Ethics, magazines and advertorials

Just came across this interesting New York Times piece on Ethics, magazines and advertorials, which is already behind a pay firewall on the main nytimes.com site, though available through the College Times run by the paper's circulation dept. Excerpt:

Pick up a magazine on the newsstand, and chances are it will contain at least one advertorial. In September, issues of nine CondÈ Nast Publications magazines, including Vogue and Vanity Fair, carry a nine-page advertorial for Mercedes-Benz. At Hearst, Esquire, Town & Country and O, The Oprah Magazine, will carry a special section for Tourneau watches in October. ...

In its April issue, Men's Journal, owned by Wenner Media, produced an article called "Conquering the Highlands." It looked, in typography and design, very much like the magazine's editorial content save for a logo that combined the magazine's name with Dewar's Scotch. A tiny bit of type at the top of the page indicated to the reader that the package was an advertisement, but many readers probably thought the men's adventure magazine simply favored toasting a day of rock climbing with "a few rounds of Dewar's choicest Scotch whisky."

The guidelines of the American Society of Magazine Editors specifically prohibit the use of a magazine's logo and prohibit special sections from mimicking the design of the publication.

Here's the complete article ...

To Sell the Ads, Eager Magazines Write the Copy

By DAVID CARR

Hen MGM Mirage earlier this year sought to reposition its family-friendly Treasure Island casino in Las Vegas as a destination more suitable for adults in search of decadence, its media-buying agency pitted three men's magazines against one another in a winner-take-all contest.

To compete, the magazines ó FHM, Maxim, and Playboy ó would have to come up with full-blown marketing programs, complete with regular advertising, Internet and party components, to lure Treasure Island's advertising dollars.

FHM won the face-off ó and $750,000 in revenue ó with its pitch. A key to its victory was the creation of a four-part, 24-page advertising section to run in consecutive issues beginning in October. These special sections, known as advertorials, are as glossy as any editorial spread, with high-level photography, writing and design.

While special advertising sections are nothing new, the heightened production values are. Magazine companies are investing more time and money ó and sometimes their editorial staffs ó to see that special sections like these leave advertisers feeling a little special as well.

"Special sections have always been around, but now they have gone on steroids," said Michael A. Clinton, executive vice president and chief marketing officer at Hearst Magazines. "They have become much more complex and sophisticated."

They are also less lucrative than regular advertising, leaving some in the industry wondering whether advertisers are being taught that an elaborate, custom editorial package is a better environment for their marketing messages than the magazine.

Sometimes, in an effort to meet the increasing demands of clients, publishers have engaged in tactics that leave some in the industry wagging a finger and readers scratching their heads over what separates editorial content from advertising. Editorial executives say they are seeing more blurring of that line than ever.

The shrinking fortunes of magazines in the overall media landscape offer a partial explanation. To the dismay of jealous magazine publishers, even network television ó whose ratings are at an all-time low ó continues to entrance advertisers, who this spring committed a record number of advertising dollars to the 2003-4 season. Magazines, by contrast, continue to experience a drop in market share relative to other media outlets.

To get reluctant advertisers in their magazines, publishers are resorting more than ever to advertorials. While overall advertising page totals fell by about half a percent between 1997 and 2002, special-section pages jumped by 22.7 percent, according to TNS Media Intelligence/CMR and the Publishers Information Bureau.

Pick up a magazine on the newsstand, and chances are it will contain at least one advertorial. In September, issues of nine CondÈ Nast Publications magazines, including Vogue and Vanity Fair, carry a nine-page advertorial for Mercedes-Benz. At Hearst, Esquire, Town & Country and O, The Oprah Magazine, will carry a special section for Tourneau watches in October.

"Marketers are demanding more from magazines," said Dana Fields, executive publisher and president at FHM, which is owned by the British company Emap. "They are coming to us for solutions beyond just selling them an ad."

Susan B. Fleitz, senior vice president for advertising at MGM Mirage, said: "FHM was a great fit for us, they came up with an Internet campaign, they hosted a party for us and then gave us an insert that was about these three guys and their quest to have fun. And they covered the party in their editorial pages. We were looking to make a splash and we did."

FHM's reward, however, was not as lucrative as if it had sold Treasure Island 24 pages of regular advertising at the listed rate, for a $1.5 million total. (An agency commission could have taken out as much as 15 percent of that amount.) Nonetheless, if the alternative was no dollars, FHM was willing to pull out all the stops, including using its fashion editor to put together the section, a no-no according to advertorial guidelines promulgated by the American Society of Magazine Editors.

"We do not have an `advertorial department,' " Ms. Fields said. "We used Antony Wright, our fashion editor, because he is familiar with going out on photo shoots. Fashion shoots tell a story, and that's what we wanted to do for Treasure Island."

FHM has plenty of company. In its July issue, Maxim, a men's magazine owned by Dennis Publishing and known for its passion for jokes, beer and scantily clad women, combined all three in a special advertising section called "Bite the Big Apple" about a boring business trip that became something else once the subjects of the story opened a few bottles of Miller Lite. The section was produced by Maxim's editors. (The section also ran in the company's Blender magazine.)

Lance Ford, executive vice president at Dennis, is not shy about the fact that Dennis is selling its style and attitude to land special sections.

"It had our tone and style," he said. "We used our editors to find that Dennis spirit. In a small, entrepreneurial company, we don't think of `church and state' in the traditional sense. We try to pull everybody in to bake that pie."

Other publishers say they do not use members of their editorial staff, but may run afoul of the guidelines just the same.

In its April issue, Men's Journal, owned by Wenner Media, produced an article called "Conquering the Highlands." It looked, in typography and design, very much like the magazine's editorial content save for a logo that combined the magazine's name with Dewar's Scotch. A tiny bit of type at the top of the page indicated to the reader that the package was an advertisement, but many readers probably thought the men's adventure magazine simply favored toasting a day of rock climbing with "a few rounds of Dewar's choicest Scotch whisky."

The guidelines of the American Society of Magazine Editors specifically prohibit the use of a magazine's logo and prohibit special sections from mimicking the design of the publication. Gary Armstrong, chief marketing officer of Wenner Media, said that the section where the Highlands article appeared, "The Men's Journal Adventure Team," was part of a continuing program that includes a television show and that the use of the logo is permitted. "We respect the editorial integrity of our magazines," Mr. Armstrong said.

Officials at A.S.M.E. would not comment about the section.

The editors' society rarely sanctions publishers who do not adhere to its guidelines. A rare instance occurred in 1997 when it stripped Time Inc.'s This Old House of its National Magazine Award nominations because it allowed an editorial insert to be labeled "brought to you by Ace Hardware," giving the impression, the organization said, that the magazine's editors were endorsing a product.

"I think there is only a danger if something is portrayed as something that it is not," said Marlene Kahan, executive director of A.S.M.E. "We try to leave wiggle room rather than being the special-section advertising police and try to be realistic about the business. We put the guidelines out there and hope that the publishers police themselves."

One publishing executive said that the current arms race over building elaborate special sections was hurting the industry.

"The past two years have been thick with them, in part because it was a quick way to fill the page gap created by the tech implosion," this executive said. "But I can't think of a time when people have been pushing the rules like they are now. Publishers are desperate to get pages in their magazine and they will do just about anything to get them. It's not a great thing for a business that is always bragging about readership trust."

It's hard to expect self-policing when advertisers are constantly pushing magazines to put their editorial imprimatur on a product. Behind the four walls of many publishers, especially in the women's magazine category, there are frequent trades of editorial coverage for advertising, but it is nothing explicit ó beauty and fashion producers who do not advertise will soon notice that their products are almost never featured.

The special advertising section is a more overt and transparent trade. And the sections have been used and abused over the years to push up the number of reported advertising pages in a magazine ó the Publishers Information Bureau, known as P.I.B., counts special advertising sections the same as regular advertising pages ó to give the impression of a competitive lead in a specific category.

The New Yorker, which was reported to have posted a profit last year after years of losses, has made vigorous use of special sections, including some adorned by its fabled cartoonists.

"When used right, advertorial pages can help you grow in new categories and do smart business," said David Carey, publisher of The New Yorker, part of CondÈ Nast unit of Advance Publications. "When used wrongly, they can inflate your P.I.B. count and hurt your P & L," or profits and losses. Mr. Carey said special section advertising will be down by a third this year, but that profits will be up.

Mr. Carey, who said he was somewhat fatigued by the criticism that The New Yorker has been clogged with special sections, pointed out that other media companies just have more flexibility.

"When The New York Times wants to get more weekend travel business, they create a section called Escapes," he said. "No readers were crying out for that section."

Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for The Times, said, "Escapes has been a tremendous success from the perspective of both readers and advertisers."

Ellen Oppenheim, chief marketing officer of the Magazine Publishers of America, said that elaborate special advertising sections have become an increasingly important tool for publishers.

"They have been re-invigorated because advertisers want richer programs with many components," Ms. Oppenheim said. "But it is very important that readers trust and believe the magazine. It's important that the trust not be violated."

Digital dilemmas in online news

New from Iowa State Press: Digital Dilemmas: Ethical Issues for Online Media Professionals, by Robert Berkman and Christopher Shumway.

Newspapers pulling Sunday's 'Doonesbury' strip

Jim Romenesko via the Hartford Courant: This Sunday's "Doonesbury" will mention masturbation and has one character noting that "self-dating prevents cancer." That's too much for some editors. Of the 34 newspapers that responded to a poll about the strip, 19 said they won't run the masturbation-themed "Doonesbury." An Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editor says of pulling the strip: "It seems kind of obvious to us. It was beyond the reasonable boundaries of good taste to us."

Business journalists trade on their credibility

Mark Glaser in OJR asks: When can reporters buy stocks in companies they cover? News organizations continue to struggle to establish fair and appropriate conflict-of-interest guidelines.

Zero tolerance for ethics transgressions

The Sacramento Bee (where I was an editor for 11 years) has fired one of its sports writers for covering a game by watching television and sprinkiling old quotes from past articles into his story. The Bee's ombudsman wrote about it yesterday: Zero tolerance at The Bee for ethics transgressions.

Charlotte Observer photog suspended

From Romenesko:

The North Carolina Press Photographers Association (NCPPA) rescinded Charlotte Observer photographer Patrick Schneider's three awards after learning he had altered some photos. NCPPA president Chuck Liddy says: "In photography, we are allowed to de-emphasize backgrounds by a technique called 'burning,' but in some cases his backgrounds were completely removed." The Observer suspended Schneider for three days after auditing his work and finding manipulation.

Plagiarism in Dylan, or a Cultural Collage?

Somehow I missed this Jon Pareles piece in last Saturday's NY Times. It's going to disappear behind a pay firewall tomorrow, so I'm reproducing it below. Excerpt:

[Dylan] was simply doing what he has always done: writing songs that are information collages. Allusions and memories, fragments of dialogue and nuggets of tradition have always been part of Mr. Dylan's songs, all stitched together like crazy quilts. ...

The hoopla over " `Love and Theft' " and "Confessions of a Yakuza" is a symptom of a growing misunderstanding about culture's ownership and evolution, a misunderstanding that has accelerated as humanity's oral tradition migrates to the Internet. Ideas aren't meant to be carved in stone and left inviolate; they're meant to stimulate the next idea and the next.

Because information is now copied and transferred more quickly than ever, a panicky reaction has set in among corporations and some artists who fear a time when they won't be able to make a profit selling their information (in the form of music, images, movies, computer software). As the Internet puts a huge shared cultural heritage within reach, they want to collect fees or block access. Amazingly enough, some musicians want to prevent people from casually listening to their music, much less building new tunes on it.

Companies with large copyright holdings are also hoping to whittle away the safe harbor in copyright law called fair use, which allows limited and ambiguously defined amounts of imitation for education, criticism, parody and other purposes. The companies also want to prevent copyrighted works from entering the public domain, where they can be freely copied and distributed. The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Eldred v. Ashcroft, that individual copyrights could extend for 70 years after the life of the creator, or in the case of a corporation, for 95 years. As a result, Mickey Mouse will be kept out of the public domain ó that shared cultural heritage ó until 2024.

The absolutely original artist is an extremely rare and possibly imaginary creature, living in some isolated habitat where no previous works or traditions have left any impression. ...

Plagiarism in Dylan, or a Cultural Collage?
By JON PARELES

n alert Bob Dylan fan was reading Dr. Junichi Saga's "Confessions of a Yakuza" (Kodansha America, 1991) when some familiar phrases jumped out at him. There were a dozen sentences similar to lines from songs on Mr. Dylan's 2001 album, " 'Love and Theft,' " particularly one called "Floater (Too Much to Ask)."

In the book a father is described as being "like a feudal lord," a phrase Mr. Dylan uses. A character in the book says, "I'm not as cool or forgiving as I might have sounded"; Mr. Dylan sings, "I'm not quite as cool or forgiving as I sound." Mr. Dylan has neither confirmed nor denied reading the book or drawing on it; he could not be reached for comment, a Columbia Records spokeswoman said.

The Wall Street Journal reported the probable borrowings on Tuesday as front-page news. After recent uproars over historians and journalists who used other researchers' material without attribution, could it be that the great songwriter was now exposed as one more plagiarist?

Not exactly. Mr. Dylan was not purporting to present original research on the culture of yakuza, the Japanese gangsters. Nor was he setting unbroken stretches of the book to music. The 16 verses of "Floater" include plenty of material that is not in "Confessions of a Yakuza," although the song's subtitle and its last line ó "Tears or not, it's too much to ask" ó do directly echo the book. Unlike Led Zeppelin, which thinly disguised Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor" as "The Lemon Song" and took credit for writing it, Mr. Dylan wasn't singing anyone else's song as his own.

He was simply doing what he has always done: writing songs that are information collages. Allusions and memories, fragments of dialogue and nuggets of tradition have always been part of Mr. Dylan's songs, all stitched together like crazy quilts.

Sometimes Mr. Dylan cites his sources, as he did in "High Water (for Charley Patton)" from the " `Love and Theft' " album. But more often he does not. While die-hard fans happily footnote the songs, more casual listeners pick up the atmosphere, sensing that an archaic turn of phrase or a vaguely familiar line may well come from somewhere else. His lyrics are like magpies' nests, full of shiny fragments from parts unknown.

Mr. Dylan's music does the same thing, drawing on the blues, Appalachian songs, Tin Pan Alley, rockabilly, gospel, ragtime and more. "Blowin' in the Wind," his breakthrough song, took its melody from an antislavery spiritual, "No More Auction Block," just as Woody Guthrie had drawn on tunes recorded by the Carter Family. They thought of themselves as part of a folk process, dipping into a shared cultural heritage in ways that speak to the moment.

The hoopla over " `Love and Theft' " and "Confessions of a Yakuza" is a symptom of a growing misunderstanding about culture's ownership and evolution, a misunderstanding that has accelerated as humanity's oral tradition migrates to the Internet. Ideas aren't meant to be carved in stone and left inviolate; they're meant to stimulate the next idea and the next.

Because information is now copied and transferred more quickly than ever, a panicky reaction has set in among corporations and some artists who fear a time when they won't be able to make a profit selling their information (in the form of music, images, movies, computer software). As the Internet puts a huge shared cultural heritage within reach, they want to collect fees or block access. Amazingly enough, some musicians want to prevent people from casually listening to their music, much less building new tunes on it.

Companies with large copyright holdings are also hoping to whittle away the safe harbor in copyright law called fair use, which allows limited and ambiguously defined amounts of imitation for education, criticism, parody and other purposes. The companies also want to prevent copyrighted works from entering the public domain, where they can be freely copied and distributed. The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Eldred v. Ashcroft, that individual copyrights could extend for 70 years after the life of the creator, or in the case of a corporation, for 95 years. As a result, Mickey Mouse will be kept out of the public domain ó that shared cultural heritage ó until 2024.

The absolutely original artist is an extremely rare and possibly imaginary creature, living in some isolated habitat where no previous works or traditions have left any impression. Like virtually every artist, Mr. Dylan carries on a continuing conversation with the past. He's reacting to all that culture and history offer, not pretending they don't exist. Admiration and iconoclasm, argument and extension, emulation and mockery ó that's how individual artists and the arts themselves evolve. It's a process that is neatly summed up in Mr. Dylan's album title " `Love and Theft,' " which itself is a quotation from a book on minstrelsy by Eric Lott.

Hip-hop, ever in the vanguard, ran into problems in the mid-1980's when the technique of sampling ó copying and adapting a riff, a beat and sometimes a hook or a whole chorus to build a new track ó was challenged by copyright holders demanding payment even for snippets. Although sampling was just a technological extension of the age-old process of learning through imitation, producers who use samples now pay up instead of trying to set precedents for fair use.

That might be a good idea; a song that recycles a whole melody (like Puff Daddy's productions) calls for different treatment than a song that borrows a few notes from a horn section, and courts are not the best place for aesthetic distinctions. But in practice, it means fewer samples per track, and it can make complex assemblages prohibitively expensive. Mixes heard only in clubs and bootleg recordings are now the outlets for untrammeled sampling experiments. Yet, samples have extended and revived careers for many musicians when listeners went looking for the sources.

Mr. Dylan has apparently sampled "Confessions of a Yakuza," remixing lines from the book into his own fractured tales of romance and mortality on " `Love and Theft.' " The result, as in many collages and sampled tracks, is a new work that in no way affects the integrity of the existing one and that only draws attention to it.

Dr. Saga has no need to keep his book isolated. He told The Associated Press that he was ecstatic to have inspired such a well-known songwriter. And as news of the Dylan connection surfaced, sales of "Confessions of a Yakuza" jumped. Yesterday it was No. 117 among the best-selling books at Amazon.com, and No. 8 among biographies and memoirs.

Of course, Dr. Saga can't be too possessive about the writing. The book is an oral history, told to him by the yakuza gangster of the title. It's another story that has drifted into humanity's oral tradition. Mr. Dylan's complete lyrics are freely available at www.bobdylan.com. As for the song, if someone asks Mr. Dylan for sampling rights, it would be only fair to grant them.

Magazines that cross the ethical line

USA Today:

If you noticed that Julia Roberts' head is slapped on the wrong body on the cover of the new Redbook, you've got a sharp set of eyes. Magazines run doctored shots, like this one of Jennifer Aniston, to give their cover an air of exclusivity.

In fact, Roberts and other Hollywood A-listers are fuming over altered magazine covers that look bizarre at best and disproportionately freakish at worst.

It's known as airbrushing, or digital manipulation. At magazines, it's standard practice to zap a zit, or brighten those baby blues. It's even de rigueur for a supermodel like Tyra Banks, whose flawless printed perfection is at odds with her actual persona, and comes at a price.

"I disappoint people who meet me in person because I don't look like me," she says. "But the public is really hard on people in the industry and your image has to be perfect, and I openly admit that I have cellulite and I get that touched off."

But, as those who do the tweaking point out, there's a huge difference between eradicating stretch marks and cutting body parts from two separate photos and fusing them together into a composite shot, as Redbook did with Roberts in its July issue and a clipped-together Jennifer Aniston in June. ...

There is a huge difference, and media critics, watchogs and everyday readers ought to raise hell about this shoddy, unscrupulous and, yes, unethical practice.

CBS News, NYT in media spat

Variety: CBS Blasts NY Times. "Unlike the New York Times' own ethical problems, there is no question about the integrity of CBS News," says CBS in response to the Times story about its offers to interview Jessica Lynch.

Thanks to Patrick Phillips and IWantMedia for the pointer.

Jayson Blair speaks

Returned from a two-day outing to the wedding of the Sacramento Bee's TV critic a couple of hours ago, so I've missed a few items of note, such as this from Jeff Jarvis: Jayson Blair speaks.

Ethics should top the journalism agenda

Reed Johnson in the LA Times: Media Must Become Introspective, Experts Say. Ethics should top the journalism agenda to counter public cynicism, according to observers.

In my view, it's critical for the news media to become not more introspective but more transparent, more diverse in the viewpoints they report, and more accountable to their readers, viewers and users.

Thanks to Josh Newton for the pointer.

Later: Just tripped across Glenn Reynolds' recommendationsfor improving the news media in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal. Among Glenn's suggestions: Diversity, Accountability. Feedback.

Why does Blair fascinate us?

LA Times: Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass have the attention of columnists, magazine covers and bloggers -- because "we have a fascination with people who break the rules." Thanks to IWantMedia for the pointer.

Suspended N.Y. Times Reporter Says He'll Quit

Washington Post: Suspended Putlizer Prize winner Rick Bragg says a "poisonous atmosphere" has descended on the New York Times, one that prompted the paper to suspend him for practices he considers routine.

Here's CJR on Bragg's suspension.

And it gets uglier: NY Post: Four New York Times reporters under investigation for Jayson Blair-like abuses have "banded together" and may sue the paper if their names are leaked, says a source.

Thanks to IWantMedia for the pointers.

Blair may cash in on Times scandal

More on the Jason Blair reporting scandal at the NY Times:

NY Times: Editor of Times Tells Staff He Accepts Blame for Fraud. The Times' town-hall style meeting was closed to news coverage. As a result, Jacques Steinberg, The Times's media writer, was not allowed to attend it.

Newsday: Trying Times For Executive Editor. Times insiders say the Jayson Blair case is galvanizing opposition to Howell Raines.

Reuters: NY Times Editors Meet with Angry Staff Over Scandal. Howell Raines, who was asked if he considering resigning, says he plans to stay on, and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. says he wouldn't accept his resignation.

Raines admits, "I was guilty of a failure of vigilance." Still, Blair's actions were so beyond the pale for a journalist that I have a hard time siding with those who want to lay the blame at Raines' feet.

Thanks to IWantMedia for the pointers.

Meantime, here's the latest:

Reuters: Jayson Blair, who resigned as a national reporter for the New York Times amid charges he plagiarized and falsified stories, is taking steps to cash in on the scandal, the Daily News reported on Thursday.

Blair may not miss his Times paycheck for long after hiring literary agency David Vigliano Associates to explore book and TV deals, according to the newspaper.

I hope Blair's efforts to profit off his heinous behavior crash and burn (even though I have high regard for David Vigliano, who was the agent for my novel).

Jason, take some time off, travel, see the world, get your head together. But a tell-all of your lies and deceit isn't worthy even of the Fox network.

Public OK with Bennett's gambling

The Gallup Organization finds: The news media have had a field day with moralist William J. Bennett's recent admission -- and subsequent renunciation -- of high-stakes gambling, pointing to the apparent contradiction between Bennett's behavior and words. But Gallup's annual survey on America's values and beliefs suggests that most Americans may not view Bennett's behavior as inconsistent with his emphasis on moral living. The survey, conducted May 5-7, shortly after Bennett's gambling was first reported in the news, finds 63% of Americans saying gambling is morally acceptable, while just 34% say it is morally wrong.

I'm not sure the news media -- those dens of iniquity -- are suggesting that gambling is morally suspect. They are saying that Bennett's holier-than-thou piety and faux virtuousness smack of hypocrisy.

Meantime, the Gallup Organization has launched improvements to its Tuesday Briefing news service. Sayeth the Gallup folks:

Tuesday Briefing comes with more in-depth content and improved site navigation. The new features include expanded streaming video offerings, improved search functionality -- including an innovative ìdashboardî to ease navigation in the unequalled Gallup Brain archive -- and two new weekly columns offering analysis of Gallup data and findings.

I'll be checking it out.

The NY Times' Blair Watch Project

Today in Editor & Publisher: The Blair Watch Project. 14 Unanswered Questions in the NY Times' Jayson Blair Probe.

Extraordinary inquiry into plagiarism at Times

Here's the extraordinary and detailed report by members of the New York Times editorial staff on the case of the plagiarizing reporter who resigned from the paper last week:

Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception. Excerpt from the 10-page article:

A staff reporter for The New York Times committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud while covering significant news events in recent months, an investigation by Times journalists has found. The widespread fabrication and plagiarism represent a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.

The reporter, Jayson Blair, 27, misled readers and Times colleagues with dispatches that purported to be from Maryland, Texas and other states, when often he was far away, in New York. He fabricated comments. He concocted scenes. He lifted material from other newspapers and wire services. He selected details from photographs to create the impression he had been somewhere or seen someone, when he had not.

And he used these techniques to write falsely about emotionally charged moments in recent history, from the deadly sniper attacks in suburban Washington to the anguish of families grieving for loved ones killed in Iraq.

In an inquiry focused on correcting the record and explaining how such fraud could have been sustained within the ranks of The Times, the Times journalists have so far uncovered new problems in at least 36 of the 73 articles Mr. Blair wrote since he started getting national reporting assignments late last October. In the final months the audacity of the deceptions grew by the week, suggesting the work of a troubled young man veering toward professional self-destruction.

Mr. Blair, who has resigned from the paper, was a reporter at The Times for nearly four years, and he was prolific. Spot checks of the more than 600 articles he wrote before October have found other apparent fabrications, and that inquiry continues. The Times is asking readers to report any additional falsehoods in Mr. Blair's work; the e-mail address is retrace@nytimes.com.

Also, an 8-page sidebar, Witnesses and Documents Unveil Deceptions in a Reporter's Work. And a short Editor's Note.

All in all, a remarkable effort by the Times to restore its reputation for trust -- and another example of how fragile that trust can be broken in a 1,100-member newsroom, by a single person.

Plagiarism uncovered at the NY Times

PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer carried a report today by Terence Smith on New York Times reporter Jayson Blair, who resigned last week after admitting he plagiarized parts of an article about the family of an American soldier in Iraq. As more charges of Blair's alleged plagiarism and fraudulent reporting emerged, the New York Times decided to assign five reporters and three editors to re-check four years of Blair's work. The Times plans to publish the results of its investigation on Sunday and will ask readers to notify editors of additional errors.

The extent to which the reporter's plagiarism went unnoticed raises a host of unsettling questions concerning journalistic ethics and professionalism. Smith explores those questions with NYT Executive Editor Howell Raines in today's segment. I listened to part of it in the car, and will watch the entire episode later tonight. Sad affair.

The report was supposed to go up on the NewsHour's Media Watch page two hours ago, but hasn't yet appeared. But there's a RealAudio clip of the segment on the NewsHour's front page.

In Slate, meanwhile, Jack Shafer has this: The Jayson Blair Project.
How did he bamboozle the New York Times?

A Sponsored Archive from the NYT

Another go-around on the subject of sponsored content is likely after The New York Times today published on its front page a "Sponsored Archive" of the new Fox Searchlight movie The Dancer Upstairs. The word "Advertisement" appears directly above the banner ad whisking users to the special section.

This one is a bit strange. The Sponsored Archive page says:

The reporting of these articles from The New York Times was paid for by Fox Searchlight Pictures. The editorial staff of The New York Times was not involved in the selection of these articles or the production of this archive.

And when you click through a link to an interior page ñ which are set off by a different color and type treatment than the rest of the Times -- a notice in the right nav announces:

This archive republishes a comprehensive selection of New York Times articles about the career of John Malkovich, the director of "The Dancer Upstairs," including reviews of his films and stage appearances, as well as interviews. Also included are Times articles about Javier Bardem, the star of "The Dancer Upstairs," as well as a review of the novel by Nicholas Shakespeare upon which it is based.

"The Dancer Upstairs" is now playing in select cities.

Regular readers with long memories may recall the NY Times' launch of The Tolkien Archives -- apparently, its first stab at sponsored content drawing upon its editorial archives -- back in December 2001. After that experiment, CBS MarketWatch dinged the Times for blurring the lines between editorial and advertising. (The Times received on the order of $1 million or more for the Tolkien Archives, and it's likely this compact is in the same price range.) (And incidentally, I can't tell if the CBS MarketWatch link is still active; I registered once on the site, it forgot about me, and now it's asking me to re-register -- no thanks.) The Wall Street Journal also raised an eyebrow at the practice in an AP story headlined, "Online Publishers Struggle to Decide Where to Draw Line on Advertising. Ads Copying Sites' Design Overstep Traditional Newspaper Limits."

I defended the Times last time around (on my blog and on the online-news list) because the Times was merely republishing editorial material it had already published years ago, so there was no possibility of advertiser influence upon the editorial content. It also disclosed the practice, although it needed to be typographically set off in a more distinct way.

This effort by the Times is different, because it doesn't draw from decades-old material, but from as recently as two weeks ago. If you're keeping score at home, we have:

• 2 articles from 2003 (indeed, from the past two months);

• 1 article from 2001;

• 2 from 2000;

• 1 from 1997;

• 1 from 1994;

• 1 from 1993;

• 1 from 1987;

• 1 from 1985;

• 3 from 1984;

• 2 from 1982.

This is a bit more problematic and disconcerting, in my view, as the Times continues to tippy-toe closer to the ethical edge. The possibility of advertiser influence upon the editorial content is now very real in this case. Wouldn't it cross a movie reviewer's mind that a negative review of a major motion picture could cost his or her employer more than a million dollars in advertising? I suppose these types of considerations occur every day, but a motion picture studio yanking a $50,000 ad from the Timesí Arts & Leisure section because they donít like the paperís review is a bit different than the prospective loss of more than $1 million.

I don't agree with those who believe that all sponsored sections compromise a news organization's credibility and ethical standards. I think we need to draw lines, and for me, the placement of a movie review in a major advertising product only two weeks after its appearance in the paper seems to cross that line, even if the Timesí editorial department had no role in the archive. At the very least, it gives me great pause.

Boston Globe columnist suspended

Ryan Pitts in his Dead Parrot Society blog has the lowdown on suspended Boston Globe sports columnist Bob Ryan for making a remark on TV that he never would have made in the paper. Hey Bob, what you say on TV isn't the same as what you can say in a bar with your drinking buddies. Y'know?

Meantime, I wish news organizations would apply the same standards of decency to smack-down talking head shout-fests like The O'Reilly Factor.

Doctored image in British tabloid

The London Evening Standard ran a doctored news photo on its front page last month showing a throng of Iraqis supposedly celebrating the downfall of Saddam Hussein. This is perhaps more amusing than a cause for journalistic outrage, given how clumsily it was executed.

Thanks to Hylton for the pointer.

And speaking of Hylton, Corante now offers RSS for all its blogs. Terrific news, as I've been using RSS feeds more and more to stay on top of the best of the blogosphere.

Borderline plagiarism at the Times

Interesting Editor's Note in the Sunday New York Times Sports section, documenting a case of borderline plagiarism:

A Sports of The Times column on Feb. 12 discussed college coaches who have spoken out against the death penalty, in particular Dean Smith, former basketball coach at the University of North Carolina.

The column should have acknowledged that a central quotation from the coach appeared three days earlier in an article by Bonnie DeSimone of The Chicago Tribune and that several other passages closely reflected her words.

In a first draft, the Times column credited Ms. DeSimone for an anecdote in which Mr. Smith told a former governor of North Carolina, "The death penalty makes us all murderers."

The columnist, Ira Berkow, was told by his editors that a quotation so harsh should rightly be verified firsthand, so he telephoned Mr. Smith, who recounted the scene to him. Editors then deleted the attribution to Ms. DeSimone's article, though Times policy ordinarily calls for crediting news that originates exclusively elsewhere. (Coach Smith's activism had been reported in North Carolina publications, but not in detail comparable to The Tribune's.) The Times column included two passages that were similar in language and concept to those in The Tribune:

The Tribune: "Sports figures, while often active in charitable causes, generally avoid taking sides in divisive, emotional national debates such as the one concerning the death penalty. Coaches for major Division I programs, as Smith was, recruit from a wide swath of the population and have an interest in not alienating people."

The Times: "Sports figures are often reluctant, at best, to go public with potentially divisive national issues, even when the issue is a matter of life and death. . . . For active coaches, coming forward on controversial issues could hamper recruiting if you take a side that may alienate, say, the family of a prospective point guard."

The Tribune: "Smith will not discuss whether he counseled his most famous protÈgÈ, Michael Jordan, during the 1996 trial of the two men who murdered Jordan's father three years before. The Jordan family never made its feelings known regarding punishment, according to Robeson County District Attorney Johnson Britt."

The Times: "Is it possible that Smith, meanwhile, had some influence over the decision of Michael Jordan and his family not to push for the death penalty for the two men who randomly murdered Jordan's father in 1996? Possibly. Smith said that he never spoke to Jordan about it."

The Times column also included this quotation from Mr. Smith about his religious views: "I do not condone any violence against any of God's children, and that is why I am opposed to the death penalty." Though Mr. Smith discussed those views in his Times interview, the exact quotation was taken from his autobiography, "A Coach's Life," and should have been attributed.

SF Chron reporter fired

Henry Norr, the San Francisco Chronicle reporter suspended after being arrested at a rally opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, was fired Wednesday.

An ethical dilemma for a reporter under fire

The Command Post: From the Boston Herald comes a story of an embedded journalist who suddenly faces an ethical dillemma.

In the piece, the reporter wonders whether he has compromised his objectivity by serving as lookout during a firefight in which three Iraqis were killed. To my mind, there was nothing unethical about it. It did, however, serve as a reminder that hoary notions of objectivity are one of the first things to go out the window when your life is being threatened.

Thanks to Hylton for the pointer.

Ethics in video game journalism

Justin Hall has a new piece in OJR about reporters who cover the multimillion-dollar computer game industry, which lures journalists with free game previews and lavish launch parties. It's an interesting look at where to draw the line in a field rife with freebies.

Photojournalism ethics during war

Peter Howe, who covered civil wars in Northern Ireland and El Salvador as a photojournalist and who wrote Shooting Under Fire: The World of the War Photographer, has an op-ed article in USA Today about the editorial choices involved in deciding which photos to publish in a newspaper to tell the story of the war.

The decision to show dead bodies has always been a lightning rod for public opinion, often polarizing it between those who believe we should see war's reality and those who feel such images are inappropriate on the pages of items that enter the home. ...

War photographers face ethical hurdles much greater than their peers working on other subjects. The sights they record are inherently gruesome and disturbing, and they intrude on moments of tragedy and despair more intense than in any other area of photojournalism.

I touched on some of these issues in my most recent column for OJR, Portraying the Graphic Face of War.

Agonist blogger cops to plagiarism

Wired News: Sean-Paul Kelley, the man behind the immensely popular Iraq war blog The Agonist, admits he posted information from a highly regarded commercial intelligence company on his site without sourcing it -- and in some cases credited it to unnamed sources. Excerpt:

Kelley's insightful window on the details of the war brought him increasing readership (118,000 page views on a recent day) and acclaim, including interviews in the The New York Times and on NBC's Nightly News, Newsweek online and National Public Radio.

The only problem: Much of his material was plagiarized -- lifted word-for-word from a paid news service put out by Austin, Texas, commercial intelligence company Stratfor.

"You got me, I admit it.... I made a mistake," Kelley said. "It was stupid."

In a series of interviews with Wired News, Kelley changed his story several times. At first, he said he used just four or five Stratfor items a day without crediting the company. Later, he owned up to "six or seven days when half was from Stratfor." ...

Kelley's plagiarism was first brought to light by a blogger who goes by the name General Roy. Last week, on his pro-war site, Strategic Armchair Command, Roy charged Kelley with nearly a dozen instances of plagiarizing Stratfor material over the course of a single day.

Stupid indeed, and regrettable, given The Agonist's sudden burst of popularity. Amateur bloggers who want to play by journalism's rules have to live by all the rules -- and plagiarism is a major no-no, no matter the medium.

Fired LA Times photog comes clean

Poynter's Kenny Irby analyzes the brouhaha surrounding the photoshopped news image that ran in the LA Times Monday. And now we get photographer Brian Walski's side of things.

In an e-mail to the entire photography staff of the Times, Walski admitted his lapse in judgment and accepted responsibility for it. In his 214-word apology, he writes, in part:

This was after an extremely long, hot and stressful day but I offer no excuses here. I deeply regret that I have tarnished the reputation of the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper with the highest standards of journalism, the Tribune Company, all the people at the Times and especially the very talented and extremely dedicated photographers and picture editors and friends that have made my 4 and a half years at the Times a true quality experience.

I have always maintained the highest ethical standards throughout my career and cannot truly explain my complete breakdown in judgment at this time. That will only come in the many sleepless nights that are ahead.

LA Times dismisses photographer in Iraq

Interesting -- and unfortunate -- situation at the LA Times, where a staff photographer in Iraq used digital technology to combine two images, taken seconds apart, to produce a more compelling image, but one that slightly distorted reality.

I'm afraid I agree with the Times' higher-ups on this call: Altering reality is not a prerogative of photojournalists, even if it makes for a better photo.

Kudos to the LA Times for disclosing the specifics of what happened here.

Later: There's a heated discussion of this topic on Poynter's online-news list, the most activity that list has seen in months.

War, ethics and photojournalism

My latest column for the Online Journalism Review just posted:

Portraying the Graphic Face of War

It looks at how Corbis and washingtonpost.com are working with about 15 photojournalists in Iraq, Kuwait and the region to convey what's happening to readers in close to real time. Excerpt:

[Brian Storm, vp of news and editorial photography at Corbis,] has wrestled with the ethical issues of photojournalism during wartime. ìIt cuts to the heart of the profession and to the role of the photographer and editor,î he says. ìThe photographer has to make a deeply personal decision about when to put the camera down. Each publication has to decide whatís acceptable for its readership. Corbis distributes to a global audience, so we canít take on any one set of geographical value systems. I think itís critical that we see the horror of war. And I think weíll see it faster and it in more venues than in the past.î

Here's a page with pointers to terrific Digital Photojournalism During Wartime.

Meantime, my OJR colleague, Mark Glaser, has a new column up, War a Boon for News Sites, Blogs.

Ethics guidelines for digital imaging

DigitalCustom Group on Thursday announced the publication of Release Version 2.0 of the "DigitalCustom Model Ethics Guidelines to Protect the Integrity of Journalistic Photographs in Digital Editing."

DigitalCustom's President, Jeff Makoff said, "The power to edit a historical image brings with it the ability to manipulate history. Archivists and digital artists should discuss, and ultimately agree on, what is appropriate -- especially because the digital artist and the person responsible for historical preservation often are different people."

A copy of Release Version 2.0 of the model journalism ethics guidelines is available here.

Here's the interesting section:

News/Editorial Images (Impermissible Procedures)

The following digital image editing procedures generally are not permitted for news/editorial purposes:

3.0.1 Adding, removing or moving objects in such a way that the context of the event is altered.

3.0.2 Age progression or regression (e.g. adding gray to hair).

3.0.3 Changing a subject's facial expression, gestures, clothing, body parts or personal accessories.

3.0.4 Retouching that enhances or reduces the apparent quality or desirability of an item, or the aesthetics of a place.

3.0.5 Using "motion" to create a misleading impression that the subject is moving at a different speed than he/she/it was moving during the events.

3.0.6 Using effects or color changes in such a manner that it is unclear whether the effects or color changes were applied through digital editing or were part of the original event that was being covered.

3.0.7 Using any other digital editing procedure in a way that creates a misleading impression of the events, participants or context.

3.0.8 In nature photographs, special care should be taken to represent animal and plant life in its actual environment, habitat and context (e.g. do not lighten a background to make it appear that a nocturnal animal is diurnal or place an animal in fabricated geographical settings).

3.0.9 It is impermissible to manipulate a nature photo so as to create a false appearance that animals were associating with other animals (including humans), to group animals together in a manner that did not naturally occur or to increase the number of animals in a group.

3.0.10 The enhancement of nature images for the purpose of investigation or viewability is permissible, provided the manipulation is incidental, obvious or specifically disclosed to the viewer.

3.0.11 It is impermissible to represent a fabricated phenomenon as natural (e.g. adding a shooting star or rainbow).

3.0.12 These procedures are impermissible whether accomplished through digital editing or physical editing ("mortising") of images.

Blurring the editorial-advertising line?

Catching up on some items I would have blogged last week were it not for my Blue Screen of Death Week. Here's one:

News.com ran a story last week about the recent trend of news sites like CNN.com adding paid search results. Fascinating issues here. In OJR and elsewhere I've explored the ethical issues involved in sponsorships, search engines, ecommerce and the lines that need to be drawn.

Always like to hear from non-journalists, though, about how you see the editorial-advertising relationship on online news sites, and whether you think certain sites go too far in accommodating advertising interests.

Composite photo in the Merc

I was surprised to see a composite news photograph in this morning's San Jose Mercury News. The back page of the A section contained a large photo that showed some of the 200,000-plus protestors at yesterday's anti-war rally in San Francisco. (The image isn't available on the MercuryNews.com site, natch. The photo was by Jim Gensheimer.) The cutline said:

In a panoramic composite of two photographs, Elias Rashmawi points skyward while addressing a mass of anti-war demonstrators gathered with flags and signs in Civic Center Plaza on Sunday.

I sent an email to the Merc's reader liaison, assistant managing editor David Tepps, this morning, and he quickly responded, writing:

"I wasn't here yesterday, but I suspect the reason was because we wanted to show the vastness of the crowd and could not do it in one photo. We have received some criticism about our coverage of the anti-war protests from people who say we have not adequately shown the scope of the events.

The use of a composite photograph generally is considered controversial only when it is not revealed. Although it is not something we do often."

If that's the case -- that it's become acceptable to create composite news montages as long as it's disclosed -- that's news to me. I wrote about digital imaging in 1988 with the help of George Wedding, then the Director of Photography of the Sacramento Bee, and former Director of Photography for the Mercury News, ironically. Wedding was adamantly opposed to this kind of digital trickery, and I doubt he would have blessed its use in a news photo just to get a more dramatic effect.

Later: Matt Mansfield, another AME, emailed to say:

The photo is two images taken seconds apart. There is no intention to deceive anyone because we left the seem in where the two frames meet (almost mid-section, where you see the buildings not perfectly connecting). We also clearly say that the photo is a composite in the caption. Why do it? As Dave Tepps said, it is an effort to show the size of the crowd in a way we were not lensed to do at that event. We had just one photographer covering it.

Interesting. I'm not saying this was unethical or egregious, and disclosure takes care of it, for the most part. I just hope we don't see composite news photos become the norm.

The state of online news ethics

Renee asked for answers to a couple of quick questions for her master's thesis on online journalism ethics. Here goes:

You've written about the separation of church and state in online journalism. From what you've seen, are online editions doing a better job overall now as compared to a year or two ago?

I wish I could help you by citing an uptick in instances of online journalism in which ethical corners have been cut or shortcuts taken or bright lines breached. I just haven't seen that. What I have seen is a scaling back of online news operations in general. Many media organizations are throwing up their hands and giving up on the Net as a viable business for journalism enterprises. Layoffs have reduced most online news staffs to skeleton status. Once vibrant news operations like CNN.com are shuttering their content -- in CNN's case, its video -- behind subscription doors, meaning perhaps one in a thousand visitors will now see the site's multimedia offerings. Other news sites have cut back on their enterprise multimedia journalism, meaning fewer packages with Flash and fewer compelling examples of story-telling.

Online advertising has become more intrusive -- more rich-media ads that dance across the page and pop up, in-your-face-style -- and, in many cases, the advertising is obscuring editorial copy. Yahoo began the trend here. And the NY Times, Business Week and many other sites have followed suit. That's the worst sin that I've seen committed throughout the industry in the past year. Beyond that, I haven't seen many breaches of the ethical Maginot line. Perhaps that's because of the utter paucity of online advertising.

In your opinion, is it easier to abuse the separation-of-church-and-state rule online than in print? If so, why?

Yes, I think so. It's easier to breach the church-state line online for two main reasons: the online medium is still in a relatively embryonic form with few hard and fast rules of the road; and the forms that have been adopted have fewer strict demarcations than other news media. On television and radio, you know when an advertisement comes on. In magazines and in newspapers, ads are placed on full pages or relegated to a clearly defined portion of the page. On the Web, an ad can appear at the top, at the sides or, increasingly, in the middle of the page, as well as on separate pop-up or pop-under screens. An ad can be part of a search engine's paid-placement search results, with little clue given to the user. And entire sites can be compromised by a paid sponsorship with no disclosure to the public.

Incidentally, it's the job of online journalism to ferret out these sites and expose their practices to public scrutiny.

What suggestions would you offer to newspaper editors and publishers who are tempted to set aside commonly used ethics of the journalism profession in order to make Web sites profitable?

Hold the line. Everyone in the industry is facing the same pressures, and yet the ethical standards of online journalsm have not been compromised by a lurch to sensationalism, tabloid journalism or profits at all costs. In the long run, standards will win out and users will embrace news sites that cling to long-standing values of honesty, trustworthiness, credibility and ethics. Editors already know this. Sometimes, business staffs and publishers need the occasional reminder.

What else? You're no doubt looking at Jim Romenesko's site already; USC's onlinejournalism.com also deserves a regular read. And my other blog scribblings about online journalism can be found here. And finally, you'll want to check the Web ethics section of my online resources page. Good luck!

This entry originally appeared Aug. 27, 2002, on my Manila blog.

Of speed and quality in online journalism

Keni, a student at University of Indonesia, asks:

In his book, Philip Seib said that in this "real time" world, speed and quality is not always compatible. Referring to that statement, I was wondering if you could tell me what you think he meant when using the term "quality"?

There is a natural tradeoff -- sometimes even tension -- between speed and quality in journalism. A wire service report is expected to skim off the most important and newsworthy details of a news event quickly, without delving into substance and depth. A newspaper reporter with a deadline two days away can give a story more context and depth. And a magazine writer with a deadline a month away and more space for his article can add writing, polish, grace and nuance, and often add details and angles overlooked by reporters with more immediate deadlines. The online environment adds to the culture of want-it-now, immediate gratification.

Do you agree if someone say that speed is actually part of quality itself?

Yes. To be able to summarize a news event both quickly and accurately is a difficult craft, and one that journalists aren't often given credit for.

If not, then what do you think are the aspect of quality in online journalism?

Speed is one benefit and value inherent in online journalism. Other aspects of good online journalism include:

• context -- providing links to background material, original source documentation, other related articles.

• interactivity -- providing channels for feedback from, and participation by, the online audience.

• personality -- while not a required element of online journalism, the online medium allows for a broader range of personal opinion, emotional depth and writing flair than the often mechanical and formulaic process of traditional establishment journalism.

In one book about print journalism, the author mentioned accuracy, ensuring fairness, reporting facts are the aspects of quality. Do you think those items can be applied as well in online journalism?

Absolutely. Online journalists need to bring the time-honored values of traditional journalism -- accuracy, fair play, trustworthiness, credibility, fact-checking -- to the online medium. Otherwise, you're not really practicing journalism but a poor imitation of it.

Is there an exact definition of breaking news for online media?

I don't know of any other definition other than breaking news is reporting events as they unfold in as honest and accurate a way as you can.

One thing to remember: You don't need to be part of a large traditional media organization to practice online journalism. One honest observer with a weblog can be just as much a journalist as a reporter from a major newspaper or broadcast station.

You might also want to read a column I wrote for AJR on Speeding the news on the Internet.

And take a look at Blogs & online journalism.

This entry originally appeared Sept. 9, 2002, on my Manila blog.

On weblogs, journalism and ethics

A grad student at Michigan State University writes to get my take on how weblogs are emerging as a journalistic form and how journalistic ethics apply to them. In her online forays she came across my two-part series on weblogs and journalism in OJR. Here are her questions and my responses:

An interesting argument which the articles bring up is that Web logs allow for a lack of creative freedom.

Lack of creative freedom in traditional media, you mean? Absolutely. It's a function of personal publishing, most often an unfiltered form that lacks the checks and balances of the editorial process but captures the first-person impressions of the author in a more honest, personal and compelling way -- from neurons to keyboard.

I have read other arguments that publishing the "best obtainable version of the truth" is in keeping with the spirit of Web logs, and that it sometimes brings out the truth faster.

I've only recently run across this argument -- that if Woodward and Bernstein had had weblogs, Watergate might have been broken earlier. That's possible. But it's hard to imagine that Woodward or Bernstein would have broken many, if any, of their blockbuster revelations on their weblog rather than in the Post, which immediately gave the story national prominence in a way that weblogs are probably decades away from obtaining. They might, however, have dangled a few promising leads (and some dead ends) out there, to see whether they could snag a more solid source. It's interesting that I haven't heard of a single investigative reporter use the weblog technique to advance their reporting.

Some of the arguments I have read for a relaxation of rules of objectivity are that journalism is never 100% objective, and blogs just "tear off the wrapping."

I don't like the word objectivity applied to journalism, whether online, print or broadcast. What news organizations try to attain is a fair and balanced report on a news subject or event. The majority of weblogs aren't in that game. They're more akin to op-ed pages, analyses or personal essays -- riffs or rants from a particular slant or from a singular informed view of events. I don't think many people look to weblogs for a balanced report -- they look for a counterview, an alternative POV to what they're seeing in the mainstream media, one that's informed but also stripped of some of the pretense of top-down mainstream media where the rules of what's fair game for publication sometimes have little to do with what's newsworthy, relevant or meaningful to people's lives.

Remember, most weblogs aren't journalism, and most bloggers don't fancy themselves journalists. But for those who perform many of the functions of journalism -- the editorial function of selecting newsworthy and interesting topics, the editorial function of analysis, insight and commentary, the added dash of humor and vivid writing (now more often found in magazines than newspapers), the occasional first-person report about an event, a trend, a subject -- then I think they are acting in a journalistic role. And they establish their own credibility, their own publishing record, over the long haul.

How do journalistic ethics apply to blogs in view of these facts? Should traditional ethical standards be relaxed for blogs?

Do, and should, blogs tear off the wrapping of journalism? Yes and no. To the extent that journalistic conventions inhibit the truth from being exposed, protect the powerful or lead the reader astray, yes, absolutely. And I suspect this will be an increasingly important role of weblogs in the years ahead, as they serve as community and media watchdogs, fact-checking the professionals and keeping us all more honest.

To the extent that tearing off the wrapping of journalism means throwing decades of journalistic ethics into a tinderbox and lighting a fuse, then no, absolutely not. Accuracy, credibility, trustworthiness and being straight up with your peers are still guideposts that any good online journalist or weblogger should abide by.

In his first interview on the subject of Internet reporting, Ted Koppel told me a few years ago that the primary responsibility of journalists in any medium is to separate truth from rumor. He said: "Reporting is not really about, `Let's see who can get the first information to the public as quickly as possible.' It should be about `Let's see who can get the first information to the public as quickly as possible -- as soon as we have had a chance to make sure the information is accurate, to weigh it against what we know, to put it in some sort of context.' "

That still holds true for any publication that considers itself a news medium. If you're a journalist with a weblog, I can see instances where you post a report you've heard and ask your readers whether anyone can substantiate it. But I don't think you can look on the Internet as a medium that permits a lower form of journalism, one in which you say, 'Here's a rumor about this person and I have no idea if it's true or not, and I'm not going to try to verify it or check it out because that's not my job. Information wants to be free.' That's bullshit.

Interestingly, I've never heard any weblogger suggest that ethical standards should be relaxed or lowered for blogs. What they say is that weblogs aspire to a higher ethical standard than traditional media by hewing unwaveringly to the truth, without regard to profits, corporate policy, political power or other considerations.

Is a lack of politeness or regard for other people's points of view justified?

No. But I actually see far more respect for other writers' point of view in the weblog community than, say, on any cable talk show, such as MSNBC's "Hardball," for instance. But that's not unethical, just unprofessional. And ultimately, anyone with any common sense will stop beating a path to your door.

Any other insights you can provide would be really helpful.

I've created a story page on this site that contains pointers to my past responses to students about weblogs and online journalism. And there's also the Weblogs & the News resource page that points to articles about the intersection of journalism and blogging.

And, finally, if any bloggers out there want to add their own comments about blogging and journalistic ethics (either on their own weblogs or through email), I'll pass those messages or urls along. Good luck!

This entry originally appeared June 27, 2002, on my Manila blog.