading. Bolles later revealed that the folder he kept checking was empty.

You find nothing except puff piece bullshit if you cozy up to a subject who you are trying to report about.

robot_parade

Hey, you started it, I just upped the scary ante. :-)


If you buy me drinks, I'm going to feel more favorably disposed to you. I'll know what a swell guy you are. You didn't buy me the drinks to get something, or even to make me think what a swell guy you are. I didn't accept the drinks and automatically make a value decision 'Oh, well now I owe him'. But I'm certainly now more biased in your favor. Which is fine. However, if I'm then expected to make an unbiased evaluation of you or your actions, we have a conflict of interest.

If I were a journalist covering you, as a political figure, I would probably insist on paying for my own drinks, and I would hope you would understand my position.

In your example - no, a journalist that is 'cozy' with McCain probably wouldn't sit on the story - but would he notify McCain in advance that he was going to run with the story, giving him time to do damage control? Would his story put McCain in a more favorable light? Would he be more inclined to 'See McCain's side of the story?' I think so.

Would you accept his money to pay for your stay at a luxary 5-star hotel? Would you agree to keep the weekend 'off the record', and leave your recording devices off and notebooks closed? If McCain said something inappropriate, would you abide by his 'off the record' request?

I guess maybe this is the root of our disagreement - if you think the press is as low as it can go, and *anything* would be an improvement, then maybe I can see your point. I think the press in the US is bad, but should be much better, and could get much worse. Maybe optimistic of me, but, after all, I support The Candidate Of Hope (TM).

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think I sort of understand your logic here, I just can't agree with it.

I snipped lots of stuff.

Honestly, while I'm about as anti-McCain (2008 McCain, anyway) as you can get, I didn't want to make this thread about McCain as much as journalistic integrity, or rather, the lack thereof. That's why I didn't include the cutesy video that Ms. McCain did (on her Macbook, probably - that girl probably has a future in video production) or any other McCain-specific sources. I'd like to think I'd be equally outraged by journalists pandering to Obama. :-)

mandy

I have been reading and re-reading this thread trying to come up with a suitable answer...

I am a journalist. And I feel that if a presidential candidate offered a group of the media an all expenses paid week to some exotic resort of whatever, I will have no problem accepting. There's no interviews, no political content whatsoever. Nothing is on the record.

Now personally, i dont see the problem with that. Where the problem does come in, is when it affects your judgement, when it affects your ability to be the watchdog of the govenment (cos thats what journalists are), when it clouds your head with "ooh he gave me a free week at an exotic resort so let me give him a bit of good publicity in the paper" BULL SHIT!!!

Now, some people might see that as being two faced...and thats fine.

But as long as my two faced behavior does not comprimise my beliefs, morals, values and journalistic integrity to report in an honest and fair manner, to be the watchdog for the government, and not be biased, and not pass judgement, and just disregard everything i was taught on how to be a journalist, then free weekend with no strings attached, here I come!

__________________
The Imagination equips us to see a reality we have yet to create

powerclown

host, I served with Don Bolles: I knew Don Bolles; Don Bolles was a friend of mine. host, you're no Don Bolles!

powerclown

You may not see a problem with it, but think about what others reading your work would think if you were to write a story about someone who did you such favors. I think they would think you've maybe been charmed into write something nice about them. Sure, some people like to hear stories favorable to a certain individual or candidate, but I think most people appreciate journalistic impartiality and the opportunity to come to their own decisions.

robot_parade

Well, I have two responses to that, which are pretty much my responses to The_Jazz above...

o It's human nature to be grateful when someone does something nice for you, and thus to have a more favorable outlook on them - AKA a bias towards them. That bias may not show up as a tit-for-tat transaction, but a kinder tone in your reporting of that candidate, or casting his actions in a more positive light, etc.

o Even if you are capable of not being biased towards someone who as done something nice to you, doesn't the appearance of impropriety bother you?

I don't mean this personally, but I wouldn't ever trust a reporter who accepted such an offer to report in an unbiased manner on the candidate in question - and would question their judgment on other reporting as well. Just as I wouldn't trust a politician who let the entertainment industry pay for a vacation to a 5-star resort to regulate the same entertainment industry. Even if he/she is one of those magical people who isn't biased towards people who have done nice things for him or her, the appearance of bias is enough for me.

mandy

let me ask you something...who is other people? who cares what other people think of me? i certainly don't.

if someone is wrong i'll call them on their wrong doing and if they are right, i'll praise them.

Give credit where credit is due.

I refuse to be put in a situation where presidential candidate will say to me, "but dont you remember that time when i did this and that other time when i gave you a free holiday bla bla bla"

If you are in the wrong now, then i'm going to report on it...i'm not going to give you good publicity just cos you gave me a gift...unfortunately for him, that's how life works, or at least thats how i work and they will know that.

I refuse to comprimise my integrity as a journalist, something that i have worked so long and so hard for just for a few short nights of exotic pleasure, and they will know that too.

bottom line...if you're wrong, you're wrong and if you're right, you're right.

__________________
The Imagination equips us to see a reality we have yet to create

shakran

I can get to know you, Jazz, on a personal level without you having to give me a $100,000 vacation. A core tenet of journalistic ethics is that we do not use our position as journalists to gain advantages. We do not take gifts, we do not go to media days at amusement parks, we do not let restaurants comp our bill because they see the station logo on our coats. . .None of it.

Now, yes, there are some. . hell, many, journalists who violate that ethical obligation. They do nothing but to lower our profession in the eyes of the public. Considering journalists currently have an approval rating below that of Congress, that's not a wise move. For myself, if you work for me and you take gifts, you get fired.

Is it ethical for him to accept a $50,000 gift from you when his audit will determine the fate of the sale?


Well, I know my regular sources pretty well, and I got to know them by interviewing them, constantly, on and off camera. I don't need to go to their house and swim in their pool to do my job. Doing that, in fact, makes my job harder because the public will assume that I feel indebted to my sources and therefore won't craft a fair report.


Deep Throat didn't profit from it. Woodward and Bernstein wrote journalistic accounts of the Watergate scandal (All the Presidents Men and The Final Days, if anyone's interested. Good reads, both of them). Journalists have the right to get paid for their work.

Had W & B accepted tickets to the symphony from Deep Throat, or gifts from Nixon, they would have been crossing an ethical line.



Yes I know. I watch it all the time and it pisses me off. Here's one journo that does not. I will not taint my reporting or the perception of my reporting by being in any way indebted to the people I am covering.