Trashing the First Amendment

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is extremely unique -- even within our unique Constitution. The First Amendment not only protects the freedom of speech of citizens (a first at the time), but also a private business -- it establishes the right of "the press" to operate without Government interference:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The intent of protecting the institution of the press must be understood in the context of the fundamental purpose of the representative democracy created by the Constitution under the charter of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . .

The press was valued and Constitutionally protected not because a number of the founders may have dabbled in the business. It was valued and protected because the founders understood the crucial role which a free and independent press could (and did) play in securing the Liberty of a nation. Jefferson was explicit in his correspondence to John Jay soon after the Bill of Rights was adopted:

Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.

In Jefferson's view, the freedom protected by the First Amendment was not "merely" the freedom of expression of a nation -- but the Liberty of the Nation. If the Government was legitimate only to the extent of the continued "consent of the governed", the free press was necessary to provide the information required to make that consent an informed one.

But for this to have the intended effect, the nation requires a press which is not only free, but independent. House organs (see Fox News) publishing only what serves the current interest of those in charge of the government does nothing to advance the cause of liberty. Indeed, it is harmful to the continuation of liberty.

Jefferson could have been speaking today when he wrote, in 1785, about how the British government used the press to pacify and control the colonists:

The most effectual engines for this purpose are the public papers . . . You know well that the government always kept a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, invented and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.

"No means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper". The founders recognized that a newspaper not independent from the subject of its coverage -- which has a stake in the outcome or is controlled by the government -- is harmful to the protection of freedom and liberty.

The pre-revolutionary debates in colonial United States encouraged the spread of the newspaper. The first daily newspaper in the United States was published in Philadelphia in the 1780s. During the post-revolutionary period in which the "united States" were struggling define their relationships to one another, newspapers were generally associated with political viewpoints, with many being effectively house organs for one political party or another. Federalists and the anti-federalists did battle in print for the minds of the citizens of the various states.

Significantly, the political persuasion of the publisher and reporters were up front and worn on their sleeves. Citizens sought out multiple newspapers to absorb and follow the debate of the day. After the civil war, when the "united States" became the "United States", that began to change. James Gordon Bennett started his newspaper, the New York Herald, in the 1830s and his independent policies showed the way for newspapers to divorce themselves from party control. (Bennett is generally credited with introducing what, to our sensibility, is as intertwined with journalism as the forward pass is with football -- the interview. Just as football began without a forward pass, the first hundred years of journalism in America was practiced without the news interview or press conference.)

Over the years, in indirect and direct recognition of the vital Constitutional role that the press plays in our representative democracy, professional journalists developed varied codes of ethics and practices. The codes are designed, among other things, to advance the independence -- actual and apparent -- of their publications from the objects of their coverage.

The Society of Professional Journalists, founded in 1909, is one of the leading American professional organizations for journalists. The SPJ has a very straight-forward Code of Ethics which acts almost as a punch-list for effective and ethical journalism. The preamble to that Code pithily sets forth the syllogism we have been laboring on about:

[P]ublic enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.

The SPJ Code is divided into simple, apt, and significantly titled first principles and associated general orders:

Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Simple. Elegant. (Perhaps too elegant for the ham-handed in some parts. More on that infra.)

Following on these are relatively short lists of goals, prohibitions, and requirements for the ethical journalist seeking to live up to these first principles and general orders of the profession. (As an aside, we have always thought that this code of ethics, and many similar codes with which we are familiar (such as those applicable to lawyers) can be further reduced to a single word: Integrity.)

For today's purpose, we are interested in the Independence principle and, relevantly, here's what the SPJ code of ethics has to say about ethical conduct:

Journalists should:
— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts. . . .

The American Society of Newspaper Editors was formed in the 1920s as the professional society for large circulation newspapers. The very first goal of ASNE was to craft a code of ethics, which they called the "Canons of Journalism".

Their preamble states the reason why:

The First Amendment, protecting freedom of expression from abridgment by any law, guarantees to the people through their press a constitutional right, and thereby places on newspaper people a particular responsibility. Thus journalism demands of its practitioners not only industry and knowledge but also the pursuit of a standard of integrity proportionate to the journalist's singular obligation.

In Article III of the ASNE Code, they address Independence of the journalist thus: Journalists must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety as well as any conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict. They should neither accept anything nor pursue any activity that might compromise or seem to compromise their integrity.

Responsible journals everywhere implement these fundamental principles in a variety of ways. The New York Times prohibits reporters, editorial board members, columnists, editorial writers, and all of its staff from, among other things, participating in partisan politics. Properly, the Times' concern is equal parts prevention of influence and protection of public perception of influence.

Here is part of their ethical code respecting political participation:

Voting, Campaigns and Public Issues

62. Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times. . . .

63. Staff members may not themselves give money to, or raise money for, any political candidate or election cause. . . .

"Staff" members are defined as everyone on the journalism side of the paper, from editorial board members down to spot photographers, stringers, and copy boys (do they still have copy boys?).

Similarly, the Los Angeles Times prohibits staff members from contributing to candidates: "Staff members may not engage in political advocacy – as members of a campaign or an organization specifically concerned with political change. Nor may they contribute money to a partisan campaign or candidate."

The Detroit Free Press, preferring "plain language", prohibits such staff involvement and specifically requires disclosure:

6. We are independent and we serve the public
We stand on guard for the public interest.
We champion the people’s right to know.
We serve the public best by fiercely protecting our independence and our reputation. We do not engage in outside activities that could conflict with our duty to the public or lessen the value of our services to the Free Press.
We do not work for pay or as a volunteer in a political campaign or organization. . . .
We do not participate in political activities that diminish our usefulness to the Free Press or could be perceived as a conflict of interest.
We publicly disclose when we have relevant personal or corporate involvement in anything we cover or publish, including when a staff member has a substantial relationship with a person cited in the coverage. . . .

Smaller publications, such as the Virginia Pilot and The Pocono Record similarly prohibit political donations by the staff of the paper. Kim de Bourbon, editor of the Pocono Record, takes a the classic line with her paper. In email correspondence with the Slob, Ms. deBourbon made it plain everyone on her paper -- from the publisher down to the beat reporter -- is prohibited from contibuting to political campaigns.

As she notes, in a small community, and as the only daily paper in town, that policy could result in some difficulty, but they maintain it in order to protect the integrity of the newspaper:

[N]ews employees and all senior managers should refrain from partisan political activity. As editor, I interpret that to include contributions to political campaigns, and all newsroom employees are expected to refrain from local political contributions. That said, this is a small town, and last year we had to deal with two staffers who had relatives running for office. Our editorial page editor’s husband and a news reporter’s brother both ran for judge in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, and both were elected. It is beyond reasonable to expect that these two employees did not support their relatives’ run for office, although I’m certain neither made individual financial contributions to their campaigns.

(I happen to have a great deal of respect for the Pocono Record. As Ms. de Bourbon mentions, it is a small town newspaper and they clearly understand that role. They do a marvelous job covering their small corner of the world and have been rightly recognized by their peers for their work. Their editorials, whether on local business development issues, school board politics, of national scandals, are generally clear and well written, lucidly conveying the insights of their editorial board.)

An alert observer will have noticed more sensitivity to these issues over the recent years -- an increasing number of newspapers have public editors or ombudsmen serving as in independent eye on the independent eye. You've also seen an increase in "disclaimers" -- alerts to viewers and readers of an affiliation of possible conflict between the news media and the subject of the report.

The News Hour on PBS will introduce a report on BP officials testifying before Congress with a disclaimer that BP is a sponsor of the show; Keith Olbermann will remind viewers of his bosses' relationships with GE when reporting on an issue affecting GE's interests; ABC news, reporting on the struggles within the Disney Company, reminded viewers of the relationship between the broadcaster's owners and the Mouse House; the same when CBS reports on Viacom.

Does Jim McNeil do this because he thinks his reporter was influence in the coverage by the fact that BP was an advertiser?

Is Olbermann afraid that his report might be affected by his bosses' bosses' boss?

Or does Bob Schieffer worry that the correspondent colored the reporting because Viacom is ultimately responsible for the correspondents' paycheck.

Not hardly. Yet they still do it. Why?

Because they are responsible journalists who realize that it is important to disclose, up front, any information which might be reasonably viewed as a potential conflict, a potential relationship between the object of the coverage and the entity doing the covering, or any information which a critical consumer of the information might want to have in order to reach an informed judgment on the credibility, motivation, or completeness of the report or expressed opinion. It is to protect the integrity of the newsreporting and that kind of disclosure is something that all responsible, ethical journalists routinely provide the consumers of their reports.

Such disclosure is not limited to "objective" news reports, either.

Just as the consumer is entitled to believe, and will in all likelihood believe, that there is no undisclosed relationship between the "news" and its object, they will also assume that an "opinion" is one derived honestly and without the impact of any undisclosed relationship.

A food critic does not review the restaurant owned by his editor's spouse; nor a theater critic a play in which his publisher has invested money. At least honorable journalists don't engage in that conduct and, if the relationship is unavoidable, they disclose the relationship up front.

That is, unless you live in a place where integrity -- in appearance or actuality -- is undervalued. Where ethics are no more than the punch line to a joke.

A place like, Scran'en, Pennsylvania.

There, the current iteration of the Lynett Family gives the finger to ethical journalists everywhere. We've briefly reflected on this before, in "A Matter of Integrity, "Scranton Newspapers Continue Unethical Practices", and "They Just Can't Help Themselves".

The Lynetts, publishers AND editors of the Scranton Times "family" of newspapers -- including the Wilkes-Barre Citizen's Voice, and sundry smaller publications and media outlets, have donated HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars to Casey campaigns over the years.

Since the Casey-Santorum Senate race began, they have published over 600 articles covering the race. But only rarely is the Lynett Family's financial stake in Casey ever mentions (twice that I could find) -- and then not as a disclaimer, but only when it was an unavoidable part of teh coverage. (Some will be quick to claim a difference between restrictions on a publisher and on the staff. There may be some validity in that claim, where a publisher is merely a remote owner, without even an office in the building, turning over all editorial control to professional journalists. I would disagree, but that is not even the case here. First, the Lynetts are members of the Editorial Board, they are involved in the journalism side of the business. Second, they are not distant owners, they are on site, integrated into the paper's operations. They sign the checks.)

Lynett/Casey Campaign writers, like Borys Krawczeniuk, are easy mouthpieces on whom the Casey team can drop some talking points and have them repeated as supposed independent analysis to the readers of the Lynett rags.

For example, in over fifty columns touching on some part of the campaign, Borys has failed to once tell his readers that his bosses have a huge financial stake in the success of Bobby Casey.

From all appearances, he has been actively supporting the Casey candidacy -- no doubt pleasing the caporegime in the Lynett Family. (During the primary he barely mentioned the Casey opponents -- despite having had an extended face-to-face interview with Pennacchio, he never even filed a report. He never used a single Pennacchio or Casey Sandals press release or announcement; he failed to cover a single one of their events in his area.)

He most recently displayed his faulty ethics in a column touting the FEC's rejection of a Republican complaint that the newspaper's self-advertising violated election laws.

At the beginning of the campaign, the clever Lynett boys put up billboards all over Scran'en. They advertised their rag and included a huge reproduction of a portion of the front page of their paper. What was unusual was that, instead of taking a real front page, they forged one -- and featured a fake story and headline on Bobby Casey. The Republicans cried foul. The FEC recently decided in favor of the Lynett Family (but has published neither the complaint nor the decision on its website).

Dutifully, Borys (who cares more about me spelling his name correctly than about ethics in journalism), trotted out a double BJ piece, satisfying his bosses and their bought man.

In that column, he treated the huge contributions by the Lynetts to Casey campaigns over the years as merely a GOP allegation, denied by the bosses:

As evidence, the GOP cited tens of thousands of dollars in contributions by the owners of the newspaper, the Lynett family, to Mr. Casey’s campaign, those of other Casey family members and other Democratic causes.

From the beginning, Mr. Lynett and Mr. Beaupre denied advocating Mr. Casey’s candidacy or coordinating with the Casey campaign.

A casual reader is presented with Borys's "objective" column setting out mere allegations and denials.

But Borys could have, very simply, made it clear to his readers that the "allegations" were in fact true. Instead, he tells his readers that "Mr. Lynett . . . denied advocating Mr. Casey's candidacy".

A real reporter, with a real newspaper, with real ethics, would have followed up that ridiculous claim by Lynett with something like, "But, Mr. Lynett, how can you say that you do not advocate Mr. Casey's candidacy when you gave him $1,000 on June 29, 2005, another $2,100 check the same day, and $400 more this year?"

A real, ethical journalist would have pointed out that the objective facts show Mr. Lynett to have lied when he claimed not to support Casey's candidacy.

Instead, this tool, this fraud of a journalist, on a fraud of a newspaper, let his readers believe in the lie -- nothing to concern yourself with here, folks, it's all simply the yin and yang of political allegations and denial.

Over six hundred times the Lynett Family has presented the public with articles about the Senate campaign. It is bad enough that they feel themselves above standard ethical practice by shoveling so much money into the pockets of a Senate candidate, but they give the finger to ethical journalists everywhere by lacking the decency to disclose the conflict to readers.

Journalists have sat in jail for principle.

Journalists have died to get the story.

Courageous journalists have been killed because of their story.

People like the Lynetts and their errand boys, like (but not limited to) Borys, don't deserve the honor of being called journalists.