Ethics List Chosen list: Poynter Institute, “Ethics” http://poynter.org/subject.asp?id=32
Actual list itself:
“That's why every reporter has to make sure he and his source have a common understanding, no matter what the handbook says.
It's not really about what Moran did. It's about whether the president of United States is ever off the record.
Watchdog reporters use "off-the-record" as a tool to protect sources with critical information of significant public importance. It means, "I won't attribute this information to you. Instead I will find another source or simply credit it to an anonymous source." Anonymity is most useful with a vulnerable whistle-blower who might get fired or suffer other significant punishment for releasing information.
Off-the-record is a promise between a journalist and a source. Reporters go to jail in order to keep that promise.
• Is the story crucial to the public? Does it further equip readers and viewers to make responsible decisions in this democracy? Or is it simply a scoop?
• Is the information this source will provide crucial to the story?
• Does this source have firsthand knowledge of what he or she is describing? Can you report the nature of that knowledge to help the public judge the source's reliability? Is this source the only person with firsthand knowledge or is there someone else who could provide the same information on the record?
• Is the source targeting an individual or group of individuals, and if so, does the source benefit? How? Who else benefits? How?
• How would the source be harmed by publication of his or her name? Can you make that clear to the audience? Who else might be harmed?
If, after asking and answering these questions, it is worth continuing the conversation with the source, here are some strategies to consider:
•
Anne Van Wagener/Poynter • Ask the source why he or she wants to go off the record. Although off-the-record status in Washington was originally a reporter's tool for getting the thoughts of whistleblowers and critics into the news, now it's become a tool of the powerful. • Warn the source that if the information is published, his name will be revealed to at least one editor back in the newsroom. Ask him if he'll come forward if you are subpoenaed, as reporters have been since Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative was revealed. • Ask the source to suggest others who can at least confirm the information he provided and possibly go on the record. • End every conversation on the record. Go over each piece of information. Can this be on the record? What about this? All this will chip away at the source's resistance to being quoted. Every anonymous source weakens journalism's credibility. In the end, ask yourself whether the loss of public trust is worth the public gain.
And now we live in a world where significant journalism grows in a variety of gardens, including the traditional professional newsroom as well as the vast Fifth Estate (all the rest of the world doing journalism). The terms are getting even murkier. Therefore, it's always the writer's duty to clarify the terms with a source.
======================= My Commentary:
I will comment on the last one since it’s my favorite.
The Bible instructs on this topic:
Exd 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Deu 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Deu 19:18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, [if] the witness [be] a false witness, [and] hath testified falsely against his brother;
Deu 19:19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
Deu 19:20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
Pro 6:16 These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:
Pro 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Pro 6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Pro 6:19 A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Identifying the source or sources is difficult only if you have been asked to avoid by the source to publicize the source, or if as noted in the above list “will the public good be better than the publics damage.” (As I would say it.) the Exact Ethic precept the Poynter Institute uses goes: “Every anonymous source weakens journalism's credibility. In the end, ask yourself whether the loss of public trust is worth the public gain.”
I say it my way (“Damage”) because it uses the freedom of the Press when fingers are pointed at the weak but honest person. As the Constitution of the United State of America states (and Journalism is the Press): “ Amendment I - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition: 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.”
And to double the pressure on Ethical reporting a little later the Constitution says: “IV - Right of search and seizure regulated: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The Poynter Institute has it right they just say it a little weakly.
