WA News Council Blog

Sometimes I think if I have to attend one more conference or panel on the future of journalism, I’ll throw up.

But I went to another one last night – and boy, I’m glad I did.

It was called, rather grandiosely, “Journalism Values and Vision: Leading in the Age of Digital Disruption.” Held at Town Hall, its sponsors were the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication and the U of O Alumni Association.

I’m not an Oregon alum, but I was born in Eugene and my mother was a Duck, so they let me in (only $10 bucks for non-Ducks).

Panelists were Tim Gleason, dean of the J-School; Mike Fancher, former Seattle Times executive editor; Peter Rinearson, former Seattle Times reporter, Microsoftie, and digital entrepreneur; Heidi de Laubenfels, Seattle Times deputy managing editor for product development; and Lara Yamada, Q13 Fox News reporter.

But I mainly went because the moderator was Scott Bedbury, CEO of Brandstream. He’s a U of O J-School grad who went on to work at Nike where he ran the “Just Do It” campaign, then joined Starbucks as marketing director when the company went global.

I’d heard Scott speak to Seattle Rotary the day before. He got a standing ovation for his savvy, funny and edgy views on “branding” and earning trust in today’s crazy corporate/government/media worlds.

“There’s been a collapse of trust. We don’t trust any big institutions anymore,” Scott had said. As for trust in the media, he said: “There needs to be a place on the Web for discussion of news accuracy and ethics. If trust in news goes away, democracy is in trouble.”

I wanted to hear more from this guy, since that’s part of the mission of the Washington News Council – and we’re trying to do more of it online.

At Town Hall, Bedbury expanded on the theme: “The credibility and trustworthiness of journalism today is at an all-time low,” he said. “What do we do in a situation where the public is looking disbelievingly at the [news] industry?”

The panelists offered some ideas and suggestions, but not a lot of really clear, specific, feasible solutions. All agreed it’s a tumultuous time.

Mike Fancher, who since he retired has been doing various projects for the Knight Foundation, Aspen Institute, American Society of News Editors, Reynolds Journalism Institute, and Journalism That Matters, explained his concept of “Public Trust Through Public Engagement” – i.e., involving citizens more actively in helping shape the new news ecosystem by working together with journalists and maybe even practicing “citizen journalism.”

Then Mike did something I wasn’t expecting: He said, “John Hamer of the Washington News Council is here tonight, and he’s been promoting what he calls the ‘TAO of Journalism – Transparency, Accountability and Openness,’ to help increase public trust.”

Whereupon Scott Bedbury jumped in and said: “I met John yesterday at Rotary, and I can’t get the ‘TAO of Journalism’ idea out of my head. Brilliant work!”

Honest, I didn’t ask either of these guys to do that. Really, I didn’t.

But it wasn’t too shabby to have a nationally respected editor and perhaps the nation’s top “branding” expert plug your idea in public.

During Q&A, I thanked them both and asked if they though that all journalists – mainstreamers, bloggers, or whoever – needed to be more TAO as a way to earn trust. They agreed.

Then I asked Scott, former Nike guy, if we could use “Just TAO It” on T-shirts and bumperstickers. He said fine, no problem. Just TAO It.

So we will. Watch www.taoofjournalism.org for details, coming soon

At the sold-out “Journalism That Matters” event at the University of Washington (Jan. 7-10), over 200 people came together to “Re-imagine News & Community in the Pacific Northwest.”

Mainstream journalists, community journalists, freelancers, bloggers, tweeters, academics, students and other interested parties gathered to confront some pretty tough questions, such as:

Who can be trusted in the “new news ecosystem”? What media sources are reliable, factual and accurate? How have the new media changed the rules of the game? Can the mainstream or “legacy” media survive?

Here’s an idea I floated at the event that I believe could greatly help increase public trust in journalism:

A voluntary “TAO of Journalism Seal — A Commitment to Transparency, Accountability and Openness.” It was designed by Kathy Schrier, my colleague at the Washington News Council.

This is an entirely voluntary, self-selected, self-affixed seal that anyone — freelancers, bloggers, hyperlocal sites, mainstream sites, individual reporters, editors, producers, or anyone doing journalism in the broadest sense of that word — could stick on their sites or pages.

People who take the “TAO Pledge” agree to be:

“TRANSPARENT – We will fully disclose who we are, our journalistic mission and our guiding principles. We will post information on our background and expertise, including education and experience. We will list advertisers, donors, grants, and any other payments that support our work. If affiliated with a political party or special-interest group, we will disclose that. If lobbying for any particular legislation or regulation, we will disclose that. If we are being paid to promote a product or cause, we will disclose that. If other factors could be seen as potential conflicts of interest, we will disclose them.

“ACCOUNTABLE – If we get any facts wrong, we will admit that promptly and publicly. We will post/publish/print/podcast/broadcast a correction or at least a clarification. We will fully explain what happened to cause the error or mistake. We will do a follow-up story if that is appropriate, putting the original material in better context. We will apologize and promise to be more careful next time. We will show a little humility.

“OPEN – If there are credible challenges to our point of view or simply differences of opinion, we will be open to contrary positions. We will give the other side(s) opportunity and space to express their views and engage in open public dialogue through comments or other means. If we are primarily engaged in opinion and commentary, rather than news reporting, we will make that clear – while inviting others to express their opinions through comment and feedback means.”

They would not necessarily agree to abide by any particular code of journalism ethics or professional standards, although they may choose to do so. If they do, they will declare that publicly. If they don’t, they will declare that as well. This will not be enforced by any outside organized group. It will be overseen by everyone on the Internet who wants to see high standards of transparency, accountability and openness in journalism – through whatever media platform. Call it “crowdsourcing” ethics.

Will this idea fly? Who knows? It was well-received at the event – especially by younger folks who are already totally TAO online. We even had 50 “TAO of Journalism” T-shirts on sale for $10 each – and we’re already sold out!

If journalism is going to matter, it must be trusted. But to be trusted, it must be Transparent, Accountable and Open — the exact same things journalists demand of everyone they’re covering. Surveys consistently show that institutions practicing these three principles are trusted. Those that don’t, aren’t.

That’s why a TAO Seal might work. Be Transparent about who you are, Accountable to the public, and Open to other points of view. What’s wrong with that? It’s no panacea, but it could help.

Just TAO it.

NOTE: The TAO Seal is a registered trademark. To use it, call 206.262.9793. More details coming soon at www.taoofjournalism.org.

John Hamer is executive director of the Washington News Council (www.wanewscouncil.org), an independent, nonprofit forum for media fairness, accuracy and accountability. He was on the organizing committee for the JTMPNW event.

I’ve been reading the testimonials to William Safire, the New York Times op-ed columnist and “On Language” writer who died last Sunday.

Two of the better ones are by Maureen Dowd and Howell Raines ,
who both worked with Safire at The Times for many years.

I never worked with Safire, but I met him once. It was a brief but memorable – at least to me — encounter.

I was in New York City in the summer of 2004. One evening as I was walking along a sidewalk, I saw Safire coming my way. I recognized him from his many television appearances.

On an impulse, I stopped as he approached and said: “Mr. Safire, I read your column and admire your work.”

He smiled and thanked me. He asked where I was from and what I did for a living.

I told him I was from Seattle and used to write columns and editorials for The Seattle Times. Now I run the Washington News Council, which encourages high standards of accuracy and ethics in the news media, I told him.

He seemed very interested, and asked me several questions about my work and our organization. He recalled that he had supported the National News Council when it existed in the 1970s and 1980s.

We chatted for at least 10 or 15 minutes. He was friendly, engaging and gracious.

As we were talking, another man approached us and said, “Hi, Bill.”

I recognized him, too: It was Joe Klein, columnist for Time magazine and author of “Primary Colors” and other works.

The two of them began chatting. On another impulse, I said, “Could I take your pictures?” I pulled out my camera.

They posed for a photograph. Then Safire said: “Joe, why don’t you take one of me and John.”

Klein obligingly took my camera and clicked a shot of me standing next to Safire.

I thanked them both and said it was nice meeting them. We all shook hands and went our separate ways.

I felt a little silly, like a shameless celebrity-monger. At least I didn’t ask for their autographs, I thought.

Some people treasure their photos posing with politicians, like presidents and senators. Not me.

But now that he’s gone, I’m glad to have this picture. That’s me with William Safire. Taken by Joe Klein. On a sidewalk in New York.

A Bittersweet Tribute to Don Hewitt

by John Hamer

Don Hewitt, who died this week, changed my life. Last year, I finally got to tell him that face-to-face.

In 1996, “60 Minutes” – the program that Hewitt originated and produced – did a segment called “You Arrogant Journalists.” Mike Wallace and his crew covered a hearing before the Minnesota News Council on a major complaint by Northwest Airlines against WCCO-TV, the CBS affiliate in Minneapolis. The council upheld the complaint, agreeing that WCCO practiced shoddy journalism.

I missed it when it aired, but a friend of mine gave me a videotape and said: “Why don’t we have a news council in Washington state?” I was a media critic at the time and thought having a news council here was a good idea. An organizing committee formed, and we launched the Washington News Council in the summer of 1998.

We showed the “60 Minutes” segment at our kick-off event on Sept. 14, 1998. I introduced it by imitating the “60 Minutes” stopwatch lead-in: “Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick….”

Mike Wallace said on camera that he was a public supporter of state news councils. Seeing Minnesota’s in action convinced him they could help journalism by holding the media publicly accountable. It was a powerful testimonial.

After that event, we expanded the WNC with the strong support of many people statewide – including Bill Gates Sr., who gave us a generous start-up grant from the Gates Foundation.

“Fast Forward” a decade to April 1, 2008. Don Hewitt was in Seattle on his way to Washington State University in Pullman, where he was to receive the prestigious Edward R. Murrow Award for Lifetime Achievement in Broadcast Journalism. I proposed to WSU that we co-sponsor a lunch at The Rainier Club. We called it “An Hour with Don Hewitt of 60 Minutes.” Our media sponsors were The Seattle Times and KIRO7 Eyewitness News.

In introductory remarks, I described how that 1996 “60 Minutes” segment inspired creation of the Washington News Council: “So Mr. Hewitt, we owe you a special tribute today. The Washington News Council’s very existence can be blamed on you and Mike Wallace!” He laughed and seemed slightly bemused.

Interviewed onstage by Steve Raible, KIRO7 anchor, Hewitt was in fine form. He told amazing anecdotes: The time Frank Sinatra had threatened to kill him. The time he and his CBS crew stole an NBC van and hid it in a cornfield. The time he chartered a boat filled with journalists and ordered all the others off, so CBS had an exclusive.

He had the audience roaring with laughter for most of the hour. And he stayed around afterward, answering questions and signing autographs. He was warm, charming and gracious. People talked about that lunch for months. (See www.tvw.org archives to watch it.)

And yet, as the years have gone by I’ve come to wonder if Hewitt and “60 Minutes” had a less-than-positive influence on the news media – especially local television news.

The “60 Minutes” format of tough “investigative” journalism – including hidden cameras and “ambush” interviews where crews surprise their targets in public, put a camera in their face and demand answers – certainly exposed many miscreants, got some deservedly fired (or jailed) and produced a few changes in laws. Not to mention won a lot of journalism prizes – which is all too often part of the motive.

But that approach to journalism inspired countless “60 Minutes Wannabes” at stations all over the country. Sometimes the targets turn out to be not as guilty or evil as the scandal-mongering, prize-seeking reporters seek to portray them. The “60 Minutes”format widely imitated by other networks and stations demands a black-and-white, good guy vs. bad guy view of the world. That often makes compelling TV, but it isn’t always true, fair, balanced or ethical journalism.

Two cases in point: KIRO7 Eyewitness News has been the subject of two major complaints to the Washington News Council in recent years from those who contended that broadcasts were inaccurate and unfair.

One complaint, from the Washington Beef Commission and the Washington State Dairy Products Commission, was upheld by the News Council in 2003. A series of KIRO stories (aired during “sweeps week”) turned out to be full of inaccurate and misleading information, the council concluded after a three-hour hearing.

Another complaint last year from Secretary of State Sam Reed concerned two KIRO stories about the state’s election system. Reed made a convincing case that the broadcasts were factually wrong and full of statistical errors. In lieu of a hearing, the WNC put both stories on our website, along with Reed’s complaint, and let the public vote in a “virtual hearing.” KIRO got hammered for poor journalism.

(For details on both these complaints, see www.wanewscouncil.org)

Unfortunately, such “gotcha” stories are among Don Hewitt’s legacies. He transformed television by merging news and entertainment.

“I consider myself a guy who married ’show biz’ and ‘news biz,’ ” he once said. Sometimes to the detriment of the latter.

While “60 Minutes” usually has the professionalism to get the story right, that’s not always true of its local imitators. Sometimes victims of shoddy journalism need some recourse; that’s why the WNC exists.

May Don Hewitt, who changed my life and TV news, rest in peace.

John Hamer, executive director of the Washington News Council, was on The Seattle Times’ editorial board and later co-wrote a media-critique newsletter, CounterPoint, and the “Watchdogs” column in Seattle Weekly.

By John Hamer

WNC Responds to Society of Professional Journalists’ national Ethics Committee

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) national Ethics Committee issued a statement on May 8 criticizing the Washington News Council’s “virtual hearing” by a Citizens Online News Council. The committee’s statement was a group effort overseen by Andy Schotz, chair of the SPJ Ethics Committee, who interviewed me over the phone.
We also exchanged emails. Schotz invited me to respond. The SPJ statement is below, with my responses (in blue) after each paragraph. Schotz promised to post my response on the SPJ Ethics Committee’s blog site. The WNC invites the SPJ Ethics Committee to engage in a public dialogue about these important issues of media ethics and accountability. I’ll post their response here.

Ethics Committee: News council should abandon ‘virtual hearing’

Public polling shouldn’t be used to render ethics judgments about journalism, the Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Committee said in response to a news council’s handling of a recent complaint in Washington state.

Part of the Washington News Council’s mission for the past 11 years has been to “provide a forum where citizens and journalists can engage each other in discussing standards of media ethics and performance.” This latest “public polling” — admittedly an experiment — was simply an effort to expand that discussion by taking it online. After all, if members of the public shouldn’t be asked “to render ethics judgments about journalism,” who should? Only journalists? If no other profession can credibly police itself, as journalists often contend, why should journalists be able to? Isn’t there a role for concerned citizens who care deeply about accurate and ethical news media?

The Washington News Council conducted a “virtual hearing” on a state official’s complaint about a TV station’s reporting on voting irregularities. Washington’s secretary of state said voting-related stories by KIRO, a CBS affiliate in Seattle, were flawed and inaccurate. KIRO has chosen not to give its side to the council.

KIRO chose not to “give its side” to ANYONE in public, not just to the council. Is that a defensible and ethical stance for a television station with an FCC license that carries a responsibility to operate in the public interest? Is that in keeping with the “Be Accountable” section of the SPJ’s Code of Ethics, which states: “Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other. Journalists should: Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct….”? Does the SPJ Ethics Committee believe KIRO did that?

John Hamer, the news council’s executive director, said KIRO wouldn’t participate in a hearing or publicly address the complaint about its stories. Frustrated, the secretary of state withdrew his complaint.

Since KIRO refused to “publicly address” the complaint about its stories on its own station or at a News Council hearing, how could the public evaluate Secretary Sam Reed’s complaint? Also, Reed did not “withdraw” his complaint, but only “suspended” it, hoping that KIRO would eventually respond as a result of the News Council’s process. He was frustrated by KIRO’s intransigence, not by the News Council’s efforts to help, which he publicly praised.

Todd Mokhtari, KIRO’s news director, said in an interview that the station stands by its voting-related stories. He declined to talk about the news council’s hearing process.

If KIRO “stands by its voting-related stories,” then why did the station remove them from its website? Did the SPJ Ethics Committee ask Todd Mokhtari that question? What was his answer? If Mokhtari “declined to talk about the News Council’s hearing process,” did the SPJ Ethics Committee ask him to talk about the merits of the complaint? If not, why not? Also, this was the second complaint against KIRO that has come before the News Council. A previous complaint, concerning stories by the same reporter, was upheld at a full WNC hearing in June 2003. KIRO declined to participate in that hearing, although it posted a response on its website.

The council hears complaints about news coverage and, ideally, mediates them or educates the public about the journalistic process.

Is the SPJ Ethics Committee aware of the Washington News Council’s 11-year history, in which we have successfully mediated several complaints? Is it aware of our long record of educational efforts — including public panels and forums, speeches to civic groups, plus mock hearings in high-school and college journalism classes — all of which are fully documented on the News Council’s website? We have already used the Reed vs. KIRO case with several groups of students, who all voted to uphold Reed’s complaint.

SPJ’s Ethics Committee sees merit in a news council as a mediator or an educator. A hearing can be worthwhile if all parties voluntarily participate and work toward a common understanding.

If the SPJ Ethics Committee ”sees merit in a news council as a mediator or educator,” we appreciate that. However, if the committee believes that a News Council hearing can be worthwhile only “if all parties voluntarily participate,” what does the committee suggest in cases where one party refuses to participate? Drop the whole matter and thus have no public discussion of the ethics at issue? In other words, should a recalcitrant media organization be able to veto the entire process because they refuse to “stand by” their stories in public and answer questions about them? If the SPJ Ethics Committee believes that both parties should “work toward a common understanding,” how does it interpret KIRO’s refusal to correct any inaccuracies on its website? What about its early offer to remove the stories IF Sam Reed would not inform the News Council or the public (an offer that Reed declined)? Or KIRO’s ultimate decision to quietly remove the stories without notifying either Reed or the WNC? Does the committee believe those actions qualify as working toward “a common understanding”?

The committee strongly objects to having a public online vote, or virtual hearing, on journalism ethics.

If the SPJ Ethics Committee strongly objects to having a public online vote, or “virtual hearing,” in this case, what alternatives would the committee suggest? Should the News Council have issued a public statement condemning KIRO’s behavior? Would the committee have praised that action? What is SPJ’s concern about public participation? Don’t news media organizations today all invite and welcome more citizen feedback? How does our online vote differ from, say, letters to the editor, where a self-selected group of citizens respond to articles or editorials and their letters are published? If a newspaper publishes all the letters it receives online, how does that differ from a “virtual hearing” where voters are allowed to add comments? What about online news sites or blogs that allow open and unedited comments? The News Council at least provides a kind of public judgment on the merits of complaints, although it has no legal power and carries no penalty. Isn’t that more likely to persuade a media organization to try harder the next time to live up to the SPJ Ethics Code?

On Monday [May 4], the council posted online voting results and comments, which were lopsided against KIRO. However, Hamer says the council doesn’t have the time or staff to verify the identities of the voters. See the poll results here.

Does the SPJ Ethics Committee question the identities of our online voters? We asked for a real full name and email address, and got them 99% of the time. Does the committee think this is less reliable than most newspapers’ systems of verifying letter writers or online commenters, which also are not 100% reliable? Does the committee have suggestions as to how we could do better, given our limited staff and resources?

“The news council is wrong to emulate the ‘American Idol’ model of voting for a ‘winner,’” said Andy Schotz, chairman of SPJ’s Ethics Committee. “Gimmickry is a major step backward if the council wants to appear professional and credible.”

If the SPJ Ethics Committee believes that this latest experiment was “gimmickry,” what suggestions does it have for involving more members of the public in serious and substantive discussions of media ethics — as the News Council has actively done for the past 11 years? And how is our online vote — which asked specific questions and required considerable time, thought and deliberation — any less professional or credible than an online news site that is open to public comments, often of questionable taste, manners and logic?

Since 1998, when the Washington News Council started, it has conducted four hearings, Hamer said. Each time, the news organization that was challenged wouldn’t participate.

To state that the news organizations that were challenged “wouldn’t participate” in the WNC’s past four hearings is misleading. In each of those cases, the media organizations responded in detail in writing or on their websites. Their responses were read into the record at the hearings. Has the committee read the history of those cases, to see how the News Council tried to consider both sides of the complaints even without the media organizations’ presence at the hearings?

Hamer said the virtual hearing is an experiment in public engagement and keeping the media accountable.

The experiment should be abandoned, the Ethics Committee believes. Discussions of journalism ethics are often complex and nuanced. Frequently, there’s no single “right” decision.

This virtual hearing was indeed an experiment in public engagement and keeping the media accountable. Is the SPJ Ethics Committee opposed to such experiments? If so, why? We agree that discussions of journalism ethics are often “complex and nuanced,” and there is no “right” decision. Is the committee aware of how carefully the WNC has considered the complexities and nuances of every case that has come before us? Is the committee aware that at past hearings, News Council members split their votes on some issues, so not all decisions were unanimous?

News councils can bring news organizations and the public together to understand each others’ positions. But this online poll is unscientific, unreliable, misleading and based on incomplete information.

Is the SPJ’s Ethics Committee aware that ”to bring news organizations and the public together to better understand each others’ positions” has been the mission of the WNC since 1998? But when a media organization is unwilling to explain its position or correct documented inaccuracies, what is the alternative? We agree that this online poll is unscientific; we made no claim that it was a scientific survey based on a random sample. We simply invited public comment, asking citizens to read the complaint and accompanying 10-page letter, view the KIRO stories, and then vote on the questions that the full News Council would have considered had this gone to a full WNC hearing. How exactly does that make it “unreliable” and “misleading” — any more so than a random selection of letters to the editor, or comments on a blog? As for being “based on incomplete information,” wouldn’t that have been remedied had KIRO been more forthcoming?

The Ethics Committee encourages KIRO and all news organizations to be accountable. They should listen to and answer challenges to their coverage. If they make mistakes, they should correct them.

If the SPJ Ethics Committee encourages KIRO and all news organizations to “be accountable,” what does the committee suggest doing when they are NOT accountable? If the committee believes that media organizations “should listen to and answer challenges to their coverage, and, if they make mistakes, they should correct them,” what action does the committee recommend when media organizations refuse to do those things?

News organizations should embrace efforts to fairly resolve questions of fairness and accuracy. The news council’s virtual hearing undercuts that process.

If the committee believes that news organizations “should embrace efforts to fairly resolve questions of fairness and accuracy” — which is precisely what the News Council’s complaint and hearing process does — what does the committee suggest when news organizations reject such efforts? How does the News Council’s “virtual hearing” — i.e., inviting the public to weigh in on an important dispute that goes to the heart of media ethics — “undercut” that process? And finally, why would the SPJ Ethics Committee not welcome an independent citizens’ organization whose mission is to actively support the vital “Be Accountable” section of the SPJ’s own Ethics Code?

Founded in 1909 as Sigma Delta Chi, SPJ promotes the free flow of information vital to a well-informed citizenry; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and protects First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press. For more information about SPJ, please visit www.spj.org.

Journalists are radiating angst these days, and with good reason.

A perfect storm has hit the news industry: a broken business model, loss of advertising, cancelled subscriptions, low ratings, rising costs, financial losses, a stampede to the Internet, proliferation of news sources, newsroom layoffs/buyouts, folding newspapers – and demoralized journalists.

What’s worse, many people don’t like, respect or trust journalists and media outlets anymore. They rank low in most public-opinion polls. The latest Edelman Global Trust Index found that media companies are the least trusted in this country, behind automotive, banking, energy and pharmaceutical firms.

There’s no quick fix for the woes that plague the news media – but some things could help.

One good idea was the headline of Ryan Blethen’s column (April 24) in The Seattle Times:  “Make newspapers accountable.” He’s absolutely right – but the column didn’t go nearly far enough to advance that concept.

Blethen focused on ownership, noting that “Newspapers should be accountable to the communities they serve and not to Wall Street or distant corporations thousands of miles away.” Locally owned papers like The Seattle Times tend to be more accountable to the communities they serve, because they’re closer to their readers and see the impact of their work firsthand.

However, not just newspapers but all news media must be more accountable to the public if they hope to regain the credibility and trust they have clearly lost.

Newspapers, television and radio stations, neighborhood websites, news aggregators, even individual bloggers must be as transparent, accountable and open to the public as they demand of everyone they cover. And real accountability means more than paying lip service to the idea.

President Barack Obama said that a “deficit of accountability” has lowered trust of major institutions in this country, including the media. And we’re not alone. “A More Accountable Press,” a recent report from the Media Standards Trust in England, declared that current accountability systems are failing both press and public.

What I call the “TAO of Journalism – Transparency, Accountability and Openness” is part of the solution.

Whatever new forms of delivery evolve in the news business, journalists must be:

a)     Transparent – People need to know more about who’s writing news, analysis and commentary. What are their backgrounds, biases, premises and prejudices? How do they decide what to cover? What are their motivations and priorities? Tell us.

b)    Accountable – If journalists get it wrong, they must promptly admit mistakes, apologize for errors, invite public grievances, encourage dialogue, and explain themselves in public. In other words, they should totally follow the “Be Accountable” section of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Code (www.spj.org).

c)     Open – All news media, new and old, must be more open to diverse voices in the community and invite citizens to be part of the conversation, using the vast powers of the Internet. Do they actively seek out a wide range of viewpoints and offer true diversity in race, gender, class, ethnicity and ideology? If not, they should.

Journalists demand that every other institution in society – government, business, courts, police, education, sports, the arts, academia, non-profits – be transparent, accountable and open. So why not them? Isn’t this a two-way street?

Granted, the First Amendment to the Constitution gives the press special status, free from government oversight, regulation or control. That’s a good thing. But because journalists have unique rights, they have extra responsibilities.

For decades, journalists insisted that they could – and should – be trusted. They pledged to follow their own professional standards and ethics codes. They discouraged any outside oversight, which they deemed a threat to the First Amendment. Some named in-house ombudsmen, reader representatives or public editors to hear complaints, but their number has steadily declined.

Some journalists claim they’re already responsive to the free market of both dollars and ideas. Citizens may cancel subscriptions, change the channel, phone or email reporters, write letters to the editor, call radio talk shows, or post comments on news websites. All true, and most news organizations now invite more interaction – after being pretty lousy at it in the past.

Still, as respected media critic/analyst Dan Gillmor has put it: “News is no longer a lecture, but a conversation.” Too many in the so-called “mainstream” media – big daily newspapers, television and radio stations, weekly magazines – cling to the old mantra: They know the truth, they’re here to impart it to us, and we should all be grateful. News flash: That’s not working anymore.

Encouragingly, much of the so-called “citizen journalism” being practiced today – hyperlocal websites, serious blogs, regional aggregators, online rating sites – embraces the reality of increased feedback – instant and constant. It’s also often feisty, messy and even slightly wacky – but hey, so is democracy.

The democratization – i.e., fragmentation, freedom and experimentation – in what some call the “new news ecology” – is not only inevitable, but mostly a good thing. However, many old-school journalists resist it, arguing that society still needs trained and experienced journalists (like them) to do the in-depth investigative, enterprise and narrative stories that they’ve prided themselves on for so many years – and that they can enter in journalism contests.

But some of these stories are what’s wrong with journalism. The incessant quest for Pulitzers, Emmys and countless other prizes has in too many cases led to shallow, shoddy, and shameful stories that have damaged people unfairly and hurt the credibility of the media. Just as unethical politicians and corrupt business people stain their professions and make the public cynical, so do bad, lazy, incompetent, or awards-driven journalists.

If you don’t believe that, consider the Washington News Council’s history. Founded in 1998, we’re a kind of “outside ombudsman” for the news media in this state. We consider complaints against media organizations from individuals or organizations who believe they have been damaged by inaccurate, unfair or imbalanced stories. We offer an alternative to costly litigation, sometimes through informal mediation. We are somewhere between a letter to the editor and a libel suit. The public loves this, although many journalists don’t seem to like it very much.

I travel all over the state talking about the news media to civic groups, professional associations, and high-school and college journalism students. People often ask me: Who can be trusted in the news media today? Who are the most reliable sources? Who is fair, accurate and ethical?

Unfortunately, I can’t answer them. I tell people they just have to surf around and figure it out for themselves. In the new news ecology, you have to click and choose. It takes time and effort.

Can anything help? Here are three ideas worth considering:

Certification of Journalists. Many professions are certified, so why not journalists? The big questions are: Who would do it? Under what criteria? With what enforcement mechanism? Journalists are a feisty bunch and have always resisted any kind of official licensing, which they say might lead to regulation and control. Still, this deserves exploration. (See Frank Catalano’s “The Certifiable Journalist,” TechFlash, April 18, 2009.)

Seal of Ethics. How about a self-affixed “seal of ethics” that could be posted on any news source that agrees to abide by certain professional standards? What if news providers – whether printed newspapers, broadcast stations, local websites, even individual bloggers – agreed to “stamp” themselves with this seal? If they violated their pledge, they’d have to remove the seal. Who would enforce this? Well, journalists are the watchdogs of society. Maybe they could watchdog each other, have their professional associations do it, or even ask an outside news council to help? (See Pat Thornton’s “Online Ethics Seal,” The Journalism Iconoclast, Oct. 7 and Nov. 11, 2008.)

Citizen News Councils. We’re in our 11^th year of operations and have a solid track record. Our latest innovation is a “virtual hearing,” giving members of the community a voice in holding a media organization accountable. Our latest case: a complaint by Secretary of State Sam Reed against KIRO7 Eyewitness News. We asked the public to vote on several questions and add comments as part of a Citizens Online News Council. (See www.wanewscouncil.org)

The news media are vital to democracy. We need high-quality journalism to get the news and information we need to make good decisions as citizens. We need committed journalists doing journalism that matters. But to matter, it must be trusted.

If journalists demonstrated more Transparency, Accountability and Openness (TAO) – plus a bit more humility – they might regain credibility and trust. If journalists are truly concerned about the truth, they must start by facing the truth about themselves.

John Hamer is executive director of the Washington News Council, which he co-founded in 1998. He is former associate editorial-page editor of The Seattle Times. Email address: jhamer@wanewscouncil.org. Phone: 206-262-9793.

WNC BLOG (April 9, 2009)

The University of Washington’s Foster School of Business sponsored a great event the other day: A lunch April 7 at the Columbia Tower Club featuring Mike Davidson, founding president and CEO of Newsvine, Inc. (www.wnewsvine.com). 

I’ve been following his site for awhile, but had never met him. Sharp guy; great site.

The topic was “News in the Internet Era” – something Davidson knows a lot about. He runs daily operations of Newsvine.com, now a wholly-owned subsidiary of MSNBC. Before starting Newsvine in 2005, he was at ESPN and the Walt Disney Internet Group. 

Mike was interviewed by Christine Chen, a former anchor at KCPQ13 and KCTS who now has her own consulting firm, Chen Communications. Sharp gal; good questions.

With the “democratization” of online media, Chen asked Davidson, how do we filter all these stories? How do we know who has credibility? Who can we trust?

There’s no easy answer, Davidson said. “No news source is infallible,” he noted, He recommended that, as Ronald Reagan once put it, we should: “Trust but verify.”

Many people “don’t always know what they want or what they need” online, he said, and some people “want dessert all the time” – i.e., they’d rather be entertained than informed. Many also tend to visit the sites they agree with to have their opinions validated, he said.

Chen noted: “I argue that objectivity never really existed, because we’re humans before we’re journalists and our perspectives are shaped by our backgrounds.” 

Davidson added: “There are some people who don’t even think it’s important anymore.” 

Still, they both agreed that many people are looking for news sources they can trust. Davidson said some efforts have been made to verify sources, such as Google’s PageRank algorithm, in which pages with the most links get a higher ranking, and Technorati’s Authority system that ranks the top 100 blogs. 

However, “We’re not there yet” in terms of a credible verification system, Davidson said.

Discussing younger news consumers, Davidson said that “Generation Y” represented a “turning point.” They “want it raw” and not filtered by a traditional media source such as a newspaper or broadcast station. “News finds me” is their attitude, he said.

Chen asked: “Is there future for newspapers?” 

“No, there isn’t even a present,” Davidson said. 

Seattle “may be a zero-newspaper town quicker than any other city,” he said. “If any city was prepared to have its entire news operation moved online, it would be Seattle.”

He noted that the news business is “not a growth industry anymore” and suggested that maybe newspapers should get into the “events business” to make some money.

Chen asked how to maintain a high-quality flow of news and information on the Web.

Davidson said: “The word ‘filter’ is a very relevant term for what’s happening today,” noting that new companies such as Newsvine could help people find good information.

“Instead of reading 10 stories a day [in a newspaper] you’re skimming 200 stories a day [online],” Davidson said.

As for the future, Davidson said: “Journalism has always been subsidized. Maybe we’re moving toward a time when it’s subsidized by us.” 

All in all, a good discussion of a timely topic, although the future of the news business is still up in the air. Literally.  

Does journalism matter anymore? What exactly IS journalism these days, anyway? Who is a journalist — and who’s not?

These are some of the questions in the air the “Journalism That Matters” conference at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Florida, where I’m spending a few days.

The conference was organized by two Seattleites and a former Spokane guy. Stephen Silha, who lives on Vashon Island, started the “JTM” series in 2001, and is former president of the Washington News Council. Peggy Holman, who lives in Bellevue, is a gifted meeting facilitator and “change agent.” And Chris Peck, former editor of The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, has been a driving force in the JTM series, and is now editor of The Memphis Commercial-Appeal.

About 100 people are here from all over the country, with a few from elsewhere in the world. All are interested in the future of journalism, but aren’t sure exactly what that future will be.

Existential questions are high on the list, too, with newspaper layoffs, furloughs, cutbacks and shutdowns (Rocky Mountain News, Seattle Post-Intelligencer?) everywhere you look. Many attendees here have been laid off recently from places like The New York Times, or other papers around the country.

Many people here are innovators in online and/or “citizen” journalism, or public radio and television, or other new multimedia models. Some are academics, trying to teach journalism and communications to students — although the reality is that there aren’t many jobs available, at least in the traditional or “mainstream” media world.

The buzz phrase for this conference is “The New News Ecology,” although no one seems able to clearly defined that — which is part of the problem. As the saying goes, journalists used to be the “gatekeepers,” but now there’s no fence. “We’re All Journalists Now” is the title of a great book by Scott Gant, which sums it up pretty well.

I’m here because for 10 years, the Washington News Council has been trying to promote high-quality journalism by providing a measure of outside accountability, which journalists have resisted for too long. Journalists need to be publicly accountable for what they do, just as they demand that every other sector of society be publicly accountable.

At a Journalism That Matters conference in Washington, D.C., two years ago, I coined a phrase: “The TAO of Journalism,” with the letters standing for Transparency, Accountability and Openness. My view is that no matter what the delivery method — print, broadcast, online, website, Facebook Twitter, podcast, or whatever — those “doing journalism” must be transparent about who they are, accountable to the public who use the news, and open to all voices in the community.

Someone said here this morning that traditional journalists must “lose their sense of superiority.” She nailed it. Too many journalists in the past have put themselves on a pedestal and prided themselves on being more noble, more pure, and more ethical than other professions. We’re serving the “public interest.” Our intentions are good. We want to save the world. So why don’t people like and trust us anymore?

As Jim Kennedy, vice president of strategic planning for the Associated Press, told the group here last night: “Our products are failing….We’ve lost our audience….We’ve failed at a fundamental level to provide a product that engages the audience.”

The most “engaging” websites today are Wikipedia, Craigslist, Facebook and Google, Kennedy said. Why? Partly because they are transparent, accountable and open.

The media are still the lifeblood of democracy, and vital to the body politic. But in the new news ecology we’ve got to find different ways to keep the heart pumping and the blood flowing.

– John Hamer, WNC Executive Director, at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg.