CARL BERNSTEIN: HACKGATE

Again, we return to subject of phone hacking -- but what can I say, it's a hot topic right now! And this week was the first time that I stumbled across the term "hackgate".  And as you can probably imagine, it's a clever little comparison between phone hacking and the monstrous scandal that brought down Richard Nixon.


Carl Bernstein, the legendary journalist who played a main role in uncovering Watergate, is currently across the pond in London, participating in a debate called After Hacking: How can the press restore trust?  Seeing as many are probably curious as to his comments on the issue, Dan Sabbagh of the Guardian has written a great article, which pulls together a number of things that Bernstein has said in regards to the relationship between Watergate and Murdoch's phone hacking case.  Most notable is the way in which Bernstein directly equates Murdoch to Nixon...

"Hacking is about a notion of what journalism is and what is permissible – just as Watergate was about what it's permissible for the president to do," [Bernstein] says, arguing that Murdoch is, in the broadest sense, responsible for his now closed Sunday tabloid.

Bernstein also says...

"Some of his newsrooms showed such disregard for any semblance of reasonable privacy and even the law, and this had an effect on other newsrooms on both sides of the Atlantic".

After reading through several of his comments, it is clear that Bernstein believes that Murdoch crossed a journalistic line that transcends both legal and ethical principles.  I think he's suggesting that the very nature of journalism rejects the underlying moral codes of phone hacking...an idea that I certainly agree with.  Bernstein continually makes reference to the practice of journalism and the purpose of the journalist -- and without explicitly defining either concept, he indicates that the answer is the direct opposite of what he refers to as "the spectacle and the triumph of the idiot culture". 


Thus, the job of a journalist is to defeat such an "idiot culture". Bernstein has famously written, "the media are probably the most powerful of all our institutions today; and they are squandering their power and ignoring their obligation". Do you agree with him? Is the media failing in their journalistic obligations? Has journalism abandoned its ethical ideologies? 

FOOTBALL OR GADHAFI?

For this week's post, I'm going to stick to a pretty simple observation.  At my internship, I've recently been given the task of sorting through the morning newspapers and picking out some of the more interesting business stories.  And of course, this means that I spend a lot more time than I normally would, flipping through the Wall Street Journal, the SF Chronicle, and the SF Examiner - because let's be honest, I rarely pay for a newspaper when I can browse the news on the internet for free. In any case, I was particularly struck by what I found in the Examiner...


Aside from the cover story being something about a dog-killing artist (that's an entirely different discussion in itself), I also noticed that the sports section seemed to dominate the paper.  The Examiner is a fairly short newspaper to begin with, but when you take into consideration the amount of space that is used for sports, it leaves little room for the rest. Compared to the one page dedicated to business, and the one page dedicated to world news, there are a total of SIX sports pages. And I understand the undying love that America has for football, but at the end of the day, is that more important than the happenings in Libya or the 2012 U.S. presidential election??

What is more important for American journalists to report? Do they have an ethical duty to devote more time, energy, and space to world affairs? What ethical principles go into the Examiner's decision to favor the sports section?

TO PUBLISH OR NOT TO PUBLISH?

When it comes to Sarah Palin, I think it's safe that say that there's no shortage of outrage and drama.  From her teen mom daughter, to her claims to be able to see Russia from her backyard, and her down-and-dirty animal hunting ways on her TLC reality show, Palin has been surrounded by what seems to be an incessant cloud of critique and opposition.  But recently, her name has been slightly absent from the mouths of her critics...cue the next Sarah scandal.


The National Enquirer (not necessarily journalism at its finest) has released reports that Sarah Palin and former Miami Heat player Glen Rice, had a shocking "one-night stand" back in 1987, along with a whole string of nasty allegations of cocaine use and adultery.  And while we know that the National Enquirer isn't exactly the most reputable source, our question of journalism ethics lies in the fact that the Miami Herald has chosen to publish the same story.


Herald Reporter, Armando Salguero, has made it quite clear that he disapproves of his colleagues decision to run the story.  Here's what he had to say (via Poynter):

Do we know this story to be TRUE? Are we certain it is TRUE because we’ve done the work or have a reasonable certainty that is TRUE?

Did anyone actually try to confirm this story before giving it Herald front page credibility? Did anyone call Glenn Rice to get independent confirmation? He lives in Miami, you know.

Is it now OK to repeat any “report” from the National Enquirer on the front page of the Herald’s website without actually reporting even one fact independently? The blog calls The Enquirer’s sources “solid.” …

If this Rice story, unconfirmed and unreported by us, can be published on our site, do the alien stories not meet the same standards?

The Miami Herald certainly seems to be walking a fine line between honest reporting and tabloid journalism.  While we might expect a story of this nature to pop up in the National Enquirer, I know I was surprised to see that it had made it into the Herald.

Is it ethical to report a story that at its core, is nothing more than a rumor?  The story is clearly capable of, and probably well on its way to harming Sarah Palin's reputation. Does that mean that the journalists didn't consider her well-being...certainly their loyalties don't lie with Palin.

My initial reaction: I agree with Salguero, the Miami Herald's decision to publish something of this nature is questionable...and I'm leaning towards unethical. What are your thoughts?

PHONE HACKING INVESTIGATION RAISES BIGGER & BROADER CONCERNS

As I browsed some of my go-to news sites this week, one headline caught my eye: "Press Freedom Fears As Police Question Guardian Reporter"  (And though it is about the phone hacking scandal, and it has more to do with British journalism than American, I think it's nonetheless worth mentioning).

According to the article, Guardian journalist, Amelia Hill, has been cautiously questioned by police in regards to her contact with off-the-record sources during her work on the News of The World phone hacking scandal.  Basically, she's been accused of publishing information that was leaked by an officer assigned to the case, AKA Operation Weeting. And while this is largely a legal debate, I feel like there's surely a matter of ethics somewhere in there.  So, here are the controversial questions: Is it ethical for a journalist to publish leaked information on the basis that it is in the public interest? Is public interest more important that the interest of the police investigation?

Gaurdian reporter Dan Sabbagh wrote this:

Martin Moore, the director of the media watchdog the Media Standards Trust, said that in light of the phone-hacking scandal it was becoming "increasingly important to sustain and defend journalism in the public interest." He said that it was "not the time to be threatening public interest journalism" by the police moving to question reporters such as Hill.

It seems Moore is saying that it is perfectly ethical for a journalist to publish info from an off-the-record source, and that the real unethical action here, is the fact that the police are threatening public interest by going after Hill.

Sabbagh also noted that Michelle Stranistreet, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists said this:

"There is a clear distinction between legitimate off-the-record interviews and the illegitimate payment of bribes."

This brings up another question: Is allowing a source to remain off-the-record the same as bribing a source? I'm going to agree with Stranistreet, and say no.

The general consensus of the article seems to lean towards the conclusion that Amelia Hill's actions were ethical...but that could also be because the article was written by one of her fellow Gaurdian reporters - just a thought. Either way, what do you think?