Our class on media ethics reminded me of an ethical issue that I came across on the Poynter website. I think this issue is relevant to our discussion, and will love to hear what you guys think.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/152923/mayor-uses-alias-to-write-freelance-stories-quoting-himself/
Utah’s West Valley City Mayor Mike Winder was unsatisfied that the local news coverage mainly focused on crimes. He wanted the media to report more positive news. He decided to write and publish articles in local newspapers. However, he disguised himself under an alias, and not even his editors knew his real identity. He got his articles published quite easily, without even meeting with any editor in person and communicating via email and phone.
When it came to the articles per se, he said that his articles were truly factual. Yet, he quoted himself as the mayor in his articles. In an article about the opening of a Buddhist Temple in a Salt Lake City suburb, he quoted himself saying, "We applaud any time a group builds a place to celebrate peace and to encourage people to live better lives." Arguably, this might have portrayed the mayor under a positive light.
The mayor decided to reveal that he was the person hiding behind his alias, before other political figures will use it against him. The CEO of the Dessert News, one of the newspapers where the mayor got published, offered the following explanation:
"While we appreciate that Mayor Winder would, of his own accord, quit writing under the assumed name and then detail the error to us, we remain highly concerned that someone would purposely misrepresent himself ... We deeply regret that Mayor Winder would do this."
So, here are my questions for you all: Should the newspapers have examined more seriously the identity of the writer before publishing his stories? If his articles are indeed factual, is the use of an alias acceptable? Are the mayor's actions excused by his desire to create a more balance coverage? Did the mayor cross the line into unethical journalism by quoting himself?
I think that this is a big "whoopsies" on the newspapers part. If they are accepting articles from the public, they they need to do a little more investigating.. Even if it is just to make sure they are a real person. I don't think that local papers necessarily need to make sure that every story they receive from the public is from a writer with a journalism background, but they should probably check that the person they are receiving from is for one alive, and two doesn't have some kind of agenda they are trying to push in their story.
ReplyDeleteThe newspaper should have caught on that this was a little fishy and hopefully they will be a little more careful from now on. If the mayor wants to say something he should write an op-ed and be honest with who he is, the readers deserve not to be deceived.
Agreed. I find it almost insulting that this newspaper's "policy" on accepting work from freelancers was so lax. If the mayor was able to deceive them so easily, think about who else could have. Someone awaiting trial could have written articles about his own case, and been able to portray himself in the most flattering way possible, using quotes that other journalists would never have chosen. The director of an organization undergoing, say, an ethics investigation, could submit an article featuring one or two patrons who said they had an overwhelmingly favorable experience there. That information could be factual, but would nevertheless be incredibly lopsided and would unfairly influence the investigation.
DeleteTo address the questions you posed at the end of your post, yes, I think the newspaper should absolutely have verified the identity of anyone who is submitting articles. But like Ashley wrote above, I think in some cases it might be sufficient just to confirm that the writer is indeed a real person. If the identity is confirmed, editors should then be able to use their discretion to determine whether that person is qualified to write the article. Journalism experience is probably not always necessary, but other factors should be examined, such as the quality of the writing, the number and variety of sources used, maybe even where the writer lives, etc. However, sometimes that won't be enough. As in the examples I mentioned above in response to Ashley's comment, some people should not be allowed to write on certain topics if they are clearly biased. We shouldn't be permitted to write a piece evaluating the journalism program at Maryland, for instance, because we are simply too involved. In this situation, where the mayor used an alias, editors should be held responsible for failing to check out that information. If they had, the situation could have been avoided. If the mayor had used his real name, the editors should have denied his submission on the grounds of bias, and again — situation avoided.
ReplyDeleteOn to the next question. Regardless of whether the articles are factual, I hesitate to say the use of an alias is ever acceptable. Actually, I think the truth or falsity of the material is irrelevant if we are only trying to determine whether it's ethical to use an alias because we would assume,for the sake of isolating the issue at hand, that the article is true. To conceal the writer's identity seems unnecessarily deceptive to the public. A reporter wanting to use an alias should need to justify that request with very compelling reasons — the same way journalists need to justify situations where they quote anonymous, first-name-only, or changed-name sources. At risk of sounding like a cliche, it's simply an issue of accountability and transparency. There may be very specific instances where using an alias would be justifiable, such as where the writer's safety is at risk if he or she wrote about conflict or controversy. But those instances would have to be very few and far between, as reporters cover controversy all the time. MAYBE coverage of the Middle East would qualify because it's so dangerous, but people have been doing it for years under their real names. This is tricky question.
The mayor's actions are completely inexcusable. Using deceptive measures to advance his priorities (even if the goal of more even coverage is an admirable one) speaks to his character and reveals that he is not to be trusted as public figure. The fact that he quoted himself makes the situation especially reprehensible, but it was wrong to begin with.
I think that the newspapers should have examined the writer before publishing his stories, as doing so would have prevented this situation in the first place. An intensive background check might be too much, but investigating enough to verify the name is reflective of a real person would be sufficient. Publishing articles without knowing the reporter's name is an alias is embarrassing and calls into question how well the editors fact-check and verify.
ReplyDeleteI do not think the use of an alias is unethical if it's not misused (like in this instance, since the mayor's decision to quote himself was definitely unethical). Aliases, in very rare cases, might even be helpful if the writer is particularly well-known and that celebrity might cause unreasonable reception of their work. While the mayor's attempt and initiative to create more balanced coverage is admirable, that nonetheless does not give him license to quote himself without absolute transparency to readers. The articles may have been factual, but his deliberate refusal to use his real name and use his own quotes is unethical and deceptive.
It's interesting that while editors would thoroughly question reporters about anonymous sources, these editors failed to even question a reporter who they've never met. I'm not sure how the freelance process works, but the question that comes to my mind is, didn't the mayor have to submit some kind of resume to make sure that he was a credible reporter? If he did, then there would be legal implications to this, not simply ethical ones, so I'm guessing the editors did not care how professional this "reporter" was.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly poses an ethics issue that the mayor was quoting himself, because he would obviously have the opportunity to change anything he said before printing. In a real situation, the source would not have the opportunity to change their quotes. Certainly, there is no such thing as a completely unbiased reporter, but this is directly beneficial to his own career, which is why this is considered unethical. It certainly gives readers of the city a chance to read these "positive" stories without immediately dismissing it as a PR bit from the mayor, but the use of deception is objectionable.