Scandals require a focus on credibility

Sunday, March 28, 2004

EDITOR'S NOTE: Jeannine Guttman

American journalism took another blow to the head this past week after it was revealed that reporter Jack Kelley, a superstar international correspondent for USA Today, had made up a number of published stories and plagiarized many others.

Kelley no longer works at USA Today, the country's largest circulation daily. He resigned in January, but the newspaper just completed an exhaustive review of hundreds of his stories, spanning more than a decade of work. Many articles have been written about the Kelley incident. They follow the well-worn footpath blazed last year when it was revealed that Jayson Blair, a former New York Times reporter, plagiarized and added fiction to his published work.

This past week, I discussed the USA Today matter with our editors' group, using it as yet another reminder of the pitfalls that face journalism today. I also asked whether our profession is partly to blame for the spectacular fall of these national journalists. Is there something that we are doing - or failing to do - that caused these collapses?

Both these men were of marquee status, having made it to the top of the reporting ladder. For the vast majority of national reporters who have achieved this status, the spotlight is earned. And the speaking engagements and TV appearances that follow also have been earned.

For the Kelleys and Blairs of this world, however, staying at the top of the ladder is apparently harder than getting there. In their quests to hang on in that rarefied atmosphere, they turned to embellishing stories and stealing other people's work. They resorted to writing about events they had not witnessed, to reporting from places they hadn't been.

A couple of things strike me as similarities between Blair and Kelley. Both wrote for large, national newspapers. Both wrote from distant places; in Blair's case, the assignments were largely far-flung national locations. For Kelley, the assignments dotted the world.

The point is, neither operated from a local community, covering local stories for a local audience. If they had, the jig would have been up a long time ago because readers would have alerted the newspaper that something was wrong. Readers would have known that the reports didn't ring true.

Instead, the broad nature of their beats and the dispersed nature of their audiences helped mask the deceptions that were occurring. And it prevented editors from quickly seeing the malfeasance that was taking place.

This disconnection from readers is one factor. Another, I think, is the overall environment in which journalists work. Ours is a very competitive business. We compete for readers by providing accurate news coverage. We also compete by being first with that news. Sometimes those values conflict, and that is where newspapers and journalists can get trapped.

In the race to be first, our profession has become addicted to anonymous sources. We use leaked reports; we use information that a source is willing to give us, without the weight of his or her name. Sources use us, too, to float ideas or proposals without the sticky consequences of accountability.

More and more, especially on the national level, the use of anonymous sources is becoming the standard in the American press. This policy also becoming the press' crutch. We need to stop this rampant practice, even if it means getting the news a day or two late.

At our newspaper, we believe the most important factor in getting a news story is being accurate. Being first is a highly sought attribute, and we want to be as aggressive as possible. But if the choice comes down to being first or being correct, we will always go with the latter. No contest.

For that reason, we have a prohibition against the use of anonymous sources. Studies have shown that readers find anonymous sources less credible; many believe the reporter is making up the information. And, in the case of Kelley and Blair, anonymous sources and unnamed people were used as shields. At our newspaper, we will make an exception to the ban on anonymous sources, based upon the gravity of the story and only after determining that there is no other way to get that information. Each exception must be approved by the managing editor or editor and the identity of the source must be disclosed to top editors.

When it comes to national reports, however, the unfettered use of anonymous sources is still alive and well.

An example: On Wednesday night, Editorial Page Editor John Porter pulled a Cal Thomas op-ed column because it contained several paragraphs attributed to an anonymous source. Porter found this to be concerning. Much of what this anonymous person said about Richard Clarke and related issues had been said earlier by named White House and administration officials. It was unclear why Thomas didn't name the person, or didn't quote another person who would be named.

Porter and I discussed editing out the quotes, but that would have taken too much context and content out of the column. If one of our staffers had produced a piece such as this, we would not have run it. So we didn't run this one.

Instead, we turned to an Ellen Goodman column as a substitute. Seemed like a good plan. But within a few minutes, Porter called me back. That column also included a quote from an unnamed person. Here, the anonymous source was used to add color commentary. Goodman quoted an unnamed supporter talking about Melissa Ann Rowland, whose refusal to have a Caesarean section led her to be charged with murder in the death of her stillborn son. We took out that one unattributed quote and ran the column.

I use this to show how ingrained and knee-jerk the use of anonymous sources has become in journalism. I use it to show the actions editors must take to weed them out. As an industry, I think we need to develop stringent guidelines for our profession and then have the courage to stick to them.

Will it stop the Kelleys and Blairs? Not entirely. But it will help to restore our profession's credibility. It's a start. And it's something our profession needs to do now, in unison.

Much is at stake. The press serves the public, via reputable journalism. We serve the republic, via reputable journalism. It's no accident that press protections are built into the First Amendment. Our Founding Fathers saw a free and unbridled press as a safeguard against an unscrupulous and negligent government. They saw a free press as the key to a vibrant and robust democracy.

The press is the watchdog, providing citizens with a lens on government. If we do our jobs correctly, readers are well informed, they understand the issues of the day, they can fully participate in our democracy and keep it healthy and alive for future generations.

Today, we need to be a watchdog to our profession as well.

We need to say no to the unrestricted use of anonymous sources and unattributed quotes.

We need to fact-check more stories before publication, using staff researchers to help ensure the most accurate report possible. We need to regularly use accuracy surveys, sent to interviewees after stories have run, to get feedback about the coverage.

We need to put a higher premium on increasing circulation through journalism rooted in the core values of accuracy, fairness, objectivity and thoroughness.

We need to honor connections to communities. We need to salute newspapers that have done the hard work of developing and nurturing functional and ongoing ties to their readers.

And we need to acknowledge the important roles that readers play in helping a newspaper produce quality journalism. We aren't in this business alone.

This watchdog work will yield two important rewards: One is credibility. The other is readership. And both are priceless.

- Jeannine Guttman is editor and vice president of the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram.

Send e-mail to: jguttman@pressherald.com or write to 390 Congress St., Portland, Maine 04101.

To top of page