Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Nov
5
**There is a comment below from a Henry Gomez – it is not the Plain Dealer Henry Gomez.
When the only ethical choice was to tell the campaign to let the reporter in without the donation, or not cover the event and instead, write about how the primary schedule fiascos are playing havoc with getting news to voters? Like the Ombuds did in the article noted below, but after the ethical violation?
This side effect of shifting some primaries and not others should have been the article, without the ethical violation and deceit, as you can read below.
Miami Herald reporter Evan S. Benn, under instruction from his editors, paid $50 last Sunday to the Clinton campaign to cover a fundraiser and rally by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Benn said he tried to get in for free, presenting himself as a reporter, but was told the event was closed to the media and was turned away. He then made the minimum contribution to get in. Local television stations remained camped outside.
The Miami Herald’s decision to contribute was made after nearly a week of what, by all accounts, was a strong internal debate among editors and reporters. The concerns, which strike at the ethical core of a newspaper, were: fairness to readers and other candidates; paying for news; whether to sneak in; and what to do going forward.
Most people I talked with at the paper are queasy with the decision, although they signed on. I think The Miami Herald did the right thing.
The issue was created by a novel situation, unforeseen by most ethical guidelines.
Hmmm. Really now?
Bloggers face it all the time. Welcome to our world.
When Barack Obama came to Columbus in June 2006 and bought a table for bloggers, I didn’t judge the bloggers who went and sat at that table, but I did choose to buy a separate seat and then went and sat with them during the Q&A Obama gave us.
If the Clinton event was closed to the media, it was closed to the media. So – what was the reporter going to do with whatever he learned as an attendee?
Isn’t the Herald now encouraging and promoting and re-drawing the line, saying that it’s okay for reporters to go into “closed to the media” events without revealing that they are…media?
Listen to the discussion at the Herald and check out what still isn’t ethical:
The deliberations at The Miami Herald began when political writer Beth Reinhard caucused with her editor, Jay Ducassi. As the two later described it to me, he argued that with 2,000 attendees planned, the Clinton event was newsworthy, even if the newspaper had to contribute. Then Ducassi sent his recommendation up the line.
Then the debate broke out. John Voskuhl, deputy metro editor, made cogent opposing arguments. He questioned how important it was to cover someone who wasn’t actually the candidate. He later told me: “This one was 50 bucks. What would we do as a news agency when the next one is $150, or $250 or $500?”
Reinhard and Ducassi wavered, particularly when they thought about having to defend themselves later in the fierce blogosphere that might take the contribution out of context. But in the end, those opposed came around to the argument that covering the event first-hand was necessary to inform readers of rare local Democrat primary developments.
Executive Editor Anders Gyllenhaal gave the final greenlight. Reinhard went to Orlando for an important Republican debate. Benn was asked if he was comfortable with the assignment. ”I would have had a problem if I had been asked to sneak in, representing myself as a member of the catering staff,” he said. He wasn’t. He did not tell the person who sold him the ticket that he was a reporter, nor was he asked. He said that he and an Associated Press reporter (whose company made the same decision to contribute) took notes openly. [my emphasis]
Oh yeah? Well, Jeff Coryell and I, in addition to the other two bloggers, blogged in a partisan nature, openly.
I am telling you: the line Susan Goldberg has tried to draw hasn’t been tenable, let alone believable, from the beginning. It would be more honest to say either 1) we bowed to pressure or 2) we just don’t like what Wide Open is turning out to be rather than say we giving Jeff an ultimatum because they’re paying us a pittance and therefore we could besmirch the PD reputation.
Now what, for the Herald?
Well, the appropriately respected Poynter Instiute said, according to the Herald article:
There has been little reader response so far. So, I called Robert M. Steele, a journalism professor and ethics expert at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg. ”I’m very uncomfortable with the thought of news organizations buying their way into campaign events,” he said. “Disclosing it doesn’t make it go away. It’s still a campaign contribution.”
But, the Herald doesn’t care:
He is right, and The Miami Herald’s own written guidelines prohibit staffers from working or contributing to political campaigns. But guidelines are just that: guidelines. There comes a time for editorial judgment, and that is what was called for in this unusual situation.
The issue now is what to do going forward. Bill Richardson will come soon for a ”fundraiser.” The reporters and editors I talked to are not totally clear on what the policy will be, which indicates a need for a written directive. For Gyllenhaal, it’s simple. ”We’ll be going to anything that looks like a rally,” he said, and The Miami Herald will pay if it has to. He later qualified that by saying the paper would take into account the importance of the candidate and the event, and if the paper appeared to be paying inordinately for any one candidate.
I think this approach best serves the reader. We will all now monitor how the paper lives up to its word.
Guidelines are only guidelines, hm? Unusual situations?
Does the PD have any idea as to what their choice about Wide Open has wrought? Does the Herald?
And “real” journalists (yes, scare quotes) worry about the blogs and bloggers because we have no editors?
With editors like those…
By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:23 pm November 5th, 2007 in Campaigning, Elections, Government, Media, Politics, Tech, Wide Open
Comments
6 Responses to “Miami Herald reporter gives Hillary $50, with editor’s blessing”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Jill:
You know why there hasn’t been much reader reaction to the Herald? Because outside of the journalism community no one cares.
See this is what frosts me. I can picture all these Herald bigwigs sitting around a big conference table having an oh-so-important debate over the merits of a crummy $50 donation.
To me its ridiculously simple: want access? Cough up the dough. Have the paper reimburse the reporter so its not on them. The paper endorses candidates right? So what’s the problem? And how about all the other fringe media that pays for access to Hollywood stars? Hate to say it but the public is becoming accustomed to this. If the Herald didn’t want access to the event, they didn’t have to cover it.
However, they should disclose that to cover the event they had to pay tribute to the campaign and that should be a major point in the story. Media outlets should not be charged to cover stories but if they have to pay to get in, they should raise a stink about it. Don’t expect too many people to care, however.
In America the land of the dollar hustle, more and more, you pay for access. It stinks, but what can you do?
Keith nailed it. The contribution is really nothing compared to the fact that newpapers actually ENDORSE candidates. It seems like they make up the ethical rules as they go along.
Jill,
This is a great debate for a journalism class .. and other who follow the business.
The mandatory contribution doesn’t surprise me. In fact, paying for entry — in a way — helps preserve objectivity.
For example, reporters who receive free entry to cover sporting events or to review live theater will sometimes admit that there’s an underlying expectation to write positive stories and reviews. Likewise, media outlets that buy tickets for their reporters stand a better chance of stepping back and holding their ground should the story cast the subject in a negative light.
In August, I paid $15 for my own ticket to attend Akron’s Mayoral debate between Don Plusquellic and Joe Finley. While the media was permitted to stand in the back, I wanted to be able to be seated for the luncheon and write my observations without feeling any obligation to the organization sponsoring the event. It’s not that the viewers would have cared one way or the other, but the implication of “free entry” can often be interpreted with strings attached by the performers or the event organizers.
Keep up the great posts .. Eric
This reminds me of an article a while back (that I haven’t had a chance to blog about yet) that listed people at newspapers who gave political contributions … $200 here and $300 there. Some people lost their jobs over it. What was missing, though? The reporter’s bosses. His news organization. How much money did they give in political contributions? Hear that? Crickets chirping.
Becky – not one person has written, called or otherwise explained to me how it is okay that Michael Curtin, the associate publisher of the Columbus Dispatch, can give $25,000 without being called out by his colleagues. A few folks have said, well, that’s the business side and they are allowed to give, but I see absolutely no logic in such a divide.
Sniff, sniff. I smell bullshit. Ooops. Can I say that here?