Media ethics
It's getting to the point that "media ethics" is earning the same sort of oxymoronic status once reserved for "military intelligence." Case in point is Sunday's New York Times public editor column on the undisclosed relationship between Times supreme court reporter Linda Greenhouse and her husband Eugene Fidell. (I first mentioned the case here.)
After reading Public Editor Clark Hoyt's column, I'm conviced that Hoyt, and just about every other Times editor couldn't give a damn about ethics -- or for anyone who can be described as "conservative" bringing them up.
A conservative blogger who takes frequent shots at Greenhouse, M. Edward Whelan III, pointed out Fidell’s involvement in the cases and said it created a conflict of interest for the Times reporter.
Oh, those pesky bloggers. Getting all uppity. Whelan has promised to fully fisk Hoyt's column later this week, but rest assured that this description of Whelan as a rabid blogger was an ad hominem meant to get the paper's "elite" readership to stop reading.
Greenhouse and her editors disagree. Dean Baquet, the Washington bureau chief, called the conflict “abstract” and said that Fidell and his institute were minor figures in the cases. Greenhouse said her husband does not represent any prisoners, and “there is to my mind a significant difference between representing a party in a case and taking a position on an issue raised by a case.”
Greenhouse is right. there's a significant difference between representing a party in a case and taking a position on an issue raised by a case ... at a dinner party. If Fidell was railing against the Gitmo detainees' treatment at any of the swanky Manhattan dinner parties he and his wife attend, there'd be no problem. But there is a difference when you start filing court documents.
Whelan, formerly an official in the Bush administration Justice Department and a clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, made no specific claim that Greenhouse tilted her work to favor her husband’s point of view, saying “it would be impossible to separate any such bias from the broader political bias that pervades so much of Greenhouse’s reporting.”
Now we get word on Whelan's bona fides. Why wasn't this Hoyt's first description of the man. A lawyer. A clerk for a supreme court justice. Now he doesn't sound like just another of those hateful, rabid bloggers.
I read each of the dozen articles that Greenhouse has written on the two cases, and I see why Whelan chose a slippery innuendo rather than specifying instances of bias. There were not any. The articles were straightforward accounts, explaining all sides clearly and, as is customary in Greenhouse’s coverage of the court, drawing on a deep knowledge of the applicable law, going back to its roots in English common law.
Stop! You're killiing me. Whelan's argument is that it is impossible to separate Greenhouse's bias based on her liberal beliefs from her bias as it relates to her husband -- not that such bias doesn't exist in the first place. I suspect that Whelan's imminent fisking will reduce Hoyt's claim that Greenhouse is an unbiased reporter for the fraud it is. (Fellow National Review blogger Mark Hemingway even managed to provide him with some ammunition almost immediately.)
Whelan is president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. But his increasingly intemperate and personal attacks on Greenhouse indicate something other than a legitimate concern about ethics. They feel more like bullying.
Oh, more biography that doesn't make Whelan out to be some sort of crank buried deeper in the story. Followed by a whiny, personal attack. I'm also curious how Hoyt supports the claim that Whelan's complaints are somehow personal. They seem to be purely professional. Is calling into question a reporter's ethics and bias based upon their published articles personal? Whelan's criticisms may only get intemperate -- and I don't think they have -- because you'd get ticked off too if a bunch of elitist, upper west side snobs ignored what is a clear conflict of interest.
The Times has written guidelines for possible conflicts, and how they were applied in Greenhouse’s case suggests that changes are needed in this era when all news media are under constant partisan assault and public faith in them is low.
The guidelines say that staffers must be sensitive to potential conflicts and discuss them with their supervisor and the standards editor. In some cases, the guidelines say, making editors aware is enough. In others, a reporter might have to withdraw from certain coverage, or change beats, or even move to a different department. The guidelines are silent on what I believe is one of the most important steps: public disclosure.
Finally, something to agree with Hoyt on. Greenhouse's husband's involvement in the Gitmo cases should've been disclosed if she was writing on those issues. Period. End of column. Whelan vindicated.
But Lee Wilkins, a professor of journalism at the University of Missouri and editor of The Journal of Mass Media Ethics, said, “Conflict of interest is practically the only place in ethics where perceptions matter almost as much as what is the case.” Like it or not, the perception is that Greenhouse is writing about something in which her husband is a player — and The Times isn’t telling the public. Newspapers routinely question public officials in similar circumstances.
Yes, newspapers do question public officials in similar circumstances. Again we have another situation where newspapers have one standard for themselves and another, much higher standard, for everyone else.
What would I have done differently?
First, I would not have removed Greenhouse from the story. As Wilkins said, if The Times did that, “we have knowingly given our readers less than our best.” But after the first conversation between Greenhouse and Taubman, The Times should have clued in readers.
I think just about everyone who follows the Supreme Court closely knows what to expect from Greenhouse's reporting. So, I couldn't care less whether they leave Greenhouse to cover cases with which her husband is involved. However, it does need to be disclosed. Hoyt is right about that. I'd go further -- when covering abortion cases before the Supreme Court, Greenhouse should have to disclose her personal opinions on the subject, which she has done publicly in the past. It should read something along the lines of: "Reporter Linda Greenhouse is a fervent abortion rights supporter."
Second, I would have practiced what Steele called “transparency with accountability,” revisiting the issue from time to time, certainly with each new case, to determine Fidell’s level of participation and whether the initial decision should be reconsidered. Taubman recalls doing that, but when Baquet became bureau chief last March, he was not told of Taubman’s understanding with Greenhouse. And, despite the guidelines, nobody told Craig Whitney, the standards editor.
Right again, Hoyt.
Finally, I think The Times should systematically disclose more about what Steele termed the intersections between the personal and professional lives of its journalists. This could be done in biographies on the newspaper’s Web site. Greenhouse’s biography says, “She is married to Eugene R. Fidell, a lawyer.” That is not enough.
Right a third time, Hoyt.
Bill Keller, the executive editor, said, “I happily endorse that approach.” But he said he does not want to single out Greenhouse for this treatment because it would appear to be a tacit rebuke in the face of a partisan assault.
The point is not to punish Greenhouse, who does not deserve that. It is to make the newspaper less vulnerable to attacks like Whelan’s.
If the Times did all these things wrong, then why exactly wasn't Whelan right? Why did you treat his complaints and concerns with such disdain? Why did you belittle him in your column? Whelan's assault wasn't partisan -- it was ethical.
What Hoyt doesn't deign to address in his column is that if it is a partisan issue, then there are at least three partisans here: Whelan (the conservative), Greenhouse (the liberal) and Hoyt (the enabler). But, once again, this brouhaha would've never happened if the Times had done the right thing in the first place.
0 comments on “Media ethics”
Tags
[...] says something about how far over the line this is when even Hoyt, who has demonstrated a tendency to lash out at critics, thinks Keller is out of line. The article was notable for what it did not [...]