Codes of ethics are important. In journalism, they help newsrooms and editorial boards make better decisions and builds credibility within the community being served.
Within the last few years, many distinguished news organizations have been embarrassed by revelations that some of their colleagues were plagiarizing or inventing news stories, affecting such important newspapers such as USA Today and the Washington Post, amongst others.
In addition, the revelation that the United States government was paying Iraqi media to present news stories flattering to the U.S. government and radio host Armstrong Williams who was paid a substantial sum to present the program No Child Left Behind in a favorable light, added to the public’s growing mistrust of media’s independence from ethics violations.
For that reason, nearly all news organizations have been reviewing their codes of ethics to ascertain that their newsrooms have significant guidelines to guide and make clear what is appropriate and what is not appropriate for each organization.
A study published in 1999 by the American Society of Newspaper Editors analyzed the codes of ethics of 33 different newspapers. Many of the codes were standard fare: it is inappropriate to accept gifts, travel junkets, or money for a story, for example. However, many did not include subjects such as correcting errors, privacy issues, deception, and plagiarism. Only 1/5th addressed the difficult but important division between the newsroom and the advertising department.
Certainly, many if not all of the news organizations analyzed have updated their codes. What we learn from this, however, is that each news organization has their independent ethical guidelines unique to their news organizations.
Therefore, it came as an enormous surprise to a number of prominent south Florida journalists who were targeted for violating a supposed code of ethics of The Miami Herald forbidding their journalists from receiving compensation from the U.S. government news agency like Radio and TV Marti, although it was not prohibited by the companies non-Herald journalists worked for. While The Miami Herald maintains a policy of not allowing their employees to receive remuneration from government news agencies, other media companies do not maintain that policy, such as Diario Las Americas, as do many other Spanish language media in south Florida. Neither does WPBT Channel 2, a south Florida PBS station where I moderate a public affairs program, do they see a conflict of interests. Of the eleven journalists sited, only 2 were employed by the Spanish language El Nuevo Herald full-time, one was a free lance employee. The other journalists cited in the article who work in either in television, radio or print, were employed by companies who do not agree that there is a conflict of interest.
Why then target the other journalists in this story, which was hardly a news story, it was well know that each and every one had a participation in Radio and TV Marti? Was this not in reality a personnel problem The Miami Herald needed to deal with privately with their employees instead of making it the first five-column news story on the front page of the newspaper? Or, was their something else behind this story that was not initially apparent? Certainly, the story was presented in the worst tradition of “gotcha journalism,” implying that there was more to the story than the news actually provided.
Many felt that the motivation behind the news story and the opulent display of 10 of the journalists photographs, often likened to the mug shots one encounters in the Post Office, was to destroy the credibility of Radio and TV Marti by destroying the credibility of the journalists who provided remunerated professional services for their work.
Radio and TV Marti is rarely held in high regard by media in general because it is considered, by those who have never set foot in the offices, much less analyzed the news content of Radio and TV Marti, to be propaganda for the federal government and Cuban exiles. When The Miami Herald reporter, Oscar Corral, called me to inform me of the story he was doing and its imminent publication, I asked him if he had analyzed the content of my work, and he said no. How then can a journalist question the ethics of my work if he or she has never seen it? If they had, they would know that it is identical to what I say in print and on television in Florida in both English and Spanish.
That this perception exists, when the news content or work has never been scrutinized by those who accuse the organization of being propagandistic is unjust and disheartening.
When I participated on programs for Radio and TV Marti, I was never coached or told what I could or could not say. I was completely free to express any opinion I chose without pressure or fear. Not only that, if the federal government was my “boss” as the entity that payed me the modest compensation of $75-$100, I took them to town criticizing my “boss” for having such poor hemispheric policies.
None-the-less, Radio and TV Marti does not have the reputation of being a valuable or valid news source, which it is. Much has to do with politics. The majority of Cuban exiles support the U.S. embargo toward Cuba while most journalists have the opposite opinion. Those who favor maintaining the embargo are labeled as “hard liners” and “troglodytes” while those who oppose the embargo are called “moderates.” It would be a mistake to believe that Radio and TV Marti does not have ideological competitors.
Certainly, this is not the same perception held toward Voice of America, for example. There services are held in the highest esteem for reasons as yet unclear to me, although I have no reason to doubt that. In fact, the Washington bureau chief for the Hartford Courant worked for nearly a decade for Voice of America, with a similar stipend that the some of the journalist for Radio and TV Marti received. Yet when that story was disclosed, I do not recall reading one news story that accused that distinguished journalist of being a propagandist for the U.S. government.
But any organization where Cuban exiles are a majority have become accustomed to being falsely labeled as “hard-liners” or “intransigent” because they hold a strong anti-Castro pro-embargo stance. The furious debate to transfer Radio and TV Marti from Washington to Miami years ago centered on the ability of Miami journalists to be professional enough to be able to perform their work without the influence of pressure from the exile community was ludicrous, as if working in Washington D.C. insulates one from political pressure!
Is there a double standard by which Hispanic journalists are measured versus their “anglo” counterparts? The south Florida Hispanic community believes this to be true. The public outrage was swift and vocal, particularly in the Spanish language radio stations. Many cancelled their subscriptions to The Miami Herald, and although it was reported that it was not a large number, the newspaper’s circulation has continued to decline, according to the company’s published reports. The community understood that this was “gotcha” journalism at its worse and it was no longer going to tolerate the lack of respect and defamation for anyone who is identified with taking a position against the communist government of Cuba. Then, came the last straw.
As tensions escalated, including within both The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald, The Miami Herald’s Executive Editor Tom Fiedler was asked by one of his reporters if the pressure of the Cuban American radio was affecting the company’s decisions to which he replied, and was quoted within his newspaper, that the objectors were “Chihuahuas nipping at their heels.”
Would Tom Fiedler had said the same thing if the criticism were stemming from the African American, Jewish American or Muslim American community? One can only speculate.
The Miami Herald accused journalists who participate or receive remuneration from U.S. information agencies as being unethical. Perhaps they view any association with government as inappropriate, but that is their bias, not that of Diario Las Americas or WPBT Channel 2. In the former I am Opinion Page Editor and columnist; for the latter I host a weekly Florida public affairs program, Issues. Both knew of my work for TV Marti and did not object. It was not a violation of either company’s code of ethics.
For both companies, ethical considerations are important. Some are black and white, others are grey. Both would agree that a journalist should not report on their spouses or companies they have business interests. That conflict of interest is clear. But is it appropriate for journalists to report on corporations that own their company? What about reporting on former employers, friends or colleagues? What about covering the political parties one tends to vote for or reporting on candidates one favors?
Recently, MSNBC.com revealed that a number of journalists contributed to political parties and campaigns. The list is long and interesting. Editors and reporters alike openly supported campaigns. The Economist, Forbes, The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report are amongst the magazines cited. The news desk chief of McClatchy’s Washington Bureau, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post and the ethics columnist for The New York Times, amongst others. In addition, a copy editor and page designer for The Miami Herald was on the list.
I have not seen a news story of this gentleman’s conflict of interest reported by his newspaper. But there are many other possible source of conflict of interests TMH has not reported as well.
The Miami Herald has a partnership with the local public radio station, WLRN, run by the Miami Dade County School Board. The Herald airs their stories and covers school board hearings. In fact, they share sponsorship revenues through their arrangement. The school system is one of the largest government agencies. If working for Radio and TV Marti is unethical because it is a government agency, how can TMH justify its relationship with the school board? Has this relationship, particularly through shared revenues, altered the news coverage between the two?
When the Herald’s Radio and TV Marti fiasco, the person who often answered the questions for the company was their legal counsel and Vice President for Public Affairs at the Herald. He no longer works for the company. He actually performed three duties. He was the company’s legal counsel, head of public relations and in addition, a member of the Editorial Board. So, the person who did the company P.R. was also advising the Editorial Board. Those responsibilities certainly represent a conflict of interest.
Clearly, not everyone will agree with this presentation. The influential weekly newspaper Miami Today may certainly agree with this assessment, particularly as they have reported on The Miami Herald’s conflicts of interest, many more than reported in here, and of their unfair treatment of their colleagues. The Palm Beach Post, however, agrees with The Miami Herald. Both are fine newspapers. Reasonable people may disagree in a reasonable manner.
Fairness and accuracy are two key components of serious journalism. Both were sadly missing in the story TMH did on the journalists who work for Radio and TV Marti. They impugned the reputations of distinguished colleagues without regard to the harm that could have resulted to them personally or their professional reputations, the most important resource a journalist has in dealing with the public.
Nearly a year has gone by since that story was published. All the journalists involved have moved on to bigger and better professional opportunities, some within the same companies they were working for others in new ones. The Miami Herald has a new publisher after the former, Jesus Diaz, resigned because of the public news disaster he supported, the Executive Editor Tom Fielder resigned, his reputation severely damaged for a rascist comment against hispanics and the reporter who wrote the original story, Oscar Corral, was arrested just last Friday for soliciting a prostitute. Life goes on.
One issue still remains unresolved, at least in the minds of many in the news gathering community, how is it that the Cuban government, announced the disclosure of this Herald story a few weeks in advance? It was aired on the government’s roundtable discussion program La Mesa Redonda and is on tape. How could the Cuban government know of the The Miami Herald’s investigative piece before hand? Your guess would be just as valid as mine would.
No comments:
Post a Comment