Say it ain't so, Mr. Woodward

Once upon a time, he was the man who brought back the American public's faith in journalism.

Now, I'm ashamed he ever set foot in a newsroom.

Not because of what he said. But because of what he didn't say.

Woodward's silence about his knowledge of the Valerie Plame leak at the CIA is unbelievable in the scope of journalistic and moral irresponsibility.

As a high school student in a civics class, I pumped my fist in the air to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein heroically bringing down Richard Nixon and his crooked scheme. I reveled in the fact that once in a while, the good guys do win and occasionally things turn out right.

Woodward and Bernstein became household names. They made investigative journalism cool. But since that time, Bernstein has faded into the background and Bob Woodward has shown himself to be an arrogant, self-absorbed disgrace, who works for himself and not for the profession he chose.

Journalism never has been, isn't and never will be about the reporters who report and write the news. Anyone going into it for their own fame and notoriety is not only fooling themselves but betraying the very principles upon which journalism was founded.

For Woodward to hide information from his own editor is inexcusable. Editors are like priests, whom you can go to with any concern or any question. Often, editors are the only ones reporters will reveal anonymous sources' identites to, because they're that trustworthy.

But Woodward stayed quiet. And why? Because he said he was afraid of being subpoenaed. The polite term for what that really is starts with an "m" and ends with "anure."

And nobody could have said it better than the Washington Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, who said "He has to operate under the rules that govern the rest of the staff -- even if he's rich and famous."

This was the last thing journalism, which the American public has treated like a leper - acknowledging but avoiding - needed.

Even worse, Woodward then went on "Larry King Live" and ran his mouth about the investigation into Valerie Plame without letting on that he knew even more. Basically he omitted certain facts, and a lie of omission is still a lie.

There is no room for a lie in journalism, and once a journalist lies, they are forever stained by that lie. Their credibility will never be restored and they are pariahs forever.

And that is what Woodward should be.

Now will he? Probably not. He's Bob Woodward, rich and famous. He won't hurt too badly from this and people will still probably pay attention because he was part of a good team back in the day.

And that's the shame. Instead of shunning him for what he's done now, he'll get away with it.

And because of his treachery, journalism as a whole will suffer.

Thanks a pantload, Bob.

Commies suck

This post probably marks the bannination of my Web site from China.

Its formal name is the People's Republic of China, which is two lies for the price of one.

A) It is not a republic. The kind name for it is dictatorship.

B) It does not belong to the people. Tell the members of the Chinese Politburo to go slosh through a rice paddy and see what happens to you.

It already was bad enough.

It's getting to the point where people are beginning to forget that major convulsion that was the year 1989. But I remember. I remember this:



What happened to him? I don't know. I seriously doubt he's alive today, simply because he took a stand in a country and culture that does not place the same value on human life that the Western world does.

Nor do they place a lot of stock in the basic human rights, such as the right to information.

From the Washington Post via Reuters, China to begin controlling Internet news.

George Orwell may have written 1984 when the Soviet Union was the dominant worry, but history once again repeats itself and totalitarianism rears its ugly head.

And these are the people the United States does business with. Basically we promote this kind of dictatorship. We have an ongoing trade relationship with the country that has one of the world's worst records of human rights violations.

This may be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but I wonder just how much we are guilty by association...

Stick it to the man

The first three estates of government are the three primary branches: Executive, legislative and judicial.

The fourth estate is journalism, the press. When government fails, we will be the ones to step in and try to save the public's bacon.

It's hard to argue the government has made every effort to help. At every turn, finger-pointing and buck-passing has marred this operation. Thousands are dead, countless more have become victims of rape, murder and other horrible crimes and the police have sometimes been the perpetrators of crime against the very populace they swore to protect.

In disgrace, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been recalled to Washington for screwing up his duties of managing this catastrophe. He should thank his lucky stars this isn't the Soviet Union. If it were, he'd end up doing a lifetime of hard labor in the Gulag, the Soviet penitentiary prison system. And that's if he were lucky. More likely he'd have been shot.

And then the government, to protect the sensibilities of the public (AKA to try and mask how bad they've screwed up), decided to deny the media access to the disaster area.

I am not an anarchist. I believe our government, despite periods of spectacular incompetence, is doing the best it can and without it, we'd all be in a world of hurt.

But this is UNCONSCIONABLE!

Enter now, the hero of the hour. CNN.

CNN sues to cover Katrina aftermath

Moving to kibosh the completely unconstitutional and undemocratic - nay, seemingly FASCIST - actions of the government, CNN sued to allow media coverage.

And then a second miracle happened.

Judge grants temporary restraining order

So for now, the media will move in. Some will compare it to the actions of sharks or vultures. I'm sorry people see it as that. That attitude stems from unethical and insensitive actions of stupid and insensate journalists...

What the majority of journalists will be there to do is show the public the horrors of what has gone on there, and more importantly, the injustices that have taken place when the public was not allowed to see.

And I am proud of my profession, doing what it can to make sure people get the information they need.

That's funny, I didn't think Armageddon was spelled "Katrina"

The Bible laid it out pretty clean. Location is everything.

Don't build your house in a stupid spot.

Likewise, don't build a city below sea level on a coastline known for horrifically-powerful hurricane.

I'm not trying to be insensitive to the plight of all those down there. I'm just saying the decision to put a major city there, lo those many years ago, was not a great idea.

But I'm not here to rant about meteorology or geography or any of that.

Where disaster is, there are journalists, in the thick of it. Getting knocked over by hurricane-force winds, wading in waist deep water and taking photos.

And then the trouble starts.

A photo appearing on Yahoo's news Web pages showing a black man with a plastic tub loaded with beer, including a bottle tucked in his back pocket. The caption reads that he is looting. Another photo appearing on Yahoo, this one from Agence France-Presse/Getty Images shows white people with bread and sodas and bears the description that they are "finding" the items.

As a a photographer, in addition to being a writer, I can see how this happened.

The black man in the photos is obviously making off with a non-necessity. The photographer who took the picture, Dave Martin, saw the man enter that business and make off with the goods. Beer will not help you survive the greatest national disaster this country has faced since 9-11. The white people are making off with essentials (except the sodas, unless there was no bottled water), and the photographer, Chris Graythen, vehemently defended his caption, saying these people got things that were floating away from the rubble of a store, and not stealing out of it.

I think it would have been better if the photographer had made the shot wider so that people could get a sense that these folks had not, in fact, breaking into a business and stealing. The man with the beer has no such defense. Have fun with the Heinekins. It's simply the chance that these two photos would appear the same day. Whoops.


Now, if it's happening like this blogger showed, then it is pure, simple negligence on the part of the news organizations and photographers and all else involved. If it's looting in one picture where it doesn't clearly show where they got it, it's looting in another.
---

Another issue has me applauding and blasting the media in the New Orleans area.

A radio station broadcast the mayor of New Orleans blasting the federal government for the lack of help. That's a positive way in which the media gets out the message from truly concerned public officials that help is needed.

Then CNN, my news station of choice (what, you were expecting Fox News?), went and pissed away air time showing President Bush hugging two victims of this tragedy.

WHO CARES?

Skip to the part where the President gets to the heart of the matter and promises the aid or whatnot. The president hugging people is NOT news.

There's so much more out there to discuss, and I'm just one man. This is a horrific tragedy and stories will pour in, both of tragedy, villainy and horror and others of wonder, joy and miracles. Let's wait and see.

- The Unrepentant Journalist

Secondaries...

And now for one of the nastiest issues raised in journalism: The right to tape.

We have this one on our backs once more after the DeFede crisis in Florida. In Florida, it is illegal to tape a conversation without consent of both parties. In some states, such as my own, it is required only to have one.

There are many reasons reporters tape conversations and many situations which a tape recorder can be used. In a face to face situation, it is less of a problem. Break out the tape recorder in plain sight of the source, which will a) let them know you're taping - say something if you feel it will make them more comfortable - and b) give them a chance to object - which as much as I hate it when a source does this, it is their right. Over the phone, it is a major concern.

Reporters will tape for a multitude of reasons, the foremost of which is probably accuracy. With a tape to back up the conversation, it is much more difficult - if not impossible - to be sued for misquoting someone. Reporters will also tape so it can be proven a source said a certain thing (an offshoot of accuracy). Some sources may find it to be a comforting precaution, many will not.

Taping inherently makes people uncomfortable, it seems. A source may be open and unconcerned if they believe they are not being taped. If they are aware, however, they may censor themselves and inhibit the conversation, restricting the quantity and quality of information a journalist has at hand. That's one reason why some journalists don't like to tell a source they're taping.

Other journalists believe that by stating who they are (a reporter) and what their purpose is (to interview the subject) they have given the source fair warning as to their intentions. Speaking to a reporter, these journalists believe, automatically should absolve them because a person speaking to a reporter should have no expectation that a reporter is not taking notes or taping the interview. Expecting privacy from a journalist is not the most unreasonable thing (if the journalist is a moral person and it is the ethical thing to do) to expect, but in most cases, that's not something a journalist should have to give.

Also, because it's not illegal in some places to tape without a source's knowledge, some journalists don't feel a moral quandary over taping, as it is their legal right... (I would be amiss to point out that some of the less conscience-driven journalists wouldn't feel bad about taping even if it were illegal, but those are a type who are unconcerned with their profession and as such should not even be in journalism and/or should be summarily fired, in my opinion).

But taping a source without their knowledge, when it is not an objective to catch them saying something they shouldn't, is something that should make a journalist uncomfortable.

That is because it suggests that the reporter does not trust the source to own up to their words. It suggests the reporter does not trust the source, and journalism is a profession infinitely based on trust. Without trust, journalism does not function, whether it be a source trusting a journalist to report and write accurately or it be the readers, who expect journalists to report the truth as fairly and honestly as they can.

While taping clandestinely may be the only thing that makes a story work (indeed there are cases where secret recordings have saved Pulitzer-prize winning stories from discrediting by lying sources who denied their statements) if it violates trust between source and journalist, it is suspect.

Journalism is purposed to be a protector of the people and of their rights. A protector does not furtively try to justify its actions and play cloak-and-dagger in the shadows.

Journalists should inform their sources that they are taping. It is the ethical and moral path in a job that depends on morals and ethics. Only if a journalist has no other way to benefit the public other than to record something clandestinely (and even not then if it is illegal, for that calls the ethics of the journalist into question) should secret recordings be used.

Only by behaving ethically can we salvage what is left of our profession at a time when the poi holloi's, the masses', trust and faith in us is at an all time low.

Mistakes and more mistakes

Journalism is a demanding field. It demands honesty, morality and (bizarrely enough) a conscience.

But what about when a journalist makes a mistake, or worse yet makes one on purpose?

Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley. These are the ones who made their mistakes on purpose. They were fired like the liars and fabricators they are. Add two more names to the list of those who shame their profession and who no longer have the right to call themselves journalists.

Brook Corwin.

Michael Pucci.

Mistake 1) These two used www.thefacebook.com, a Web site aimed at connecting college students to their peers, to make up a daily piece that aimed to give a voice to local citizens.

Mistake 2) At first, Reidsville Review Managing Editor Jeff Sykes did not fire them, thus further damaging the credibility of the newspaper.

It eventually led to Corwin, Pucci and Sykes resigning from the Review. Like cauterizing a wound, this has damaged the Review's credibility and damaged the paper's capabilities.

Still, in the end this turned out as it should, sad as it may be. What is really sad is that there remain people out there who are wishy-washy. There should be no question about it: Those two reporters did something unethical and the entire journalism community should wash our hands of their stench. End of story.

But now we turn our heads to Florida, where one man is dead, a columnist has been fired and the entire journalistic community, as well as the local news area, is reeling from all angles.

Miami Herald metro columnist Jim DeFede was fired after he admitted to editors that he had taped a source without the source's knowledge, which is illegal in Florida. This was the same day that the aforementioned source, former Miami city commissioner Arthur Teele Jr. (who was about to be exposed by a story run in another Miami paper for several illicit "activities") walked into the lobby of the Herald and shot himself. He died two hours later. That same evening, the Herald fired DeFede.

Immediately people began connecting DeFede's firing with the suicide. What the truth was didn't really matter to people.

The Herald's senior staff made a terrible error in timing. Yes, DeFede broke a law. But he at least deserved a hearing and he never got that. Some of the upper staff were at Knight Ridder (the Herald's parent company) headquarters in San Diego.

Their haste in firing DeFede has further damaged the paper's reputation and raised serious dissent among the staff.

Better to have suspended him, gave him a hearing and then fired him later.

But then there's the question of how it was discovered that DeFede made the tape.

He admitted it himself, taking full responsibility for his mistake.

In a day and age where it's a constant game of who to pass the blame to next, Jim DeFede took a courageous stand, admitting his mistake and not trying to pass the blame. He was fired for that. That action alone should have given the brass of the Herald pause. Now it will seem as if DeFede's reward for being honest was a pink slip.

Now, I'm not entirely sure what I would have done with DeFede. I probably would have suspended him for his bad judgment, but because he took responsibility I don't think I'd have fired him.

I think that really the moral of these stories is that people need to stop and think. Hasty decisions mean decisions that can be easily called into question.

As for what journalism is becoming today? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

The Unrepentant Journalist cometh

Hello to you all. Welcome.

This is a site by an journalist in an anonymous manner. Not only do I protect myself, but I also keep from allowing people to call works bearing my real name into question.

I'm no journalism genius. I am simply here to offer an inside take on what goes on inside the world of journalism.

Feel free to always contact me via email, theunrepentantjournalist@gmail.com.

And now, for my first rant.

*******

There is no easy solution to the Judith Miller - Karl Rove - Valerie Plame problem.

A high-ranking official, Rove, reveals (whether it was intentional or inadvertent is still a bone of contention) to a reporter the name of a CIA officer, Plame (they don't call themselves spies, they call themselves officers). In doing so, he breaks a law. The reporter, Miller, whom he broke the law by telling has made a promise to keep him anonymous, but when ordered by the Supreme Court of the United States, she refuses and is imprisoned.

Who's wrong here?

Well, I won't even approach the can of worms of saying Plame is wrong for being an intelligence officer. Every nation has its intelligence services. Plame serves one. The morality of her job is not at hand.

Rove, whether on purpose or on accident, broke the law. Let's wait and see how Bush manages this one. Rove is immensely important to Bush and was a major winning factor in the 2004 election. Either way, he did something bad.

Miller is sticking to her guns and this is admirable. She made a promise and she intends to keep it, even at the cost of her freedom. However, Miller seems to be forgetting one of the purposes of journalism, to help keep democracy in motion.

Democracy must function in an orderly way, i.e. through laws. When someone breaks a law and a reporter breaks a law to, in essence, help them break a law, this is where we find ourselves now. Two wrongs do not make a right. Miller's crusade, not matter how noble, is misguided.

So as upsetting as it seems, by imprisoning a journalist, the Supreme Court was in fact doing the right thing.

Go figure.