Category Archives: Newspaper ethics

Readers take issue with an attempt at humor

Two readers, Chris and Justin, took issue with a sports story on the KU basketball team’s visit to Wichita. Both were pretty upset at reporter Jeffrey Martin’s reference to a fan in a wheelchair and a passage in the story when she met Darnell Jackson up close. This is one of those instances in which I can only say, “Yes, you’re right.”

Both Justin and Chris felt like the story was insensitive, and I agree that’s how it reads. As I explained to Justin, I’m certain Jeff never intended to embarrass the woman he referenced in the story. This was a case of trying to be funny — which backfires more than it works in the written word, I think — and needing an attentive editor to pull the plug on a bad idea.

I had the same reaction as Chris and Justin when I saw the story in the paper. We committed multiple fouls: I think referring to a woman as “lady” is offensive to many women and we shouldn’t do it; we should never refer to a person in a wheelchair as having an “affliction”; and the phrase “with all due respect” placed in front of an insult will never mitigate the insult. Justin raised an excellent point in his email about whether referencing a person’s use of a wheelchair is relevant at all and compared it to people noting someone’s race. In fact, the Eagle has written guidelines specifically against referencing race unless it’s directly relevant to a story.

We’ll take some learning from this on matters of sensitivity.

Front-page story wasn’t linked to drug ads

A couple of readers found it suspicious that The Eagle carried a front-page story Monday about a panel of cardiologists advising against two popular cholesterol-lowering medications and recommending doctors instead rely more heavily on statin drugs. On Page 3 was a full-page ad for one of the better-known statins.

Both readers assumed we had timed the story to run in conjunction with the ad or vice versa. It may look that way, but there’s no connection between the news story selected for Page 1 and the ad that ran on Page 3. The ad was actually purchased on behalf of drug maker Pfizer by a national advertising firm that places such ads in many newspapers simultaneously. It was slated to run 8 times, and was published for the first time in The Eagle on Feb. 29.

After publication several times, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stopped the ad and required wording changes. Those were made, and the ads resumed running Monday.

In situations like this, our news editors don’t even know such an ad is in the paper until they see it in the morning, with rare exceptions. Ads on pages with news stories are seen by editors for the first time around 11 or 11:30 p.m. But full-page ads such as the Lipitor ad that ran Monday bypass the newsroom entirely.

The bottom line is that we don’t tie news stories to advertising. In features sections we occasionally sell advertising next to related articles (fashion stories, for example), but don’t do so with news stories. One reader said it was simply too hard to believe the front-page story and the ad showed up independent of each other. But that’s exactly what happened.

Our policy on staff caucus participation

Here’s a note I sent to the newsroom today explaining our newsroom policy on caucus participation:

With Kansas caucuses fast approaching, we need to have a clear policy in place on staff participation in the Republican and Democratic Party caucuses.

It’s difficult to determine the right and fair balance between staffers’ rights as citizens and our need to protect the newspaper’s credibility and objectivity. One major complicating factor is that the two state parties’ caucus procedures are significantly different.

I don’t have a problem inherently with staffers taking part in caucuses. Since Kansas has a closed primary system, employees are already required to declare a party affiliation to participate in primary elections. That affiliation is public record.

The upcoming Republican Party caucus vote is done by secret ballot. Participants are not required to publicly declare support for a candidate, and for that reason, newsroom staffers who want to participate are allowed to do so. However, you must stop short of campaigning for candidates at the caucus – doing so would greatly jeopardize your credibility and the newspaper’s, and I ask you to limit your participation to ballot voting.

The Democratic Party caucus is more problematic. The caucus format is not a private ballot – participants physically and publicly show support for a candidate. We can’t allow newsroom staff members to publicly endorse a political candidate in this way, so we have to ask you not to participate in the Democratic caucus.

I realize there’s no perfect answer to this situation, and this policy has its flaws. It opens us to the appearance of treating two political parties differently. But I also can’t see my way to prohibiting participation in the Republican caucus just so we have a parallel policy for two very different events. The issue with the Democratic caucus is purely in the way the party has structured the event.

I want our staff members to be engaged citizens. I know that many newspapers bar staff participation in caucuses, but I don’t think that’s necessary here since our typical primary system requires you to declare a party affiliation to vote. But we have to stop short of staffers publicly endorsing candidates or campaigning on their behalf. I believe most of us understand that we sacrifice the right to those activities by choosing the jobs we’ve chosen.

If any of this troubles you, let’s talk.

Making difficult decisions

As I’ve said in other posts here, I often find myself very torn between the benefits of forums, blogs and reader comment features on the Web versus the sometimes savage, close-minded nature of posts on those sites.

I sometimes find myself contemplating what thought processes must lead people to such points of view and forms of expression. Today I read a terrific column by Michael R. Fancher in the Seattle Times about a difficult news decision the Seattle newspapers grappled with. Fancher mentions a book I’d never heard of that’s now on my buy-soon list: "How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living," by Rushworth Kidder (Harper Collins, $12.95).

While describing the Seattle papers’ decisions and news process, Fancher notes what he terms the frequent "absolutist" nature of commentators on the Web. I found his column thought-provoking and thought you might want to check it out.

– Sherry

Did we withhold track connections?

An anonymous reader dropped me a note asking why The Eagle didn’t disclose Randy Brown’s financial connections to Wichita Greyhound Park. Randy was quoted in Mark McCormick’s column in Local & State, and also wrote on our Opinion pages in favor of a yes vote for a casino and for slots at the greyhound track.

The writer believed Randy’s wife, Linda Parks, does legal work for the track. "Mr. Brown may not be being paid directly, but he sure is profiting, even if he is just helping his wife retain a lucrative client," the reader wrote. He or she wanted to know why we didn’t tell readers about this connection.

We would have. If it were true. Linda Parks (a partner at Hite Fanning Honeyman) was one of the attorneys for the track until Phil Ruffin purchased it in 1997. She retains an unpaid position on the board of the park’s charitable organization.

– Sherry

Revised ethics policy clarifies boundaries

I noted here not too long ago that we were in the process of revising our newsroom ethics policy regarding employees’ involvement in political campaigns and causes. Our previous policy, written about eight years ago, had clearly become too abbreviated and unspecific to address the ever-increasing stream of difficult situations newspapers and journalists find themselves in.

No policy can cover every potential situation. But I thought our newsroom policy needed to give our staff and readers a clear idea of boundaries, while acknowledging that much in the middle will have to be examined a case at a time.

This policy speaks only to newsroom employees at The Wichita Eagle. Guidelines in non-newsgathering departments are less restrictive, as is the broader ethics policy of our parent company, the McClatchy Co. Most of this policy has been "unwritten understanding" for a long time. But as other papers have found, some things need to be written down so there’s no ambiguity.

Copy Desk Chief Michael Roehrman did substantial research of other papers’ policies and practices, and we asked our news staff for feedback on working drafts.

We expect an addition to this policy in the coming weeks, and will brief you on it here when we come to a decision on employees’ involvement in political caucuses.

Meanwhile, here’s the new policy:

Politics and campaigns

It’s not The Eagle’s intention to control employees’ private lives.

We support and encourage community volunteer work, and many activities have little, if any, potential to create a professional conflict of interest: participating in your child’s school parent organization, for example, or joining a youth mentoring program, your parish council or neighborhood association.

Other activities, though, can present the potential for a conflict.

Political involvement by newsroom staff can jeopardize our credibility and call our objectivity into question. Newsroom staff should always consult with a senior manager when in doubt about appropriate activities or affiliations.

Staff members cannot use their position to promote causes or campaigns, or allow their outside activities to compromise The Eagle’s impartiality or reputation.

To prevent an ethical conflict or the appearance of one, do not contribute money to or work for political campaigns or causes. Be wary of attending a rally, march, demonstration or party if the event is of a political nature. This includes concerts that donate ticket proceeds to a cause or candidate. If an activity creates even a slight potential for conflict of interest, consult with the managing editor or editor first.

Employees may not run for political office or accept appointment to public boards or commissions if those appointments present a conflict of interest or exploit the employee’s connection to The Wichita Eagle.

Avoid public expression of political views, such as participating in demonstrations or sporting political buttons, bumper stickers or yard signs, or signing petitions that take a side on issues or call for a ballot measure.

Be aware of political affiliations of any organizations you are considering joining, and avoid those that present a potential conflict through their activities, goals or financial contributions or backing.

If there is an activity that some may view as political and others may not, consult with the managing editor or editor before taking part.

While The Eagle can’t proscribe the activities of spouses, partners or close relatives, be aware of how others may link their actions to you. If any are working on a campaign or political cause, disclose this to a senior editor and do not participate in coverage or news judgments on the campaign or cause. Any other actions that can generate perception problems, such as donations or affiliations, should also be disclosed to a senior editor.
When religious activities enter the public political arena — for example, protests, campaigns or fund-raisers involving abortion, gay marriage, war and the like — employees should avoid those activities.

For voter registration, there is no need to declare yourself an independent if you prefer not to, especially since closed primaries in Kansas require voters to declare a party affiliation.

– Sherry

How do we juggle journalist/voter roles?

Someone asked me a great question the other day about how journalists handle their responsibility to be fair and unbiased in news coverage, yet choose a candidate or a side on a referendum issue as a voter.

The discussion started out about whether we allow newsroom staffers to vote. Of course we do. We want the newsroom staff to be connected, engaged citizens. The key is that all potential biases have to be left at the door when journalists come to work. I’m not going to make the argument that there aren’t biases in every newsroom — I’ve never met a person yet who could claim to have no views or beliefs on any issues.

Journalists are ethically required to strive for fairness and balance and set aside their personal beliefs when covering a news story, or editing the paper. It’s hard, but an ethical duty.

Our staff members are also taxpayers and citizens, and have every right and responsibility to vote for the leaders and issues that will shape the community they live in.

However, we don’t allow news staff to campaign for people or issues, or take public stances on political matters. In fact, our existing ethics policy is being revised on these matters as we speak. Our existing policy is concise and, in my opinion, too unspecific about what is allowed and what is prohibited. Copy Desk Chief Michael Roehrman is working on a revised section for the Eagle Ethics Policy, and when I’ve approved it, I’ll post it here for you to see.

– Sherry

Let’s be more clear

If you read Jeffrey Martin’s column in last Sunday’s Sports section, you probably now have a substantially errant view of what "transparency" means in the news world.

At times I’ve been as quick as anyone to roll my eyes at gimmicky trends in the news business, and I’ve watched many come and go with little result. The idea of transparency isn’t one I’d throw on that scrap heap.

Transparency isn’t about newspaper editors explaining away the mishap of the day. Transparency simply means the newspaper’s decision-makers explain more often why they make the decisions they make. Readers won’t necessarily agree with the decisions, but they can more often understand the rationale behind them. That’s why this blog exists.

I don’t get how that can be a bad thing. The current movement toward greater transparency — more willingness to shed light on what we’re doing and why — is a much-needed shift from an old newsroom culture that said to readers, "It’s none of your business." If someone wants to label it a buzzword, OK. But it beats the culture it’s replacing: institutional arrogance.

Sherry

Campaigns and contributions

One of the most frequent questions I get is about the role newsroom staffers can take in political campaigns or fund-raising. Here’s a note I sent to the news staff this morning. This is specific to the newsroom — Eagle employees in other divisions don’t work under these same restrictions.

"With campaigns gearing up on the casino issue, and a presidential election on
the horizon, I want to remind everyone that our ethics policy precludes newsroom
employees from contributing to or working on political campaigns. This policy
extends to issues such as the casino. In addition, newsroom employees shouldn’t
wear buttons or stickers for candidates or issues, or have yard signs or sign
petitions. The best rule of thumb: When in doubt, consult first with a senior
editor. If you have questions or concerns, let’s talk. Thanks."

– Sherry

Journalists and political campaigns

People in the community occasionally ask me what role Eagle journalists are able to have as private citizens during election seasons. And someone last week pointed out that they saw a candidate’s bumper sticker on a car in The Eagle’s employee parking area.

The newsroom’s written ethics policy is very clear about journalists’ involvement in political campaigns. Here’s what it says:

"Don’t work on political campaigns. To prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest, do not contribute to political campaigns or sport political buttons, bumper stickers or yard signs. The same holds true for issues. If you are covering a liquor-by-the drink referendum or a school-bond issue, or an aspect of it, you should not sign petitions in favor it."

This policy pertains only to the newsroom. The Eagle’s other 300 or so employees are free to take part in the political process as they wish. The only restriction is that they cannot campaign or contribute and represent their individual views as those of The Wichita Eagle.

Sherry