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.

Veteran policeman takes leave while department probes allegations he prevented transfer of his friend, a police academy drill instructor who was suspected of having an inappropriate relationship with a recruit

BOSTON
Boston’s second-ranking police commander is under investigation for allegedly pressuring the head of the city’s police academy to overlook inappropriate behavior by a drill instructor.

The Boston Globe reports that Robert Dunford took a leave of absence after allegations were raised that he intervened on behalf of a friend, drill instructor Paul Downey, who is suspected of having an inappropriate relationship with a female recruit.

Anonymous officials told the Globe that when the commander of the academy attempted to discipline the instructor, Dunford may have applied pressure to overlook the transgression and prevent the drill instructor from being transferred.

Boston Police Department commissioner Edward Davis confirmed the report of Dunford’s investigation, according to MSNBC and Boston television station WHDH.

Dunford has denied the accusations of cronyism as “categorically false,” reports the Boston Herald.

Sources: MSNBC, Nov. 15 — Boston Herald, Nov. 15 — Boston Globe, Nov. 14 — Boston Herald, Nov. 14 — WHDH, Nov. 14.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Oct. 20 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 22 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 4 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 25 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 4.

Writer changes tune after suffering email loss himself

TORONTO
While spam has emerged as a relatively clear-cut ethical villain in the world of technology, spam filters and the associated problem of disappearing messages have created a new moral dilemma: the “spam filter ate my homework” excuse.

Ivor Tossell, the weekly “Web” columnist for the Toronto Globe & Mail, discussed the question in a recent entry, writing: “The ‘lost’ e-mail, I have long believed, is the great white lie of the 21st century, the worthy successor to ‘your check is in the mail.’”

Tossell notes that while he long hadn’t believed most excuses about “lost” email, he recently encountered that very problem as critical emails — messages that were to confirm or arrange appointments — disappeared altogether or hid in spam inboxes.

He recounts a recent conversation with an editor who never received an emailed story — a story Tossell explained he “sent last night.”

“In the awkward pause that followed,” he writes in the Globe & Mail piece, I could only ponder the deadening sense that, in any other situation, I wouldn’t have believed me. Somewhere, karma did a little victory dance.”

His conclusion: “Now that I’ve seen it for myself, I believe it: Bombarded by every form of abuse, the e-mail infrastructure is starting to show cracks. It’s becoming unreliable. Spam accounts for well over 80 percent of all the e-mail on the Internet, as the arms race between spammers and the anti-spam industry drags ever on.”

Source: Globe & Mail, Nov. 11.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Oct. 1 — Related Newsline story, June 4 — Related Newsline story, May 5 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 12, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 23, 2006.

Gallup survey finds that “only 21 percent say it is applied too often”

From Gallup:

“Last week’s recommendation by a Maryland commission that the state’s death penalty law be repealed contrasts with broad U.S. public support for the punishment. According to Gallup’s annual Crime survey in October, 64% favor of Americans favor the death penalty for someone convicted of murder, while just 30% oppose it.

“In addition to the majority of Americans who support the death penalty, nearly half (48%) believe it is not imposed often enough. Only 21% of Americans say it is imposed too often, with a nearly equal number, 23%, saying it is imposed about the right amount of time.

“The death penalty is favored by most Republicans nationwide, but it also receives the general support of a solid majority of independents and more than half of Democrats.

“In its preliminary report — the final report will be issued next month — the Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment cited evidence that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to crime, and that it is racially biased in its application. Americans don’t share the same view on at least one of these arguments. The slight majority of Americans in the Oct. 3-5, 2008, poll — 54% — say they believe the death penalty is applied fairly in the country today — a rough indication that Americans don’t perceive bias to be a major problem with the death penalty system.

“On the other hand, previous Gallup research has found that most Americans believe the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. According to a May 2006 Gallup Poll, only 34% said it was a deterrent, while 64% disagreed. Open-ended questions asked in previous years have shown that most Americans who favor the death penalty do so because they believe it provides an ‘eye for an eye’ type of justice.

“Although the current 64% support for capital punishment is high, support is a bit lower than it has been at other times over the past decade….

“Over the years, Gallup has consistently found lower support for the death penalty when it is offered as an alternative to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. Most recently, in May 2006, Gallup found 47% naming the death penalty as the better penalty for murder, versus 48% preferring life imprisonment….

“While Americans generally agree that the death penalty is not a deterrent, and, as previous Gallup research has shown, widely acknowledge that some innocent people have been executed, most nevertheless support the death penalty as punishment for murder. The reason is very likely their concept of justice. According to a 2003 Gallup study, close to half of Americans who supported the death penalty cited some aspect of retribution for the crime as the reason….”

For the full press release from Gallup, Nov. 17, click here.

“Those who bear equally the burdens of government should equally participate of its benefits.”

– Thomas Jefferson (3rd U.S. president, 1743-1826)