Cyber Discussion: Burning Questions on Ethics and Credibility

API's Warren Watson begins an occasional Roundtable feature — The Roundtable Cyber Discussion. In this edition, we look at newspaper credibility. Watson posed these questions just after Jack Kelley resigned from the staff of USA TODAY in the latest issue involving ethics and credibility and the media.

Joining today's virtual panel are editors who participated in a summer 2003 API seminar on Reporting Standards:

1) In the wake of the latest problems at USA TODAY, how important are the issues of journalistic credibility and ethics? (On a scale of 1-10, with 10 constituting the highest of priorities?)

CUNNINGHAM: A 10. The scariest piece of the credibility discussion is that there seems to be a "hole in the soul " of some journalists who don't seem to be able to do the right thing. We all make mistakes and will continue to do so. We all have lapses in judgment, and that will continue as well. But, where in the world do some journalists get the idea that it's OK to do what they do?

BHATIA: I'd give it a 12.

MONG: It's a 10. Credibility and protecting our 120-year-old brand go hand in hand. We have invested heavily in building the largest and most experienced news team in this region so that we can serve our audience well. This bond is both enduring and fragile. We realize that.

GOWLER: Our credibility is the most important thing we have. I would put it at 10.

GARCIA: A 10.

SIEGAL: They rank as a 10 – without a question.

WYCLIFF: Credibility and ethics are at least a 9, probably a 10. In the last analysis, what we sell to readers is our credibility, and ethics underpin credibility.

2) Is there a link between credibility and readership?

BHATIA: No question. If the paper is viewed as honest by readers, they are more likely to stay with us. If the paper is viewed as caring about the issues that matter to readers, those readers are more likely to keep reading.

MONG: Yes, I believe there is a link between readership growth and our ethical practices.

GARCIA: Absolutely. Just look at the readership surveys.
GOWLER: Yes, definitely.
WYCLIFF: I'm sure there is.
CUNNINGHAM: Yes. Period!

3) What are you doing in your own shop to improve the level of credibility in the work you produce?

CUNNINGHAM: We re-up on our Statement of Principles every year with workshops and training. Every newsroom staffer signs that Statement every year. We have a common language and we have broad and deep discussions. Equally important, we are always seeking better ways of connecting with our readers.

BHATIA: We've done a lot. Part of it is just talking about it and making sure the staff understands the importance of getting things right. We've been a center of the ASNE credibility initiative … that resulted in new approaches to crime and youth coverage. We have a public editor, whose conversations with readers help us know how we are doing. We put a great deal of emphasis on expertise on beats, with the theory that the more expertise we have, the more credible our work.

MONG: We have clear news guidelines that have evolved over the years. Our journalists review these guidelines periodically. I have conducted several brown bag lunches since last summer discussing ties between great journalism and ethical decision-making. The talk begins with a quote from a very good reporter 20 years ago here: "I can be interesting, and I can be fair, but I can't be both at the same time. " My talk builds on the evolution of that reporter to the point where they recanted that statement.

SIEGAL: We are revising some of our policies on newsroom integrity (the guidelines on anonymous sources, for example), and we are conducting training — initially for supervising editors but eventually for the whole staff — on issues of ethics, accuracy and credibility. As you can see, we have also elevated this set of concerns to the level of a full-time masthead job.

GOWLER: We have done a number of things, including updating our ethics code and sending out random accuracy letters to readers. We also added a night city editor to help improve the quality of our content.

GARCIA: We had a committee of reporters, editors and copy editors review our corrections policy and recommend a new one. They put a lot of work into this. We then announced the creation of an ethics committee that will begin its work in March.

WYCLIFF: After the Jayson Blair affair last year, we had some sessions to discuss our own situation. This has resulted in an "ethics letter" that goes to freelance contributors with whom we contract (we can't enforce it against them but we do at least inform them and let them know what our "expectations" are.) Also, in our ongoing revision of our stylebook, we have added a section on plagiarism and attempted to define more carefully rules on attribution and sourcing. The entire aim is to be transparent to readers.

4) Is the industry doing enough to ensure the highest standards of credibility? What needs to be done?

BHATIA: We can never do enough. But I think the renewed interest in training and
learning will help. And I think recent events, notably (Jayson) Blair, have helped to refocus us on he fundamentals, which can only help credibility.

MONG: Standards need to be embraced and practiced every day else they are subject to atrophying. We can never do enough. We have to fight for the highest standards every day. Some days we succeed better than others. Success begins with humility. You need to surround yourself with people different from yourself. That way when you preen and exaggerate what's good in the paper and soft pedal what's not, there's someone there to knock you off your pedestal.

SIEGAL: I'm not sure we can speak for "the industry," or even whether we know how to define it. A great many newspapers and most of the professional journalism organizations have redoubled their attention to standards of credibility in the wake of last summer's problems at The Times.

GOWLER: The major organizations — both ASNE and APME — have focused on it. API and Poynter have focused on it. And all of that attention and focus should help. But it's an issue that requires constant diligence and transparency with the readers. It starts with hiring good journalists and training our managers — and ends with a willingness to do something about staffers who don't adhere to the highest standards.

GARCIA: Yes. There are tremendous resources to tap into and the information, examples, and help are there. You only have to e-mail a colleague or an organization and you will find what you need. What we need to do is get that information drilled down to every writer, editor, copy editor, etc. I am on many committees and am lucky enough to have somewhat of a network and know where to turn to for help.

WYCLIFF: Everywhere I go, ethics and credibility are the stuff of intense discussion. Certainly no one is unaware of the problem we face.

CUNNINGHAM: Are we doing enough? NO! Until the big newspapers with bureaus in Washington commit to "no anonymous sources, " we are destined to repeat these horrors.

Next month: A look at nettlesome topics in the area of newspaper design.