When a journalist is too close to a story, it is not a good thing. Here's why

On his Guardian blog on Monday, Roy Greenslade wrote about the Charles Saatchi-Nigella Lawson throat-grabbing episode.

Greenslade, a former newspaper editor, professor of journalism at London's City University, and media commentator, appeared to play down the incident in his post. And instead of upbraiding Saatchi, Greenslade chose to pass sly comments about the newspaper that printed the graphic pictures of Saatchi repeatedly grabbing his wife by the throat in a London restaurant.

Read the post here: "Nigella Lawson and Charles Saatchi: story behind a red-top scoop".

(The term "red tops", as defined by Wikipedia, refers to tabloids with red nameplates, such as The Sun, the Daily Star, the Daily Mirror ... and distinguishes them from the Daily Express and Daily Mail. Red top newspapers are usually simpler in writing style, dominated by pictures, and directed at the more sensational end of the market.)

The very next day, Greenslade published what he referred to as a red-faced apology:

The post began:

I am mortified to think that people viewed my posting yesterday about Charles Saatchi and Nigella Lawson as some kind of defence of domestic violence. That was not my intention at all.

However, after so many e-mails — not to mention much outrage on Twitter — I concede that I expressed myself very badly indeed.

And towards the end of the short post comes the lesson all journalists will do well to heed:

Sometimes one is too close to a story, and this is the irony: I was clearly over-compensating for the fact that I have been a friend of Nigella's ever since we were colleagues on the Sunday Times more than 20 years ago.

In order to be scrupulously fair about the incident, showing no favour to a friend, I went way in the wrong direction. I therefore owe her apologies. And I apologise also to all those, including several Guardian colleagues, who thought I'd taken leave of my senses.

Read the mea culpa here: "Nigella Lawson and Charles Saatchi: why I called it wrong..."

The most sensible comment I have read on the Guwahati molestation issue

R. Sukumar, the editor of Mint, a newspaper I like and respect, has devoted his regular column to what is now being referred to as "the shame of Guwahati".

Given the controversy over the possible involvement of a journalist in the case, Sukumar makes it clear that his opinion of this incident "is clouded by the journalist’s behaviour in the video clip" he saw.

[H]e was shoving a mike at the terrified girl’s face, trying to get her to speak even as the camera repeatedly tried to get a glimpse of her face. At a time when he should have been offering succour, he seemed to be more interested in a sound-bite for his channel. That’s the kind of thing that gives journalism and journalists a bad name.

Sukumar also refers to an NDTV report that said the reporter came across the incident, started recording it on his mobile phone, and called the office for a camera team. Sukumar writes:

It isn’t clear from this report whether he did this after calling the police or if at all he did so. A few tweets on my timeline say he did call the police, even tried to intervene, but then retreated when the mob turned on him. I haven’t been able to verify this either but if true, this is probably the best way he could have reacted.

In incidents of this nature, Sukumar asserts — and I agree with him — the journalist at the scene is the best person to take a call on what will work and what he or she is comfortable doing.

His conclusion especially leaves us in no doubt of his views which every right-thinking journalist would do well to consider seriously. Read the column in its entirety here: "Doing the right thing".

• Also read: "Moral Policing, India’s Ugly New 'Reality TV'", a thought-provoking post on India Ink, the New York Times's India-centric blog.

Mint shows the way by not kowtowing to advertisers

As far as I know, Mint is the only publication in India that makes it a point to not genuflect before advertisers. For Mint, readers come first, not advertisers. Which is as it should be.

Some well-meaning people may argue that newspapers and magazines will die if advertisers pull out. True, advertising revenue plays a huge role in the financial health of both print and electronic media, but I believe that it is a good editorial product that attracts readers and viewers in the first place, which then helps to draw advertisers. Which is as it should be, but is often not.

Back to Mint and its stringent policy with regard to advertisers. On October 13, the newspaper distributed a four-page supplement on the royal wedding in Bhutan along with the main section. This supplement was clearly labelled "Mint Media Marketing Initiative". Even so, the editor published this note on Page 1 of the main newspaper:

This is the first time I am reading such a note in an Indian publication. All credit to Mint editor R. Sukumar for taking a bold stand at a time when the line between editorial and advertising appears to be fast blurring (read "Paid news and the influence of newspaper owners").

Why did Sukumar feel the need to write that note? He explains in his regular column in Mint:

A Media Marketing Initiative [MMI] is essentially an advertorial, but both advertisers and publishing firms prefer more ambiguous terms. MMI is one such. Then there are others including special feature, special report, and the like. Some publishing companies prefer to use their own coinages — the India Today Group used to prefer the term Impact Feature when I worked there (I have no idea what it uses now because I don’t read any of its magazines); and the Outlook group uses Spotlight. Then, there are other publishing firms that choose not to say anything at all, leaving it to the reader to figure out whether a report on Sudan or Russia is an editorial feature, advertorial, or, still worse, a paid-for editorial write-up.

Sukumar also explains later in his column that, apart from warning readers, he also hopes that this message "will dissuade at least some advertisers from asking for advertorials in Mint, and some basic reporting and research I have done over the past few days makes me believe they will".

All journalists, and media students, will do well to read Sukumar's column in its entirety: "The inviolable line".

• Also read: R. Sukumar on Mint's response to being blacklisted by companies — "Dealing with thin skin". And on the separation between news and opinion — "The authoritative voice".

•  You can read a few of the many pertinent points in Mint's Code of Conduct here.

"I am a college student who listens to music I download from the internet. This is probably illegal..."

There must be tens of thousands (millions?) of youngsters out there who qualify to make that statement, at least that first part. Should you continue to do it? That is, steal a work of art over which someone else has invested talent, time, and effort, not to mention money? What are the ethics involved, if at all?

RANDY COHEN

Here, in his response to an anonymous New York Times reader's question (quoted partly in the headline), are the views of Randy Cohen, who till recently wrote The Ethicist column in that newspaper:

To download music from the Net illegally is theft, depriving songwriters, performers, music publishers and record companies of payment for their work. It is not so iniquitous as tossing a canvas sack over Elton John's head and swatting him with a stick until he sings ''Candle in the Wind'' (or stops singing it, depending on your taste), but it is dishonest, and you should not do it.

Mind you, Cohen wrote this back in 2000 (hence the witty reference to Candle in the Wind), but what he says still applies, don't you think?

COURTESY: STEPHAN PASTIS

Cohen also explains, again in an intelligently entertaining manner, why illegal downloading of music is also unethical:

Your temptation is understandable. In a perverse kind of social progress, the Internet makes it easy to steal songs right in your own home, while you're still in your pajamas. You might almost make a case that it is unethical of Time Warner, say, to tantalize honest music lovers beyond human endurance. This is a ticklish line of reasoning, however, perilously close to blaming the victim. That is, even if I sashay around town in a sport coat made of $100 bills, your robbing me is unethical. Unethical, but understandable.

Want to read more? Go here.

• THE VEXED ISSUE OF PLAGIARISM

What does Randy Cohen have to say about plagiarism by college students in their written assignments? Read his answer to this preposterous question posed by a parent:

When my daughter and her fellow college students handed in term papers, their professor had them submit their work to Turnitin.com, a Web site that detects plagiarism, something he had never done before. This has a whiff of entrapment. Shouldn’t the prof have announced in advance that this would be required, giving the class a chance to clean up its work?

Cohen replied: I’m astonished you believe a professor should help cheaters “clean up” — more accurately, “cover up” — their deceit. It should be needless to say that students ought not cheat in any case. If the professor provided a distant early warning each time he intended to actually confirm students’ honesty, he would in effect encourage them to cheat whenever he did not issue such a warning. He might as well send out an Evite: Feel free to plagiarize this week; I won’t be checking.

Read Cohen's full response here.

And to view, and read, the collection of Ethicist columns published in The New York Times over the years, go here.

The inviolable line between news and advertising at Mint

In this era of paid news, and Medianet, and private treaties, how refreshing — and comforting — to read this note from the editor on the front page of Mint (Friday, September 3):

Note to readers

Dear Reader,

From time to time, you will see a page or a feature in Mint clearly labelled as Media Marketing Initiative. Such content is entirely generated by an advertiser or Mint's marketing department on behalf of an advertiser, and does not involve any editorial staff.

Such pages/features also have a different font and style to help you identify that they are not part of Mint's editorial content. As clearly stated in Mint's journalistic Code of Conduct, available on our website www.livemint.com, there is an inviolable line between news and advertising at Mint. We thought it would be useful for us to reiterate this to you.

As always, feel free to contact us at feedback@livemint.com

R. Sukumar

Editor

Here are just a few of the many pertinent points in Mint's Code of Conduct:

In the 21st century, ... news is transmitted in more ways than ever before — in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.

• That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise.

• It means we always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information — not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable.

• It means we don't plagiarize.

• It means we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.

• It means we don't misidentify or misrepresent ourselves to get a story. When we seek an interview, we identify ourselves as Mint journalists.

• It means we don’t pay newsmakers for interviews, to take their photographs or to film or record them.

• It means we must be fair. Whenever we portray someone in a negative light, we must make a real effort to obtain a response from that person. When mistakes are made, they must be corrected — fully, quickly and ungrudgingly.

• And ultimately, it means it is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure that these standards are upheld. Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.

There's so much here to admire — and learn from.

AP's professional and ethical standards

Associated Press (or AP) is one of the world's leading news agencies.

Since discussions on professional and ethical standards are a regular feature of my journalism classes, Commitscions will benefit from studying the guidelines — the code — followed by AP journalists.

Here is a sample:

In the 21st century ... news is transmitted in more ways than ever before — in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.

That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise.

It means we always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information — not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable.

It means we don't plagiarize.

Let me know what you think.

Publishing grisly photos

Should newspapers print photographs that can upset readers? Should television news channels show pictures of a graphic nature? Should media websites provide links to "death photos"? These questions do not have pat answers, as senior journalists will testify.

Last June, after a Thai newspaper published what it said was a photo of actor David Carradine's body found hanging by ropes in a Bangkok hotel closet, Al Tompkins of Poynter Online weighed in on the issue by explaining why the "alleged Carradine death photos should not be published". In the article, Tompkins also threw light on the decision-making process that goes on in newsrooms regarding the inclusion of graphic content.

Tompkins also provided a link to Pearl Photo: Too Harmful, a piece by his colleague Bob Steele on the ethics of such decisions. Steele wrote his column after a Boston paper published "horrific pictures" of the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

Both articles give us much to think about.

'THE PERILS OF PREGNANCY'
Still on the subject of photos that can upset readers, Time magazine on June 21 published a photo feature titled "Maternal Mortality in Sierra Leone: The Story of Mamma". Subtitled "One woman's journey from pregnancy to death", the feature comes with a warning: "Please note that this gallery contains graphic content."

Was Time justified in publishing these pictures? Let me know what you think.

• Here, meanwhile, are the letters re: "The Story of Mamma" that Time published in its issue of July 5:

A MOTHER'S TOO BRIEF LIFE
While I appreciated "The Perils of Pregnancy," about Mamma Sessay, I take offense at the pictures. Showing this woman at her most vulnerable was disrespectful. Would these photos have been cleaned up if she were not a poor African woman?
Tola Abe,
Raleigh, N.C., U.S.

Your piece on Sessay's death during childbirth brought tears to my eyes. The piece made me scared for the millions of women in the world who lack medical care. How long will we cry for our women?
Abdul Sebiotimo,
Abuja

Please let me know what I can do to help Sessay's family or another family avoid the same fate.
Angela Bolds,
Lawton, Okla., U.S.

ALICE PARK RESPONDS: CARE and UNICEF, which accept individual donations, have excellent global maternal-health programs.

Real? Staged? The NYT Public Editor weighs in on a serious journalistic issue

"The front page of Sunday’s Times carried an arresting photo atop an investigative article about the dangers of driving while distracted by a cellphone. Shot from the back seat of a car going more than 60 miles per hour — the speedometer is plainly visible — the picture showed a 16-year-old driver texting with both hands while another youth in the passenger seat steadied the steering wheel with his left hand.

"Readers wondered if the picture was real or staged, whether the photographer did anything to stop the risky behavior — and who these teens were and how they related to the accompanying article, which never mentioned them and focused on another young man living with the consequences of causing a fatal accident while talking on his cellphone."

Go here to read the full column:

See how this column incorporates readers' reactions and then clarifies the position by talking to the photographer involved. What do you think?

• Photo courtesy: The New York Times