Journalism, ethics, and loyalty

[Glocksman]

Note: This applies only to American newspeople.
Foreign newsies obviously owe no loyalties to the USA.

The recent flap over Newsweek magazine's recent attack of stupidity got me wondering about the lines between duty as a journalist and duty as a citizen.

Let's say for the sake of this thread that the Newsweek report was correct and that this kind of thing was taking place in interrogations.

Now any news reporter or editor worth his sheepskin can see the trouble that this article would cause for the US throughout the Islamic world.

What should have been the reporters' and editors' first duty?
To report the story and damn the consequences or spike the story because of the damage it can do to the US.

So far the way I see it is that they should have kept their mouths shut as it didn't involve allegations of serious abuse or torture (that kind of story should be reported no matter the damage).

Though the one I'm really angry at and would like to see prosecuted is the unnamed 'senior government official' who is their source.
That asshat should have known the backlash that this would cause and should have kept his mouth shut.

Discuss.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Assuming their sources are concrete, they can run a story without any major problems given their mission is to report the news, though some have more bias than others in this field. If all news outlets looked at how such a report may harm a certain character or even a nation, then a lot of news would never make it. I would rather have free press able to report on a great many things within reason, than a press who are too meek to report key issues because it may offend or stir up controversy that otherwise is very real.

Of course, like I say, this assumes they verify the facts, make sure their sources are reliable and don't just go about printing rumours as if they were true. That road can be dangerous.

[Glocksman]

The reason I said 'so far' when I said I think they should have spiked the story is because while I think that this story should have been sat on, there are plenty of others that shouldn't.

There are too many in the government think that the interests of a political party and the interests of the nation as a whole coincide. They don't. What may harm either GWB's or the Democrats' policies may not harm the country.

I'm not concerned with legalities, as obviously Newsweek broke no law and no law should be passed restricting the press over stories like these.

It's just that IMHO there will be times when your duty as a citizen to not cause damage to your nation will trump your duty as a reporter, but that decision is up to each person involved and the border will be different for each one.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I agree that is a personal decision, that is, of course, why bias arises. To put it in black & white as the American media so readily does, the conservative newsgroups will not spend much time on any events in Iraq that may show the invasion as being a bad idea. Likewise, the liberal side will not like to run stories that discredit certain environmental issues like nuclear power. It is in the extent of these prejudices that we find truth and avoid the outright lies.

I would not like to publish something that would harm my nation, but, if it shows that there is corruption then it may be for the best in the long run so the situation is sorted out (as it inevitably has to in the open). Therefore, it depends on how deep your loyalty to your nation goes. What initially harms it may in the end make it stronger and better overall.

[Darth Wong]

I hope you realize that this kind of "keep your mouth shut" policy would only increase the perception gulf between the US and the rest of the world by censoring the information available to US residents. Not to mention crippling the democratic process which relies on as much transparency as possible so that people can make informed judgements.

[Glocksman]

I hope you realize that this kind of "keep your mouth shut" policy would only increase the perception gulf between the US and the rest of the world by censoring the information available to US residents. Not to mention crippling the democratic process which relies on as much transparency as possible so that people can make informed judgements.

I'm not talking about not reporting such information in the US if it's already out there in foreign news outlets.
In that case, it'd be a case of closing the barn door after the rustlers have already made hamburger out of Bessie.

I'm talking about just how should a US news editor or reporter behave when the dilemma comes up between running the story and having the nation suffer the damaging effects from it or stifling his duty as a journalist and sitting on it.
Like AV said, it's a personal decision and would depend upon the ethics of the person making it and the particular circumstances surrounding the story.
I'm certainly not saying that as a matter of policy, US reporters shouldn't run damaging stories.
Personally in this case, I would have spiked the story because news of the Koran being flushed isn't vital for the US public to know about, yet can cause no end of trouble among fundamentalist Moslem asshats overseas.

A constrast would be Abu Ghraib, as the story there should have been broken regardless of the consequences because of the laws being violated.

AFAIK, there is no law in the US about flushing the Koran (or a Bible for that matter ) down the toliet.

[Fire Fly]

While I care about being informed about the dealings of the government and what happens around the world, Newsweek should have never printed their story. Is there really anything to be gained from knowing that interrogators supposedly desecrated the Koran? I don't care; I don't care as much as if someone desecrated the Bible or some other holy book.

There's a fine line in journalism that reporters and editors need to understand: is it really news that will benefit people from knowing or is it just gossip and unwarranted "news"? Is there any real journalistic information being given from that story? The entire Gitmo story has been thoroughly milked already and while I think its important to be updated from time to time what goes on, there are other better and more important things to report on that Newsweek could have made into a full story.

[General Brock]

Glocksman wrote:

AFAIK, there is no law in the US...

Well, some Americans get extremely upset when idiots burn the flag, but at least have the sense to not riot (and trash their own cities) over it.

I think Newsweek acted borderline responsibly; this was just an isolated mention, almost buried in the rest of the story, when it really should have been examined more closely.

Certainly to some Islamists it was an official confirmation (almost like gloating) by the official American press. However, the rest of the world, and certainly the Muslim world, already knew this had happened, from stories told by released prisoners and news reports based on leaked sources. Those of us who have followed the war reasonably closely have already come across references to such acts.

The riots are the result of a cumulation of events needing release; the Newsweek article was just the last straw. Newsweek could not have expected this to happen, and even if they somehow did, self-censorship of legitimate, important news is suicide for any free society.

That should be the editor's first concern.

[Coyote]

As noted before, this "story" could have been sat on. One thing that should have been asked, in their rush to print, was what they hope the result of running such a story will be. In the case of Abu Ghraib, yes, there was a need to correct that behavior and air the dirty laundry. Silently condoning the torture of human beings is to be an accomplice to evil.

But Newsweek should have known what the reaction to this would be. What cause did they hope to serve by it, what did they hope to prove? Would the ensuing riots and deaths and political brouhaha been worth it? Would it have served a higher purpose; would people have been "better educated" by it?

Or was it just shit-stirring "journalism" (in this case, Yellow Journalism) for the purpose of getting people incensed enough to Buy More Copy?

The Koran story, IMO, served no purpose other than to stir shit. And I think the editors that ran the story, and the Editor in Chief, should be held responsible for those deaths.

[Keevan_Colton]

The Koran story, IMO, served no purpose other than to stir shit. And I think the editors that ran the story, and the Editor in Chief, should be held responsible for those deaths.

And the award for stupidest idea in a thread today goes to, Coyote for this absolute gem. Why the fuck would there be any reason to hold editors responsible for what people do after hearing the information they have...providing the information is correct to the best of their capacity to discern and there is not a direct national security threat stemming from it (and it making things look bad is NOT a national security threat) then there is no reason what so ever that they should not be able to go to print with it.

[Coyote]

...providing the information is correct to the best of their capacity to discern

They obviously didn't sweat that detail too much, now, did they? If it is "bad" for the US government to jump the gun and go to war over half-assed information and cause deaths, then why are you willing to give the Media a free pass to do the exact same goddamn thing?

and there is not a direct national security threat stemming from it (and it making things look bad is NOT a national security threat)

Well, if the only fallout from this was to make things "look bad" that would be one thing, but in this case several deaths have been attributed to this flaming piece of yellow journalism and rather severe political repercussions have been had as well. (I guess that's not a security threat... fanning anti-Americanism in backwards parts of the world with a proven track record of religious bullfuckery is a patriotic duty).

Many lives have been endangered by this-- but that's okay, 'cause they Sold Copy, made money, and someone had a shot at a Pulitzer, huh? At least it's not for Oil. That would be Bad (tm).

The cynical double stabndard is disgusting-- Bad for the Gummint, but Great for BS News.

... then there is no reason what so ever that they should not be able to go to print with it.

Well, fuck, let's say that the prisoners are forced to eat bacon and watch "Gigli" with their eyes taped open. While we're at it, let's say the Muslims sank the Maine.

[Keevan_Colton]

...providing the information is correct to the best of their capacity to discern

They obviously didn't sweat that detail too much, now, did they? If it is "bad" for the US government to jump the gun and go to war over half-assed information and cause deaths, then why are you willing to give the Media a free pass to do the exact same goddamn thing?

Last I checked they never actually shot anyone...there's little fine lines between physically attacking and disseminating information you have.

Now, lets also look at the information in the news articles about this stuff. If you read, their source has now backed down on the information it previously gave, most likely under pressure from on high...yet at the time of going to press the evidence they had supported the story, now there is a difference if someone changes their testimony AFTER the fact, and knowing it is FALSE before you go to print.

and there is not a direct national security threat stemming from it (and it making things look bad is NOT a national security threat)

Well, if the only fallout from this was to make things "look bad" that would be one thing, but in this case several deaths have been attributed to this flaming piece of yellow journalism and rather severe political repercussions have been had as well. (I guess that's not a security threat... fanning anti-Americanism in backwards parts of the world with a proven track record of religious bullfuckery is a patriotic duty).

Many lives have been endangered by this-- but that's okay, 'cause they Sold Copy, made money, and someone had a shot at a Pulitzer, huh? At least it's not for Oil. That would be Bad (tm).

The cynical double stabndard is disgusting-- Bad for the Gummint, but Great for BS News.

The job of the media is to inform people, you do this by passing on what you have discovered. The idea that you are comparing the government CONCEALING information with the press DISTRIBUTING information as being the same thing is so utterly laughable. Or have you forgotten that one of the big issues was that the government apparently KNEW that the information they were giving out was false, but did so anyway to drum up support for the war...

... then there is no reason what so ever that they should not be able to go to print with it.

Well, fuck, let's say that the prisoners are forced to eat bacon and watch "Gigli" with their eyes taped open. While we're at it, let's say the Muslims sank the Maine.

Hey, lets say you suck donkeys professionally and making stupid illogical comparisions between media and government is just a hobby on the side. What part of "to the best of their capacity to discern" is slipping you by here?

Oh and telling someone where US troops would be at a given time so that they could be ambushed would be a national security threat, but telling them something that makes them angry is not, just so you understand the distinction between the two.

[Col. Crackpot]

...providing the information is correct to the best of their capacity to discern

They obviously didn't sweat that detail too much, now, did they? If it is "bad" for the US government to jump the gun and go to war over half-assed information and cause deaths, then why are you willing to give the Media a free pass to do the exact same goddamn thing?

Last I checked they never actually shot anyone...there's little fine lines between physically attacking and disseminating information you have.

so by your logic Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney bear no responsibility for the deaths that were a result of the Iraq war because they never actually shot anyone! Hello Foot, welcome to Keevan's mouth.

[Keevan_Colton]

They obviously didn't sweat that detail too much, now, did they? If it is "bad" for the US government to jump the gun and go to war over half-assed information and cause deaths, then why are you willing to give the Media a free pass to do the exact same goddamn thing?

Last I checked they never actually shot anyone...there's little fine lines between physically attacking and disseminating information you have.

so by your logic Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney bear no responsibility for the deaths that were a result of the Iraq war because they never actually shot anyone! Hello Foot, welcome to Keevan's mouth.

If the staff reporters had shot people because the editors told them to, that'd be the editors fault, same as Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney bear responsibility for having their subordinates killing people...oh wait, you're being a sophistic little bastard and deliberately missing the point....get to fuck.

[Coyote]

Last I checked they never actually shot anyone...there's little fine lines between physically attacking and disseminating information you have.

As much as I hate to be the first one to mention it... but as far as we know, Hitler never physically shot anyone either, he just wrote a bunch of ideas down and distributed them. Just because people did what he said is no reason to hold him resp....

Now, lets also look at the information in the news articles about this stuff. If you read, their source has now backed down on the information it previously gave, most likely under pressure from on high...yet at the time of going to press the evidence they had supported the story, now there is a difference if someone changes their testimony AFTER the fact, and knowing it is FALSE before you go to print.

But they absolutely had to rush to print with something that that knew would cause uneccessary trouble if they printed it, and would harm nothing if they waited to make sure. Picture this:

A contractor builds an office tower. Businesses move in, hundreds work in this tower every day. The media gets a leak from a sub-contractor that the building was built way below standards and is in danger of collapse at any minuute. The sub-contractor is a reliable source of information.

Telling the story will damage the reputation of the construction firm, but people's lives could be in danger of building collapse. The story needs to get out.

OTOH:
The building is built but no one has moved in. It is still empty and tenants aren't going to move in for awhile. There is no imminent danger, no pressing need to get the information out-- the media has time to double-check and make sure before rushing to print and damaging the builder's reputation. The contractor may be mistaken, or bullshitting for whatever reason.

I liken Abu Ghraib to the first story-- people's lives were in danger, get the story out, remove the situation and worry about fallout, repercussions and investigations afterward.

But for this, nothing is served by rushing to print, and in fact (as was seen) negative things happened by jumping the gun. Newsweek could have saved us a lot of social trouble, several deaths, and political setbacks by being more careful since the story wasn't going anywhere. Do you think they honestly felt that if they get that story out right now, that it would encourage bin-Laden to surrender or something?

The job of the media is to inform people, you do this by passing on what you have discovered.

You ignorant, naive fool. The job of the fucking media is to make money. THE MEDIA IS A BUSINESS. They make money by selling lots of copy and convincing the advertisers, their cash cows, that they'll sell more copy than their competition. "Buy an ad in Newsweek-- more people will read us because we're much more lurid and titillating than other news 'zines." That's what it's all about-- altruistic thoughts about informing or educating the public come in a distant second.

The idea that you are comparing the government CONCEALING information with the press DISTRIBUTING information as being the same thing is so utterly laughable.

By manipulating information one way or another, people have died.

Or have you forgotten that one of the big issues was that the government apparently KNEW that the information they were giving out was false, but did so anyway to drum up support for the war...

Although many people did suspect the Iraqi government of having WMDs, or being able to make WMDs and planning to do so in the future. After all, they had in the past... The public position of the US administration to go to war based solely on the WMD issue was fucking asinine, I have said that many times before.

But it leads back to what I pointed out: misuse of information leads to deaths, but while the government is evil, the media's mistake is perfectly understandable and they are without blame.

. What part of "to the best of their capacity to discern" is slipping you by here?

The editors of Newsweek should have also recognized the responsibility of their actions-- as I said, by waiting and checking, the story would not have suffered. No purpose was served by acting on it right now. Why would it have been to much to ask?:

"If we run this, imagine the reaction in the Muslim world."
"Riots, attacks... we better double-check this. If it's 100%, we can run it next week."

We know these fucking Muslims can't keep their dicks in their pants when it comes to their precious fucking book. If more restraint would have been good for the US government, why could we not put the same expectations on the fucking media?

...Oh and telling someone where US troops would be at a given time so that they could be ambushed would be a national security threat...

Yes, and Geraldo should have been removed as a journalist permanantly.

... but telling them something that makes them angry is not, just so you understand the distinction between the two.

Do you understand that when you tell stark raving Muslims something that makes them angry, they don't just go home and pout, but they kill people (demonstrated) stage riots and burn things (also demonstrated) and attack US troops and allied Muslim troops needlessly? If you tell an angry, pissed-off maniac with a gun something that will make him angry, are you really supposed to be surprised when he freaks out and shoots someone? Are you really that uninformed about human nature?

[Col. Crackpot]

Point conceded , but a case can be made that what the editors did rises to the level of 'depraved indifference'. That is a prosecutable offense. And don't bother lecturing me on how freedom of speech gives you the right to do what amounts to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

[Darth Wong]

As noted before, this "story" could have been sat on. One thing that should have been asked, in their rush to print, was what they hope the result of running such a story will be.

Please post the relevant quote from the Newsweek article with a paragraph or two of leading and trailing context so that we may see just how "irresponsible" this was.

[Coyote]

Gitmo: SouthCom Showdown
Newsweek

May 9 issue - Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash. An Army spokesman confirms that 10 Gitmo interrogators have already been disciplined for mistreating prisoners, including one woman who took off her top, rubbed her finger through a detainee's hair and sat on the detainee's lap. (New details of sexual abuse—including an instance in which a female interrogator allegedly wiped her red-stained hand on a detainee's face, telling him it was her menstrual blood—are also in a new book to be published this week by a former Gitmo translator.)

The rest of the story:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7693014/site/newsweek/



It is a short article, but there you have it, the entire lead paragraph with the offending "toilet" reference. It was later theorized on CBS news that the reference was actually made in regards to a Muslim prisoner that flushed some pages of the Koran down a toilet to clog the pipes in protest.

[Coyote]

And, of course, a bit of follow-up:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 25,00.html

World News

May 14, 2005

Newsweek sparks global riots with one paragraph on Koran
By Catherine Philp
Claim that the Holy book was defiled by US guards at Guantanamo Bay has incensed Muslims

Demonstrators show the depth of anti-American feeling in Islamabad after the Newsweek report (REUTERS)

AT LEAST nine people were killed yesterday as a wave of anti-American demonstrations swept the Islamic world from the Gaza Strip to the Java Sea, sparked by a single paragraph in a magazine alleging that US military interrogators had desecrated the Koran.

As Washington scrambled to calm the outrage, Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, promised an inquiry and punishment for any proven offenders. But at Friday prayers in the Muslim world many preachers demanded vengeance and afterwards thousands took to the streets, burning American flags.

Although the original report in Newsweek was small, it was re-broadcast by television networks such as al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya and in Pakistan it was quoted by Imran Khan, the cricketer-turned-politician, at a press conference. He said it would strengthen the impression that America’s War on Terror was against Muslims.

Reckless incitement to violence.

[tharkûn]

My problem is not that the story was run, but that it was run so poorly. What exactly did they do in the way of fact checking this anon source? Why on earth could they not have waited to run the story until they had some independant verification? From an ethical standpoint is the tradeoff of giving the military some time to do its own fact checking, and maybe bitchslap any offenders before you let it fly to the world such a terrible thing?

All of these things were done back in April '04 by CBS when dealing with Abu Ghraib. This wasn't breaking news and letting it wait for confirmation and rebuttal would have sacrificed precious little. It is one thing to break a story with hard evidence, independant corroboration, and eye witness accounts. Running on what was essentially hearsay is another thing entirely.

[Darth Wong]

The offending sentence fragment in that paragraph looks like exactly what it was: an allegation from unnamed sources. I can't believe you people are trying to make a mountain out of this molehill. You're as bad as the Muslims who are using this as an excuse.

[tharkûn]

Is there something run with expecting professionalism from journalists? For them to meet basic profesional conduct standards like fact checking or giving the "other side" a chance to reply to allegations?

[Keevan_Colton]

Is there something run with expecting professionalism from journalists? For them to meet basic profesional conduct standards like fact checking or giving the "other side" a chance to reply to allegations?

I think you mean "wrong" not "run" to start with, and how exactly are you deciding what standards it is journalists should be held to?

I think you will find that most journalism professional bodies do have codes of conduct, such as ensuring that you verify to the best of your ability at the time that your information is correct. Which is what they did, they also stated it as an allegation from unnamed sources, not a hard fact...

Now, what exactly is this shit about the "other side" you're tacking on here and how are you trying to relate it to this incident?

Also, try to keep the answer short and sweet, I'm not in the mood for one of your monster posts full of tangental crap.

[Darth Wong]

Is there something run with expecting professionalism from journalists? For them to meet basic profesional conduct standards like fact checking or giving the "other side" a chance to reply to allegations?

So when a reporter describes a suspect as "an alleged murderer", you feel he should sit on the story until the trial is over? They reported an allegation, you Republitard.

[tharkûn]

If you are using uncorroborated information you should say it directly.

Instead of, "sources tell NEWSWEEK:" you say: "uncorroborated sources tell NEWSWEEK:" or " sources, which could not be independently confirmed, tell NEWSWEEK:". There is a difference between "sources" which have passed fact checking and amount to more than hearsay, and those which don't - be explicit which you are reporting.

As far as giving the other side a chance to reply. Again look to Abu Ghraib, when CBS went to run the story they told the military and gave the military some time to investigate it themselves. Give the people who are being accused a chance to confirm or rebutt, and in the case of the government a chance to initiate discipline if it is warranted.

Seriously the entire story is an anon source saying he thinks he saw a report, fine go to the military ask them about the report, give the a bit of time to go through the thousands of pages that might be applicable so they can either rebutt, deny, or begin punishment, and then run your story.