Is it Ethical For Journalists to Ask Tough Questions
But Refuse to Answer Them?
Were the Times simply a widget maker, Editor and Vice President for News John Armstrong’s refusal to engage in a public conversation about the company’s ethics would be merely uncivil. But the news business is different. It claims and exercises a far broader moral mandate. In fact, news is the only private business expressly protected and subsidized in the U.S. Constitution.
Quality news organizations, such as the Times (which has been mentioned favorably more frequently than any other Bay Area news organization on this website) claim a right to scrutinize those who exercise power and influence in society. This is the "watchdog" function of journalism.
| As the largest paper published in the East Bay, the Times itself is one of the most powerful institutions in that community. Is it either logical or ethical for the Times to ask tough questions of others but refuse to answer such questions? Or to go further, and attempt to subvert those who dare question it? | "The press is not free if those who operate it behave as though their position conferred on them the privilege of being deaf to ideas which the processes of free speech have brought to public attention." --A Free and Responsible Press |
(Isn’t it also just a bit hypocritical for a company that earns all of its profit from the willingness of others to engage in a public conversation to refuse to speak in a public forum itself?)
Of course, Mr. Armstrong claims that Grade the News has been unfair to the Contra Costa Times. If true, the Times might be justified in refusing to enter the public forum you, as a reader, are now experiencing.
The claim of unfairness is worthy of analysis.
Mr. Armstrong makes two primary charges: 1) That Grade the News implies the Times intentionally attempted to deceive readers of the Saturday Homes section, when in fact the newspapers’ advertising department had simply forgotten to label the section as advertising; and 2) that he was given insufficient time to respond to our questions.
As Ted Glasser, director of the graduate journalism program at Stanford (and a member of Grade the News’ advisory board) says, “If something goes unlabeled week after week after week, that’s not a clerical error. It’s either a policy or a lack of policy--which is worse. If the publisher or editor didn’t notice, it’s a lack of oversight.”
Mr. Armstrong complains that Grade the News found the one advertising supplement among "literally hundreds" that was not appropriately labeled. Perhaps he's referring to pre-printed inserts the paper merely delivers. The Times only publishes two advertising sections every week that are laid out like news: Saturday Homes and Auto Plus (on Friday). It should not be asking too much of an editor to ensure that a regular lettered section appearing every week doesn't mislead readers.
As for Mr. Armstrong’s contention that he was provided inadequate time to respond, he was contacted both by email and phone and given a week to respond. Publisher George Riggs was also contacted. “Anyone working in journalism would consider that more than enough time,” says Prof. Glasser. “It’s not like [he was being asked] for a thesis.”
Mr. Armstrong also claims a history of unfairness towards the Times. He only specifies one case--claiming that we declined to correct an error on racial identification in a “star” awarded to the Times for an excellent series on the unexpected consequences of the “three strikes” law. The misidentification was, in fact, corrected within 24 hours of being pointed out. The correction (and original star) are still posted in the Forum section and a second reference to the controversy is still posted among the “stars.”
Mr. Armstrong specifies only one case because Grade the News has only raised two questions about the performance of the paper--the labeling issue and the caveat about racial sensitivity mentioned above.
Don’t take our word for this. You can examine the entire Grade the News web site yourself and count stories in which the Times is mentioned. You’ll find 7 positive articles, 2 neutral and 2 negative, a more positive ratio than any other Bay Area news organization enjoys. The Times has also received two “stars” and no “dunces,” the only Bay Area newspaper to have escaped censure.
I believe our commentaries and analyses have been both valid and fair. Those measures show the Contra Costa Times, under the leadership of John Armstrong, to be an extraordinarily strong newspaper, exceptional for its size.
--John McManus
