The Society of Professional Journalists has issued the first in a series of position papers on significant ethical issues for the craft. One of its first two counsels how to use the existing and venerable ethics code of the organization, but the other is more ground-gaining on political involvement.

The short-form message is: Don't. As in, run, donate, organize, campaign.
,
But the longer message in the paper, written by veteran journalist Fred Brown, is that public perception is such that a journalist has to demonstrate impartiality. Political involvement won't do that, he argues.

Brown is not impractical. He notes that objectivity isn't possible but impartiality is.

Brown, who covered politics for the Denver Post for four decades, asserts the importance of noting when publishers and proprietors weigh in to politics. As for editorial positions by newspapers, he says it's fine as long as there is a sharp and defined line between news and opinion for the public to see.

One thing he finds "unnecessarily prim": not voting. "The proof of a reporter's impartiality should be in the performance."


 
 
It has been another interesting week in Wisconsin, thanks in part to journalism and the debate about a prank-like phone call.
A misleading phone call to Wisconsin governor Scott Walker on Tuesday, from the Buffalo Beast website pretending to be billionaire David Koch, got the governor to say things about his serious dispute with public sector workers others hadn't unfurled under less deceptive circumstances.
The appropriate organizations (chiefly the Society for Professional Journalists) were incensed. Newsrooms restrained themselves from reporting on what the governor said, although most linked to the interview that caused such a kerfuffle.
Buffalo Beast shot back that the SPJ's own standards suggest its actions were justified. After all, it and others had tried traditional means to get the governor to open up about the workers. It asked: Wasn't this simply the next alternative?
Media ethics professor Stephen J. Ward, who happens to run a journalism ethics institute based in Wisconsin, identified the circumstances under which deception might be acceptable: a serious wrongdoing, when there is no other way to get the information, when one minimizes harm, and when one is prepared to accept public accountability for actions.
As a corollary to that last circumstance, there is the issue of reputation commingled with the issue of practice. Hard-earned reputations evaporate in an instant when the public feels the end did not justify the means.
What do you think?
 

DA25E68FDEC14EAFA7B2A27D26C48058