Please Note: Ethics Newsline® will not be published next week in observance of the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States. We will return with a new issue on Monday, December 8. We extend our warmest wishes to you and yours.

For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

It’s been said that if you wanted to define water, you wouldn’t ask the fishes. In a similar way, the last people capable of defining the current financial atmosphere may be the news junkies. So immersed are they in their craft — its headlines, news flashes, commentaries, and backstories — that they rarely remember that news is framed rather than ordained. They can forget, in other words, that they’re seeing the world through a particular frame, language, or paradigm.

That latter word belongs to Thomas Kuhn, whose 1962 classic, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, introduced the idea of a paradigm shift. More on Kuhn in a moment. To understand paradigms, however, just scan the headlines. What you’ll find is that nearly everything we know about the financial crisis has come through one of two languages, that of economics or that of politics. The first examines wealth, studies numbers, and asks, “Where’s the bottom line?” The second looks at power, tracks influence, and asks, “Who’s winning?” These two ways of coming to terms with the world have become the default languages of journalism.

The problem is that today’s situation — a global economic crisis shot through with political interventions — is rapidly outstripping the capacity of these frames to explain it. As a result, a third language is coming into play — the language of ethics. Talking not about wealth or power, it talks about values. Tracking neither numbers nor influence, it examines moral sensibilities. Instead of asking about bottom lines or winners, it asks, “What’s right?” Its focus is less on resolving the crisis than on seeing what it tells us about ourselves.

Under the influence of this third language, what began as a discussion of money has shifted into a conversation about metaphysics, character, and integrity. This shift came clearly into view during the third week of October, bookended by the twin iconic figures of investment guru Warren Buffett and former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. On October 17, Mr. Buffett proclaimed his intention to buy and hold stocks regardless of uncertainties in the market. His op-ed piece in the New York Times was a powerful declaration, looking back over a long personal history of successful investing. Framed in the language of economics, it seemed to make sense of a familiar world.

Six days later, Mr. Greenspan told a congressional committee that, having trusted overmuch in the markets’ capacity for self-regulation, he was in a state of “shocked disbelief.” In a public recalibration of his long-standing free-market principles, his testimony pushed through into an introspective examination of identity. While still relying on economic and political framing, it had more than a hint of a moral discourse as it accepted the presence of a new world around us.

Can things really change that fast? Here’s where Kuhn helps. As a historian of science, he was intent on explaining how revolutions in scientific thought come about as we move from, say, Copernicus to Newton to Einstein. Though he’s writing about science, his thesis helps explain how wholesale changes in thought typically happen:

• They arise after “frequent and deep debates” over methods and standards, leading to “the need constantly to reexamine … first principles” — as Mr. Greenspan was doing.
• They are “generally preceded by a period of pronounced professional insecurity,” arising from “the persistent failure of the puzzles of normal science to come out as they should” — showing up today as a lack of confidence in economics itself.
• They grow from a sense that something is “fundamentally wrong” with current ways of thinking, especially in the presence of a “cumulative acquisition of unanticipated novelties” that researchers (or Treasury officials) can’t explain.
• Political revolutions, like those in science, arise when a minority of the community senses that “existing institutions have ceased adequately to meet the problems posed by an environment that they have in part created.”
• Significant change, whether political or scientific, is less evolutionary than revolutionary, less gradual than sudden, and often encounters significant resistance from the community’s most respected members — some of whom are in Congress.
• While such change is sometimes anticipated, usually “no such structure is consciously seen in advance.” Instead, “the new paradigm, or a sufficient hint to permit later articulation, emerges all at once, sometimes in the middle of the night.”

True, there are significant differences between scientific and economic change. But what if the analogy works? What if today’s economic mistakes can’t be corrected within the system? What if this “persistent failure” indicates that our “first principles” are “fundamentally wrong”? What if this turmoil presages an entirely new order of thought, where ethics is integral to free enterprise rather than simply an adjunct to it?

I’m not arguing for an ethics revolution. I don’t think economic and political language will join alchemy and the four humors in the museum of outgrown paradigms. But public thought is clamoring for philosophical depth and personal integrity, articulated in a language where right counts as much as wealth or power. If that clamor leads to a more ethical capitalism and a more moral democracy, don’t be surprised if the change emerges all at once in the middle of the night.

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

“The government put a publicity blackout on it so they can do anything they like…. They are trying to restrict anticorruption efforts all over the country.”

– Sheik Sabah al-Saeidi, a Shiite lawmaker who heads the Integrity Committee in the Iraqi Parliament, quoted last week in a New York Times article examining apparent efforts to curb oversight by the government of Iraqi prime minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

The Times notes that of the Iraqi government’s 30 Cabinet-level oversight officials, between six and 17 have been quietly terminated by Maliki’s administration, which is accused of dismissing the officials so it can have vacancies or install political appointees who may turn a blind eye to corruption. Among the inspectors general reportedly terminated include those watching over the departments of Water Resources, Culture, Trade, as well as the Central Bank of Iraq.

While Maliki’s government is behind the firings, the Times notes that the fault also lies with the U.S. government. It notes that Stuart Bowen, head of the U.S. office monitoring fraud and corruption in Iraq’s reconstruction, said the inspectors general “were vulnerable because once their offices were created, the United States provided little support and training for what was a startling concept for the bureaucracy, which was shaped by the secrecy and corruption of the Saddam Hussein era.”

Source: New York Times, Nov. 18.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Oct. 8, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 6, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 13, 2006.

Tin cups in hand, U.S. auto execs flew luxury private jets to Washington to seek bailout; Newsweek profiles firm that made ethical subprime lending pay; Scotland launches an effort to help socially responsible firms

VARIOUS DATELINES
Several moral aspects of the world’s economic turmoil were highlighted last week. Among those grabbing headlines:

• The proposed U.S. auto bailout hit choppy waters on several fronts, with the ethical issue of executive compensation again capturing the attention of the press. In a widely cited story, ABC News reported that the CEOs of the big three automakers flew to Washington to ask for bailout money aboard luxurious private jets. Investigative reporters Brian Ross and Joseph Rhee calculated that GM CEO Rick Wagoner’s round trip cost his struggling company $20,000. In comparison, seats on a Northwest Airlines flight covering that route were available online for $288 coach and $837 first class. Wagoner declined to comment on the issue. In related news, Bloomberg reports that the proposed bailouts may spark trade disputes over claims that the United States is trying unfairly to subsidize its auto industry. The European Union has threatened to lodge a complaint against any U.S. bailout, according to Bloomberg.
• Under the right circumstances, subprime lending can be ethical and profitable, according to Newsweek, which profiles the firm Clearinghouse CDFI (Community Development Financial Institution). Since 2003, the for-profit firm in California has made $220 million in subprime mortgages, with 90 percent of home loans going to first-time buyers, about half of whom are minorities. Of its 770 single-family home loans, seven foreclosures have been reported, according to the firm’s CEO, Douglas Bystry. His secret for staying solvent? Ethical subprime lenders carefully evaluate each application, do not pay big fees to brokers to steer clients into high-rate loans, and mostly hold onto the loans they write, rather than resell them, according to the report. “If one of our employees pushed someone into a house they couldn’t afford, they would be fired,” Bystry told Newsweek.
• The Edinburgh Scotsman reports that the nation’s mergers and acquisitions market is being revved up by a program that helps socially conscious firms take over family businesses that are for sale. The Big Lottery Fund, a grant-making agency of the National Lottery, founded to fund ethical causes, has donated about $738 million to the effort. According to the Scotsman, the funding will help small family companies that want to sell out but have trouble finding a buyer, and will aid socially conscious firms that want to acquire them. The paper cites the example of Aberdeen Foyer, an organization that offers jobs to vulnerable young people, which has become increasingly active in acquiring small businesses in Scotland.

Sources: Bloomberg, Nov. 21 — Scotsman, Nov. 21 — ABC News, Nov. 19 — Newsweek, Nov. 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 17 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 10 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 27 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 20 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 8.

Teen ingested lethal dose of medicine while others watched; while some notified authorities, others egged him on

PEMBROKE PINES, Florida
A Florida teenager killed himself on a live Internet broadcast last week, and press reports indicate that he may have been egged on by some viewers.

The incident, according to CNET reporter Greg Sandoval, “will undoubtedly raise questions about the power of Web video and whether it can go too far.”

Abraham Biggs, Jr., ingested a lethal cocktail of three different drugs and then continued to blog about it in a text-message area linked to his webcast, according to the Miami Herald. Some viewers, possibly reacting to previous online suicide threats made by Biggs, mocked him and encouraged him, says the Herald report.

But some, including the chat’s monitor, notified authorities, who broke down the door of Biggs’s residence, reports Wired.

As police prodded the teen to see if he was alive, viewers still hooked onto the feed posted online-jargon comments ranging from OMG (”Oh my God”) to LOL (”laughing out loud”).

Wired’s David Kravets reports: “Public suicides are common; people jump from bridges and buildings. But the phenomenon is now encroaching on to the global arena offered by the Internet. A British man suffered the same fate two years ago after being goaded to hang himself while in a webcam chatroom. And the net is also a known medium for organizing suicide pacts.”

Times of London technology reporter Murad Ahmed notes that the live-streaming site that screened the suicide, Justin.tv, has policies against running violent and inappropriate footage, but the fact that the service enables videos to be run live makes it difficult for the site to react quickly when such incidents occur.

Sources: Miami Herald, Nov. 21 — Times of London, Nov. 21 — Wired, Nov. 21 — CNET, Nov. 20.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, July 7 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 24 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 28 — Related Newsline Commentary, Dec. 3, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 3, 2007.

Measure originally was intended to keep panicked mothers from abandoning infants, but it was being used by families of troubled older children, some from out-of-state; lawmakers say they will find some other way to close the gaps in the social safety net

OMAHA
The U.S. state of Nebraska has tightened its “Safe Haven” law after a series of high-profile incidents in which parents abandoned unwanted children, including teenagers, at hospitals.

USA Today reports that Nebraska governor Dave Heineman signed the measure into law over the weekend.

According to UPI, Nebraska was — for a time — the only place in the country where parents could drop children at hospitals without consequences. Among the 35 children abandoned since September, almost all have been 11 years of age or older.

Among the few younger children abandoned, reports UPI, was a five-year-old left by his mother, who had driven to Nebraska from Washington State. She said the boy had hit a baby with a hammer and set fire to a shower curtain. The mother said the situation had driven her to attempt suicide.

Nebraska’s Safe Haven law originally was intended to keep panicked new mothers from abandoning infants in trash bins or ditches, reports Omaha’s Leader newspaper.

Several elected officials told Omaha television station KETV that they understand the desperation of families seeking relief from troubled youths, and even though they are closing the door on the Safe Haven option, they will work with mental health providers, government agencies, and hospitals to find alternative solutions for those families.

Sources: USA Today, Nov. 21 — Leader, Nov 21 — UPI, Nov. 21 — KETV, Omaha, Nov. 21.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 11 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 25 — Related Newsline story, July 28 — Related Newsline story, May 27 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 31, 2007.

Public editor recalls previous case when family’s request for blackout was ignored; government official involved in previous negotiations argues it’s “too bad the media aren’t always such a big help”

VARIOUS DATELINES
Media reaction was mixed following the revelation last week that Western media had kept quiet about the kidnapping of a CBC reporter for 28 days, bowing to government fears that releasing information about the kidnapping would endanger negotiations for the hostage’s release.

Melissa Fung was set free in apparent good physical health about two weeks ago.

As examined in last week’s commentary in Ethics Newsline®, the media’s decision to not disclose the incident ran counter to the general assumption that journalists’ duty is to report. But on the other end of the spectrum is the assumption, as articulated in the Canadian Press wire service guide, that “no news story is worth someone’s life.”

In the aftermath of the incident, various Canadian news organizations weighed in on its ethical implications:

• From the London, Ontario, Free Press’s Larry Cornies: “The impulse among journalists to protect one of their own is understandable, even laudable. But the suspension by any news organization of its primary missional activity — the timely, fair, and open reporting of information to the public — represents a descent into murky waters. If Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon were abducted on an upcoming trip to Kandahar Air Field, would Canadian journalism executives abide by a similar request from the Prime Minister’s Office not to report it?”
• Toronto Star public editor Kathy English noted that her paper had confronted a similar dilemma earlier this year when the family of an Edmonton man taken into custody in North Korea pleaded with the paper to not report the incident, hoping that quiet diplomacy would secure his release. The Star did not comply, and although the man was eventually released, English faced an uncomfortable confrontation with the kidnap victim’s daughter. “I explained what [Asia Bureau Chief Bill] Schiller had already told her: that the incarceration of a Canadian by a foreign government was an issue of important public interest in Canada. So, too, was the question of what Canadian authorities were doing to secure his release. I added that as information about her father’s plight had already been posted on the Internet, it was likely that other journalists would report it, perhaps with less sensitivity than Schiller, who conveyed the family’s concerns about publicity.” English concluded that while there were significant differences in the cases, she remains troubled by the disparity in the way they were handled and quotes observers who say the Star needs a clear policy on such incidents.
• Gar Pardy, former director general of Consular Services for Canada, wrote an opinion piece for Ontario’s Windsor Star titled, “Too Bad Media Aren’t Always Such a Big Help.” Pardy recounts how he was involved in negotiations for the release of several Canadians kidnapped in volatile areas. He charges that in at least one case, involving the kidnapping of seven Canadians in Ecuador in 1999, “there was no introspection on the part of the media on the impact of the reporting. For most the story was more important than the well-being of those being force-marched through the Ecuadorian and possibly the Colombian jungles.” Arguing that publicity was often the kidnappers’ motivating factor, Pardy contends that not only was there little cooperation from the press, but that “more often than not the media were antagonistic and there was a view that government officials were hiding behind the no-publicity pleas in order to cover up mistakes and inaction.”

Sources: Free Press, Nov. 21 — Toronto Star, Nov. 15 — Windsor Star, Nov. 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Nov. 17 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 6 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 16 — Related Newsline story, June 6 — Related Newsline story, May 19.

Dan Abrams says the company will ‘bend over backwards’ to avoid ethical conflicts, but some say having working reporters moonlight as consultants erodes journalists’ credibility

NEW YORK
A new public relations business venture by a former cable news executive is raising eyebrows over the ethical propriety of using currently employed reporters to advise clients on how to obtain favorable coverage from the press.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Dan Abrams, the former general manager of MSNBC, is launching a media-strategy firm that has as its chief selling point a network of media insiders who will offer advice for an hourly fee.

But the Journal notes that while such an arrangement might be appealing for clients, some say it could damage the public image of journalism.

“While it makes sense for business, for working journalists to be moonlighting as business consultants is ultimately going to degrade the credibility of journalism even further,” Trevor Butterworth, a fellow at the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs, told the Journal. “It’s really offering a weapon to activist groups of any kind to say: ‘We can’t trust journalism anymore.’”

But Abrams tells the New York Times his company will “bend over backwards to make sure that there are no conflicts or ethical issues that arise.”

Abrams also told New York magazine that his company is just a more formalized version of a practice that has been occurring for years. “Journalists are on panels all the time, they are quoted in articles all the time, they sit down for coffee with friends, or friends of friends, to give advice all the time. I give advice to people all the time privately — and I seek it.”

While Abrams has left MSNBC, he is expected to continue as chief legal correspondent for NBC News, reports trade journal Broadcasting & Cable.

Sources: Broadcasting & Cable, Nov. 19 — New York, Nov. 19 — Wall Street Journal, Nov. 18 — New York Times, Nov. 18.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 17 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 10 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 14 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 6 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 25.

But authors stop short of advocating outright prohibition, noting that such a level of intervention is not typical in the United States

CHICAGO
In the latest salvo in the ethics debate over balancing the rights of advertisers with the desire to protect overeaters from themselves, a major university study has concluded that banning fast-food ads on U.S. television could reduce the soaring rate of childhood obesity by as much as 18 percent.

Economist Shin-Yi Chou of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, a principal in the multi-university study, told Reuters that there has been little empirical research examining the relationship between advertising and obesity.

“Hopefully, this line of research can lead to a serious discussion about the type of policies that can curb America’s obesity epidemic,” he said.

But the study’s authors stop short of calling for an outright ban on such ads, noting that many people eat fast food in moderate amounts with no damage to their health, reports London’s Daily Telegraph.

The authors also note that restricting advertising would require a level of government intervention inconsistent with U.S. custom and free-speech guarantees, reports the Los Angeles Times.

The paper notes that Sweden, Norway, and Finland are the only nations to ban commercial sponsorship of children’s television programs.

Provincial laws in Quebec, Canada, also have prohibited advertising on children’s shows.

Australia is considering such a ban, reports the Australian Age, but opponents say the laws have not proved effective.

“Children in Quebec are the same size and circumference as other children in Canada,” said Colin Segelov, from the Australian Association of National Advertisers, according to the Age.

Sources: Australian Age, Nov. 20 — Daily Telegraph, Nov. 19 — Reuters, Nov. 19 — Los Angeles Times, Nov. 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 17 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007 — Related Newsline story, June 18, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 11, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 2, 2006 — Abstract of the study from the University of Chicago’s Journal of Law and Economics, November 2008.

Questions loom as scientists close in on cracking the DNA code of a Neanderthal

WASHINGTON
The possibility that modern genetic science could resurrect an ancient species is the type of ethical question pondered by the late Michael Crichton, the author of “Jurassic Park.”

Now fiction may become reality: Scientists have extracted genetic material from remains of a long-frozen wooly mammoth and have used them to map the behemoth’s DNA sequence, reports the Christian Science Monitor. The Penn State study brings researchers a step closer to being able to “resurrect” an extinct species though advancing cloning technology, PBS “NewsHour” reports.

But the New York Times points out that the project carries some heavy ethical baggage, with one of the more difficult issues arising if it becomes technically feasible to alter the genes of the human species.

Adding some urgency to the question is the fact that scientists expect that they soon will complete the mapping of the full genome sequence of Neanderthals, reports the Times.

Sources: New York Times, Nov. 21 — PBS “NewsHour”, Nov. 21 — Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 20 — National Geographic, Nov. 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 10 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 3 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 22 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 4 — Related Newsline story, May 5.

Gallup’s “annual Honesty and Ethics poll rates nurses best of 21 professions”

From Gallup:

“For the seventh straight year, nurses enjoy top public accolades in Gallup’s annual Honesty and Ethics of professions survey. Eighty-four percent of Americans call their honesty and ethical standards either ‘high’ or ‘very high.’…

“Nurses have topped Gallup’s Honesty and Ethics ranking every year but one since they were added to the list in 1999. The exception is 2001, when firefighters were included on the list on a one-time basis, shortly after the Sep. 11 terrorist attacks….

“The standing of most of the professions surveyed in 2008 is similar to that of a year ago. The only significant change is a 12 percentage-point decline in positive ratings for bankers, from 35% to 23% — not surprising given that the banking industry is at the center of the Wall Street meltdown currently gutting many Americans’ investment accounts and destabilizing the U.S. economy. (Earlier this year, Gallup reported a similar decline in public confidence in banking as an institution.)

“The 2008 Gallup Honesty and Ethics poll marks the first time since 1996 that the honesty and ethics of bankers has registered below 30%. The last time bankers took a hit of similar magnitude to their image was in 1988, when it fell from 38% to 26% during the savings and loan crisis. However, the 23% recorded today marks a record low for the field.

“Nurses have no peer in the Gallup rankings today, but they are followed by pharmacists, high-school teachers, and medical doctors, all with close to two-thirds of Americans rating them highly….

“Building contractors, bankers, journalists, and real estate agents each receive relatively neutral ratings….

“While bankers could be faring much worse, a year ago they were in the top-rated category, with 35% rating their ethics high or very high and only 15% rating them low or very low.

“Indeed, several professions suffer from a heavily negative tilt in their image ratings. The worst of these are lobbyists, telemarketers, and car salesmen, all of which are considered to have low or very low honesty and ethics by a majority of Americans….”

For the full press release from Gallup, Nov. 24, click here.

“Our aspirations are our possibilities.”

– Robert Browning (English poet, 1812-1889)

For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

“No news story is worth someone’s life.”

It’s a pithy policy, crafted by the Canadian Press wire service to guide the reporting of kidnapping and terrorism stories. Since October 12, when Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reporter Melissa Fung was kidnapped in Kabul, Afghanistan, that policy has been on trial — but so quietly that until a few days ago the public never knew she’d been seized.

Why not? Because the CBC, the Canadian military, and Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper’s office pleaded with the Western media to keep mum. They argued that news coverage could complicate the negotiations for her release, leading her kidnappers to realize how valuable a target they had taken and perhaps endangering her life. The editors complied, and on November 8 Ms. Fung was released unharmed.

No one with a shred of humanity would have wanted a different outcome. Yet this case raises wrenching questions about the role of the media in our political future. The request for silence placed editors in a classic right-versus-right dilemma. On one hand, it’s right to publish. Journalism’s mission is clear: Report news promptly, objectively, and without favoritism. For the Canadian news media, any kidnapping of a high-profile Canadian in a region of the world where 2,500 Canadian troops are still deployed, is undeniably newsworthy. This story was especially so, given that it happened two days before the October 14 election that returned Mr. Harper to power — an election fought by an incumbent who was under pressure from protesters to end the Afghan mission, which has cost the lives of 97 Canadian soldiers.

Would bad news from Afghanistan have had negative consequences for the prime minister’s reelection bid? “Consequences are not something journalists usually think about, because they aren’t in the business of shaping outcomes,” said Toronto Globe & Mail editor-in-chief Edward Greenspon shortly after Ms. Fung’s release. “If a given piece of information is newsworthy, in the public interest, it’s [usually] ‘publish and be damned.’”

On the other hand, it’s right not to publish a story if it costs someone’s life. Mr. Greenspon, commenting on his paper’s decision not to publish, went on to argue that “there are no absolutes” and that “editors exist to exercise their discretion about what should be published and in what way.” Or, as Don Martin of the Canadian National Post explained, media outlets “voluntarily refrained from telling the story, not only because negotiations for Melissa’s release were at a critical life-threatening stage, but to prevent the profession from becoming an even juicier target for kidnappers.”

Here, however, the Canadian Press raised a crucial issue: “Was there a double standard because a journalist had been kidnapped? Would the same blackout be put into effect if an aide worker, politician or military person had been snatched?” Or, to crank it up a notch, a corporate executive, popular athlete, or celebrity performer? Asking editors to sit on such stories is, I suspect, like asking pirates to eat politely.

Which side is right? Ends-based thinkers, who look at consequences and feel that ethics gets done when things turn out well, have every reason to be satisfied with the don’t-report decisions. But rule-based thinkers, wanting to uphold principles that should be applied universally, are troubled. If any story, they would ask, can be shrouded, shifted, or suppressed simply because it is potentially harmful to someone, where does the moral hazard end? What other news, readers will begin to ask, are you withholding — and why?

What’s at stake here is the news media’s role not simply in reporting but in advertising. That traditional two-part function — running stories and displaying ads — reminds us that most media companies, like it or not, are inextricably entangled in creating reputations both in the news hole and in the ad slots.

That’s a point not lost on kidnappers and terrorists. The former, if they’re criminal extortionists with no political agenda, often want to avoid publicity. Sometimes, however, they understand that the price of the product (the ransom) rises as it achieves a strong reputation (is widely advertised) and is seen to be rare (just one “freedom” for the kidnap victim is available, from a single vendor) and time-constrained (act now, because tomorrow may be too late). So they occasionally welcome publicity.

Terrorists, by contrast, crave publicity. They understand that terrorism doesn’t happen in some far-off country. It happens right here, in our living rooms, on our television screens — and unless it happens here, for all intents and purposes it hasn’t happened. Terrorists depend absolutely on this kind of free media for their work to be effective.

To the extent that Ms. Fung’s case has benefited journalism, it has done so by helping editors see that their toughest ethical dilemmas are about right versus right, and that this dilemma pits the news ethos against the advertising mindset. Did Western editors get it right, or did they set a dangerous precedent? That question won’t be resolved without a clearer recognition of ways in which news inadvertently advertises. The irony is that journalism is often taught in university schools of communications, adjacent to classes on public relations, marketing, and advertising. Twenty-first-century journalism ethics has come a long way, but it still needs to recognize that, despite the commonality of these communications functions, their moral missions must be kept conceptually distinct.

Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman contributed reporting to this story.

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

For more information, see: Globe & Mail, Nov. 11 — Globe & Mail, Nov. 10 — Canadian Press, Nov. 8 — National Post, Nov. 8.

“If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated…. [But] I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”

– U.S. president-elect Barack Obama, quoted last week in a New York Times article examining whether a former president can invoke executive privilege to avoid subpoenas after leaving office. The standard was claimed first by Harry Truman in 1953 without any significant test of its questionable legality by Congress or the courts. With President Bush leaving office with a backlog of blocked and pending investigations, questions are being raised about whether he will try to invoke Truman’s doctrine, setting up a legal fight.

Source: New York Times, Nov. 12.

Some predict that homeowners will intentionally default on mortgage payments in order to qualify for bailout; in related news, banks, automakers and other firms come to Washington hat-in-hand

WASHINGTON
The massive and unprecedented bailout of the U.S. financial system raised a variety of ethics issues in last week’s news.

Foremost was the resumption of debate about the moral hazard dilemma — the question of whether rescuing companies and individuals deeply in debt rewards irresponsible financial management and encourages reckless borrowing and lending.

That question was examined in a TIME analysis of last week’s decision to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to modify hundreds of thousands of mortgages for people who currently can’t meet their monthly payments.

TIME reports that the program is designed to help the highest-risk borrowers, and kicks in once homeowners have missed three payments. The monthly payment is then reduced to 38 percent of gross income if the borrower can illustrate some form of financial hardship as well as proof of income.

“They’re saying to everyone out there, don’t make your mortgage payment, be 90 days late, and then we’ll help you,” Bruce Marks, CEO of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporate of America, a nonprofit that works with servicers to modify mortgages, tells TIME.

The Los Angeles Times echoes a similar view, quoting investment manager Peter Schiff: “In a classic case of unintended consequences, the plan will encourage homeowners to rearrange their finances to qualify for the benefit,” Schiff says. “Those who could conceivably economize to meet their existing obligations will now have a strong reason to forgo such sacrifices…. The intentional reduction of income is also a possibility. In many cases, dual-income families may decide to eliminate one job altogether as reduced mortgage payments combined with lower child care and other work-related expenses will likely exceed the after-tax value of the lost paycheck.”

Meanwhile, a variety of firms lined up for government assistance last week, as Friday marked the deadline for many businesses to apply. CNN reports that while the Treasury’s $250 billion capital purchase program is designed only for banks, other types of firms were attempting to convert their structure and qualify for a thrift or bank charter.

The auto industry also came to Washington with hat in hand, with the U.S. Senate poised to take up a proposal to bail out General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. Reuters reports that the Senate measure would allocate $700 billion to help Detroit survive its financial crisis. In return, the government would get an equity stake in the car companies and enforce limits on executive compensation.

Sources: San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 16 — CNN, Nov. 14 — Reuters, Nov. 14 — TIME, Nov. 12 — Los Angeles Times, Nov. 11 — MarketWatch, Nov. 11.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 10 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 27 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 20 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 14 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 6.

Obama transition leader promises “strictest, most far-reaching ethics rules”; Rangel hires accounting firm in effort to clear his name in ethics probe; Supreme Court takes up case involving judge who refused to recuse himself from a decision despite taking campaign contributions from CEO involved in the suit

WASHINGTON
Ethics issues garnered attention amid all three branches of the U.S. government last week, according to press reports. Among the stories:

• President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team released its ethics code, with transition chief John Podesta promising the “strictest, most far-reaching ethics rules of any transition in history.” According to the Hill, a newspaper covering Congress, Podesta says federal lobbyists, corporations, and political action committees will be barred from contributing to the transition, and lobbyists who work on the transition team will be prohibited from lobbying while they are consulting on the transition. The changeover is expected to employ about 450 people, and while Congress has appropriated $5.2 million for the team, the transition has an estimated budget of $12 million, which will have to be raised via contributions from individuals, the Hill reports.
• New York Democratic congressman Charles Rangel has hired an accounting firm to probe his finances as he attempts to clear his name in the wake of ethics charges. Rangel, who heads the powerful Congressional Ways and Means Committee — which, among other functions, writes tax law — has been under investigation for allegedly failing to report $75,000 in rental income from a beach house he owns, reports New York cable news network NY1. The accounting firm will issue a report to the House Ethics Committee. Rangel has denied any wrongdoing.
• The U.S. Supreme Court will consider banning judges from hearing cases that involve their top campaign contributors. Bloomberg reports that the case involves a West Virginia State Supreme Court justice who participated in rulings that were favorable to a firm headed by an executive who donated $2.5 million to organizations that campaigned for the judge. The judge in question had refused to recuse himself. According to the Bloomberg report, the Supreme Court never has ruled that the Constitution’s due process clause requires recusal when an appearance of conflict of interest is created because of campaign contributions.

Sources: Hill, Nov. 11 — NY1, Nov. 14 — Bloomberg, Nov. 14.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Nov. 10 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 10 — Related Newsline Commentary, Nov. 3 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 29 — Related Newsline story, May 29.

In Texas, a professor is fired after naming and shaming alleged plagiarists; in England, an online poll shows about half of Cambridge students admit copying others’ work; a plagiarism suit is dismissed in France

VARIOUS DATELINES
Stories spanning a range of issues involving intellectual and academic honesty made headlines last week. Among the coverage:

• An adjunct professor at Texas A&M International University was fired after attempting to publicly humiliate students he accused of plagiarism. Inside Higher Ed reports that Loye Young had warned in his syllabus, “No form of dishonesty is acceptable. I will promptly and publicly fail and humiliate anyone caught lying, cheating, or stealing. That includes academic dishonesty, copyright violations, software piracy, or any other form of dishonesty.” When he said he caught six students cheating in his management information systems class, Young wrote about it on his course blog, naming the students and saying they would each receive an F. When university administrators found out, they put the F grades on hold and fired Young, saying he violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which prohibits most disclosures of student records without permission. According to Inside Higher Ed, Young claims the use of the regulation to fire him is a smokescreen to cover the real reason for his dismissal, which he says was his unwillingness to keep quiet about academic dishonesty.
• An anonymous online poll of more than a thousand students at Britain’s Cambridge University found 49 percent admitting that they have passed someone else’s work off as their own at some point in their academic career. Only 6 percent said they had been caught plagiarizing, according to the Times of London, which notes that the issue of plagiarism has been contentious on U.K. campuses, with academics accusing their peers of turning a blind eye to the practice. The poll was conducted by the Varsity student newspaper.
• A French writer lost her plagiarism suit against the makers of the George Clooney film “Syriana,” with a court in Paris ruling that an author “cannot claim a monopoly on facts of history or current affairs or on political ideas.” The Agence France-Presse reports that Stephanie Vergniault had claimed the producers copied a script she wrote that incorporated some of the same themes as the Oscar-winning geopolitical thriller. The producers deny copying any part of the script, noting production of the film was well under way before Vergniault’s script was copyrighted.

Sources: Inside Higher Ed, Nov. 13 — Times of London, Oct. 3 — AFP, Nov. 13.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 31 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 10 — Related Newsline Commentary, Feb. 25 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 31, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 10, 2007.

Also, press reports say Dallas public schools have been caught doing the wrong thing for the right reason — trying to get new employees paid more quickly by issuing phony Social Security numbers

VARIOUS DATELINES
Education and ethics crossed paths in several stories this week. Among the headlines:

• Bake sales have become the latest casualty in the battle over whether schools should manage the quality of food that students eat on campus. California’s tough new nutritional standard for public schools have made the staple of fundraising pretty much a thing of the past, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. State guidelines dictate that any food sold on campus during the school day meet certain guidelines as to fat and caloric content — rules that eliminate most bake-sale fare. Some parents told the Chronicle that the restrictions are draconian and put a significant dent in a proven fundraising strategy — a problem in times of financial crisis. Advocates counter that the goal of the recently enacted legislation is simply to protect students and stem obesity, and that schools had set themselves up for this situation by becoming dependent on a fundraising tactic that was inherently bad for children.
• The head of the school system in Washington, D.C., is taking on the cherished system of teacher tenure, arguing that it hurts children by making it difficult to fire incompetent instructors. The New York Times reports that chancellor Michelle Rhee has proposed raises of as much as $40,000 per year, financed by private foundations, for teachers willing to give up their tenure. The Washington Teachers’ Union is divided over the proposal, but according to the Times, many union members say tenure is a critical protection against arbitrary termination. Rhee counters that tenure is “the holy grail of teacher unions,” telling the Times that it “has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults.”
• The Dallas public school system provided foreign citizens with fake social security numbers to get them on the payroll quickly, according to an internal investigation by the system. The Dallas Morning News reports that the practice continued for years and ended only this summer. School officials say that while providing bogus numbers was “inappropriate,” it was done only to get foreign nationals who were in alternative licensing program onto the payroll quickly. The Morning News says the district has hired employees from various countries, including Mexico and Spain, to help stem a shortage of bilingual teachers.

Sources: Dallas Morning News, Nov. 14 — New York Times, Nov. 14 — San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 13.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Oct. 20 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 15 — Related Newsline story, June 9 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 31 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 31, 2007.