PressEthic

Boston Globe union leaders recently sought support from Massachusetts politicians and union officials in an effort to bolster opposition against proposed staff and spending cuts. An article in the 20 October 2006 Boston Herald reports that, after being approached by leaders of the Boston Newspaper Guild, 20 Massachusetts leaders, including U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Representative Stephen Lynch, signed a letter to New York Times Co. Chairman Arthur Sulzberger. The letter lobbied Sulzberger to "'resist pressures to cut staff and other resources'" at the Globe.

The Herald article notes that the letter came at a time of "major turbulence" at the Globe. Advertising revenue for the New England Media Group, which is dominated by the Globe, is down 12.4 percent this quarter, and Globe union members recently rejected a proposed four-year contract. The new contract would've made wage increases contingent upon increased revenues at the paper, but excluded revenues generated by the Globe website. According to the Herald, the Globe union's president, Dan Totten, also criticized the new contract's health care provisions.

Obviously, agreeing upon new contracts for Globe employees has become a contentious issue. So, at first glance, enlisting politicians and other union leaders seems like a bold move calculated to antagonize Sulzberger. At second glance, there is the subtle whiff of desperation -- one wonders why this strategy, which seems unlikely to spur the desired changes, was employed by Globe union leaders. Neither of these results seems particularly desirable.

Add to these a third option proposed to The Poynter Institute's Jim Romenesko in an email sent by Boston University Professor of Journalism Mitchell Zuckoff. Romenesko posted the email to his online "Letters Sent to Romenesko" forum.

Zuckoff cautions that the union's effort to recruit politicians and union leaders to defend its cause was ethically questionable. He writes:

"I don’t want to malign the motives of the letter signers, but every one of them could potentially benefit from doing a good deed for the reporters, photographers, copy editors, and other union journalists who cover them. That means the union’s request was a textbook case of seeking favors from sources and subjects."

Zuckoff concludes that "when union leaders violate the principles that underpin their members' work, they weaken the individuals and the institution they're supposedly trying to protect."

It's an interesting ethical take on the Globe union's negotiation strategy. In the first place, was it appropriate to bring outside pressure to bear on private business matters by involving lawmakers and other union leaders in submitting an open letter that was potentially embarrassing the Globe's owners? Combine that grey area of, shall we say -- business etiquette, with the questionable ethics that accompany politicians and reporters working together to achieve an end that financially benefits the reporter contingent. If one good turn deserves another, what are the implications for future Globe coverage of the unions and politicians who signed the letter?

Ethical stickler that I am, I'm inclined to side with Mr. Zuckoff. Even the mere appearance of ethical impropriety can effectively damage a reporter's or publication's reputation as a trustworthy source of news. After all, in a world of sound bites, appearances are everything.