PressEthic

To follow up from my previous post on ethical guidelines for when, if at all, it is appropriate for a news organization to 'out' somebody, the Poynter Institute's "Ethics" column covers a recent situation in the news involving a rumor that a Republican senator from Idaho was homosexual. According to the article, Mike Rogers, a self-titled "journo-activist," posted on his blog that Craig had sex with four men, all of whom were anonymous sources of Rogers. The blog posting isn't really the issue here - there is no proof offered, Rogers will not reveal his sources, and Craig has publicly denied that the statement is true. Where it gets interesting, and relevant for us as journalists, is what newspapers decided to do when presented with this story. Do we run it, or kill it? Is it true? Is it newsworthy?

Rogers claims on Blog Active: Real Truth, Direct Action:

"I have done extensive research into this case, including trips to the Pacific Northwest to meet with men who have say they have physical relations with the Senator. I have also met with a man here in Washington, D.C., who says the same -- and that these incidents occurred in the bathrooms of Union Station. None of these men know each other, or knew that I was talking to others. They all reported similar personal characteristics about the Senator, which lead me to believe, beyond any doubt, that their stories are valid."

Craig's press secretary reaffirmed that the story had "no basis in fact." The issue was, however, that people were talking about it. Rumors and assertions flew around blogs, especially in the Spokesman-Review (Idaho newspaper)'s blog, Huckleberries Online. The Poynter columnist discusses that the editor of the Spokesman-Review and the editor of Huckleberries agreed, after hearing Rogers' radio interview and reading the blog, to post a summary of the story online. Online is one thing. Here's the kicker: they then decided to run a summary of the story in the newspaper (in print!) the next day, in the local section of the paper.

Of course the editors didn't come to any conclusions or make a definitive statement about whether Rogers was to be believed, but the fact that the story was allowed to be in print demonstrates the power of blogs in the media today. The story circulated to other local newspapers, ending up on the front page of the Idaho State Journal. How did this happen? Isn't this a story completely based on anonymous sources and unproven assertions?

Some newspapers put the rumor in their column, and identified that there was no proof to back up the story. Others treated it as hard news - it was newsworthy because so many people were discussing the assertion on blogs, on the radio - it was time the newspaper caught up.

"None of the three papers investigated the Rogers claim to find out whether or not it was true. Two of the editors said they didn't have the resources. Smith, the Spokesman-Review editor, said the truth of the claim was a non-issue. '[W]hether Rogers was right or wrong was not what we were interested in dealing with,' he said. It wasn't a story about the claim, Smith said; it was about the impact of that claim on the political climate in Idaho. Furthermore, Smith said, the story his paper ran offered the senator a mainstream outlet to deny the claim. 'If we had not given Larry Craig the mainstream opportunity to contradict this story, he would have been victimized by it without the opportunity to respond to it,' Smith said."

So is it ok to run a story that is not based on fact in print in order to focus on the effect the story is having on the political climate? The problem is, putting Rogers' assertion in print gives it a certain legitimacy that, from where I see it, is undeserved. The AP didn't touch the story because they couldn't verify it. That makes sense to me - however, Paul Queary, Idaho's AP news editor, seemed relieved that he didn't have to decide whether or not someone being gay was newsworthy or not - he could spike the story because it lacked factual basis. What if it didn't? What then?

Vicki Gowler, editor of the Idaho Statesman, didn't run the story. She tried to check out the facts and follow up with Rogers and his sources but had no luck. Her argument against printing the story was that it was a rumor. She decided, because "Larry's not on the ballot, there's no rush." If he were on the ballot- would the rumor belong in print? The Idaho Post Register editor took a different angle, covering the senator's reaction to the story rather than the story itself. This was an interesting way of acknowledging the rumor without giving it too much credibility. They plan to pursue the story further, however, citing reasons that I debated in my previous blog - the newsworthiness of a political figure's sexual orientation.

'I think the next story is -- Is Larry Craig Gay? And why does that matter in Idaho?' Miller said. 'It's as much a story about the voters as it is about the senator.' That assertion raises a question: When does a public official's sexuality, a realm that some still consider to be something of a private zone, become news? The answer from Miller and Gowler: When it matters to the voters...

Idaho is an overwhelmingly conservative state, Gowler and Miller said. Idaho politicians, including Craig, find common ground on the family values platform. Many voters are Mormons, followers of a religion that considers acts of homosexuality to be sinful.

'Many of [Craig's] supporters would not vote for him if they knew he was homosexual. ... So I think it is an issue,' Gowler said. 'I'm willing to spend some resources to find out if it's true [that Craig is gay]. But I'm not willing to run a story until we have some evidence of our own -- our own anonymous sources, at the least.'"

This entire fiasco bring us back to the debate over whether sexual orientation is a) newsworthy and relevant and b) something a newspaper should reveal if it's not previously known (i.e. 'outing' them). But also, the story highlights the importance of blogs in today's media. Not only are blogs becoming "cool" (my blog is the coolest), but they are having an effect on the political climate, bringing attention to important questions and issues, and finally - the unthinkable - beginning to influence what print journalists consider "a story" or "newsworthy." But isn't it the job of the journalist - and the difference between a journalist and a blogger - to follow up with the story, verify the facts and the sources, and report the truth?