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.