Page 4 University Daily Kansan, February 2, 1981
Opinion
Kansan code of ethics
Much of this page is devoted to the issue of journalistic ethics. It may not be a "hot" issue like abortion or ERA or Iran, but it's still important.
Because the Kansan is a major source of information for most students, you, the reader, will probably be interested in knowing the Kansan's code of ethics.
The code is based upon one compiled by the Society of Professional Journalists (Sigma Delta Chi), and has been adapted to reflect the nature and purpose of the Kansan. You won't find it engraved in stone anywhere, but hopefully, you'll find it engraved in the heart of every Kansan staff member:
- Reporters must not misidentify themselves when talking to sources.
- Reporting is to be fair. Editorialism belongs on the editorial page.
- Reporters must protect confidential sources of information, lest essential sources begin to dry up—which damages the public's right to know.
*Although most Kansan reporters are journalism students, they are to perform as professional journalists at all times.*
*Staff members are to be constantly on guard against political, occupational and
other conflicts of interest that may affect their decisions.
- News-gathering is to be done in an open fashion. When important information cannot be obtained in that manner, reporters are to proceed under the guidance of their editors.
- When faced with such situations, editors are to consider the public's right to know, the means necessary to get the information and the morality and legality of such actions.
- Truth is the Kansan's goal. Knowingly printing untruths is a disservice to the public and any reporter who does so should be removed from his beat or suffer other disciplinary action.
So why is a code of ethics important? It's a sort of covenant between the reader and the newspaper, one that lets the reader know how the newspaper gets the stories it prints.
In an era of court decisions restricting the freedom of the press, of arrests of reporters and of a public that sometimes misunderstands the media, it's vital the reader know as much about the newspaper as possible.
The stakes just could be a free press. And democracy.
Journalists should take note: 'right to know' is a big myth
These past few weeks for me as a room-
Kansan editor writer with no journalism
experience have been similar to Gulliver's
bewilderment when he woke up in the land of
the Lilliputians. And like Swift's fictional character,
I've observed my new surroundings with the
ability and curiosity. What truly astonishes me is that I am coming from Flint Hall that both maintains its immunity from responsibility and romantics its role in society in ways I'd never considered.
Ideally, reporters see themselves set apart from the institutions and events they cover as lonely Guilty. Lucky them.
DAVID
HENRY
Superman and the Green Hornet, fight injustice in Government, expose the corruption of the Rich and Mighty, and protect our Right to Know, using whatever meuses they wish. Such reporters must believe as Lois Lane. It seems, however, that some journalists can't accept the sad reality.
For in their quest for justice, reporters often use tactics which even comic book characters would consider unethical, and, sometimes, outright illegal. When pressed for an explanation, the reply sounds like a litany: "Why should I be as long as the public's right to know is served."
For instance, investigative reporters are infamous for misrepresenting either their own identities or certain facts of a story when they present them. The criminal case material Undoubtedly, someone from the Board Regents would be privy to more information from the chancellor than a reporter. The standard journalistic rationalization for falsification is that if there were any evidence of significance warrants these undercover tactics.
Perhaps, but like potato chips and peanuts. I can't believe anyone could stop this deceit after just one try. What's to keep a reporter, or his editor, from rationalizing a story's significance in order to employ this nifty, time-saving method of calling here and a white lie there and the deadline at mid. Met. Short, sweet and justified by that guiding beacon, the public's Right to Know.
Even more aduousic is the journalist's belief that illegal acts, such as stealing private documents to get a story, are justified. Once again, the rationale hinges on the value of the crime itself. If someone was caught from responsibility couldn't be clearer. While a hungry man with no money can be arrested and thrown into jail for stealing from a grocery shelf, food he needed in order to eat, the reporter knows from that law. His need to report the Truth exempt him from the banal constraints of law.
As with misrepresenting their identity, the can of worms reporters open whenever they knowingly break a law is indeed dangerous. Once he sets the precedent that using illegal methods to arrive at an end is justified, he has flung open the floodgates for further misuse. The reporter, and the reporter alone, can now act as the sole judge in these cases, an important story—warranties any victims by acting as the sole judge of his actions, he makes a mockery of the ideals that guide him.
Lastly, and perhaps most disturbing, is a journalist's demand for shield laws. Proponents of this specialized law maintain that reporters should be protected from information to any investigative authority, be if a grand jury, Congressional committee or Divine Edict. The assumption is that a reporter's sources would evaporate and therefore, we, the journalists, would once again be denied the Right to Know.
The opposite conclusion actually is true. Protection of an informed source protects neither the reader nor the reporter, but rather the source. Very little of value depends on an unknown source and, in fact, the source's identity is often crucial to a story's success. Watergate would have gone nowhere had Dean and McCord gone unnamed.
Further, what recognition or gratification would a confessor get if his name were to go unnoticed? And without the outside chance of possible disclosure, what's to keep a lowly bureaurair from whispering an outrageous story into the eager ear of a reporter? Finally, what's to keep a reporter from fabricating his own story and footnoted with unnamed sources, which he is forced to watch Lapham, the editor of Harper's magazine, observed that "paradoxically, for the reason of reporting more information, the press demands the privilege to remain silent."
Journalism is a tough profession and I can truly sympathize with a journalist's romantic vision of his trade. Like a cake of ice on a hot July day, a reporter leaves notices to posterity. Much of a journalist's time is spent on rewriting press releases and wire service reports and not on the investigation of injustice. He must be able to convey to what he can get when he can get it and hope some of these efforts. Few journalists become widely-recognized and to rise above the pack undoubtedly requires tremendous cleverness and dedication.
I suspect it's this slim chance for success more than anything else that causes journalists to fabricate the Watchdog of Justice mythology which allows them special rights and privileges.
KANSAN
Despite my iconoclassic view, I still believe the press serves a vital function in society, as both a news-reporting and investigative body. I become worried, however, when I sense journalists deluding themselves into thinking they beautiful cranes and not ugly ducklings. The role of the press is similar to the ugly duckling, whose off-key quack forces us to listen, and not the carefully-protected crane, whose silent majesty goes unheard.
(USPS 650-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday and Thursday during June and July except Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas 66045. Subscriptions by mail are $1 for six months or $2 a year in Douglas County and $1 for six months or $3 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through the student activity fee.
Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansan, Flint Hall,
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 68045.
Editor David Lewis
Managing Editor David Lewis Ellen Iwamoto
Editorial Editor Don Munday
Business Manager Term Pry
Retail Sales Manager Larry Leibengood
National Sales Manager Barb Light
General Manager and News Adviser Hark Musner
Kanne Advisor Chuck Crowne
The new editor
Right to know justifies reporters' acts
It's a reporter's job to report the news and serve the public.
It's a heavy task and the reason why most reporters are in the business. Because surely, it isn't the long hours with minimal pay that attracts the hard-core newspaper people to hit the streets to cover a meeting, accident or community. It's the obligation to present to the public its leaders and their actions to the best of the reporter's ability.
And included in that duty—the obligation to inform the public—comes the necessity of gathering information, of collecting background and acquiring facts and figures.
The Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi, has a code of ethics that provides guidelines that reporters should use when gathering information. It's a far cry from the days when Robert Scheer, a reporter who is now working at the Los Angeles Times, said, "The journalist's job is to get the story by breaking into their offices, by bribing, by seducing people, by lying, by anything else to break through the palace guard."
The code states, "The public's right to know of events of public importance and interest is the overriding mission of the mass media. The public's right to be well-fitted opinion is to serve the general welfare."
Recently, the public as well as the press issue has become more concerned about the methods used to gather information. Questions about the lengths a reporter will go to get the information needed for a story are becoming widely discussed in the journalism world.
Serving the general welfare is the basis for which all the actions of a responsible journalist are based. It is the highest consideration when a reporter and his editie decide to use methods to
gather information which some see as questionable.
Questionable methods in the eyes of some include misrepresentation, such as identifying oneself as an agency representative or tax auditor to examine records or financial statements that would normally be kept from a reporter's view. But misrepresentation, when it
CYNTHIA
CURRIE
is the last step in an extensive effort to find out information in other places and in other ways, is acceptance.
It is acceptable when the reporter's story is of great importance. It is acceptable when the public has a right and need to know the information that is being hidden from public scrutiny. It is acceptable when it is the last resort.
But how far is that last resort? Does it include illegal acts such as stealing, breaking and entering and bribery? Most journalists would contend that once again, the degree that they will break the law is in direct proportion to the magnitude of the story.
Reporters, like everyone else, may speed to get to a meeting, rush back to the newsroom to make a deadline or race to an office before it closes.
Yet it is the larger misdeeds that the public and journalism professionals are concerned with.
the law, once again, depends on circumstances and the importance of the story that the in-
former told.
As long as there is the public interest in mind, the methods of information acquisition in the minds of many reporters extend beyond the law. How far beyond is the prerogative of the reporter and his editor. It is a decision they have to responsibly live with, and morally defend.
Journalists have increasingly in the past few years had to morally defend the decisions they make while covering stories and using sources. They have been criticized for contempt of court for refusing to divulge the names of sources to them they have guaranteed anonimity. Fortunately, the reporters have sustained; they have protected their sources from public trust and trust that sources and reports develop.
Shield laws, which would allow the journalists to protect their sources, would give the legal affirmation to something that journalists are now penalized for. Shield laws would be public support for the journalist and his job—serving the public and defending its right to know.
That relationship, the closeness between a source and a reporter, is essential to journalism as we know it today. To destroy that delicate balance, to force journalists to breach a contract of sorts, is detrimental to the flow of information that informs the public.
The ethics of journalism are not clear cut. There are no right or wrong answers. But first, and foremost, in every responsible journalist's mind, is the public. It underlies the work he does and the methods he uses to gather information. The public's right to know, and the journalist's responsibility to protect that right, is what keeps the ideals of professional journalists intact.
Letters to the Editor
To the editor:
G1
I understand, and sometimes appreciate, the concerns of some members of the University of Kansas faculty regarding leave-with-pay, tenure and violations of due process of law. I am also, sympathetic with the concerns of the taxpayers, and believe they will be their due. In regard to Norman Forer and his controversy, let us look at what the taxpayers were paying for Foster to do in 1979-80.
He is not a scholar, for the Publications of the Faculty, July 1, 1968-June 30, 1975 only listed a review that he did on Lewis Coser's book, and this review was published in the Journal of Social Welfare, which is the house organ of the KU School of Social Welfare.
Forer's Iran trip shortchanged taxpayers
The budget of the University of Kansas indicated that Forer was to be paid 22,426. According to the KU Timetable for the fall semester of 1979, he was to teach a course entitled Field Practicum, which was scheduled to meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 8:00 and 5:00, and he was to teach another course entitled Community and Organizational Dynamics and Human Behavior, which was to meet on Wednesdays between 10:30 and 12:30. That斗盘 down to 18 hours of teaching a week, the team consisted 15 students, and if he worked a full school year, it would be 36 weeks of teaching). I am sure that he had office hours to meet with students, and that he attended some committee meetings and other bureaucratic functions. He was a faculty adviser to some student organizations, but that entailed very little work.
I understand that he has done some research on the Pottawatomi Indians, and even worked on a film script concerning the Fothatwatomie. He was also an assistant in what could be considered a scholar and researcher.
So, the taxpayers were paying him in 1979-80 to teach, and it isn't too difficult to see why some taxpayers are unhappy with Forer when he didn't show up to work; $22,426 for teaching 18 hours a week for only 36 weeks a year is a handout that might be helpful. I expect a more productive return on my dollar.
Heather McIntosh Mission freshman
There is a parking lot just east of Murphy Hall that sats virtually empty every night. Are there any parking spaces?
Murphy lot problem
To the editor:
possible explanation is there? Until last fall, the lot was well-utilized on evenings and weekends. Certainly our almay weather can't be totally different. Some of us are still driving to school.
The reason for the inefficient use of this and a number of other lots is that the KU Parking Services redesigned them last fall for "Staff Registration Only." The faculty is not using the space so it fits empty. Of course, there is a bright wall with large windows. Every time a student parks his car there, be it a Sunday afternoon or late Tuesday night, Parking Services stands to make $7.50. This can be especially lucrative when the KU orchestra and chorus have weekend concerts. A Saturday dress rehearsal and Sunday concert at Hoch Steig keep hundreds and hundreds of dollars! (The lot between Murphy and Hoch has been redesignated in the same manner.)
Hopes for change are somewhat dim. After all, we are talking about the people who charge a parking fee if you happen to teach or attend a class on an evening when there is a home basketball game. Academic pursuits are clearly not a top priority here. Too bad.
Tom Reel Lawrence graduate student