Beijing Olympics: Media can't ignore the elephant in the room

Demonstration of Tibetans and Uyghurs in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin against the Olympic Games in Beijing 2022. (PHOTO CREDIT: C.Suthorn / cc-by-sa-4.0 / commons.wikimedia.org)

The pageantry and inspiring athletic accomplishments of the Winter Olympics in Beijing, China, will captivate many of us for the next two weeks.

It will be easy to forget that outside the TV cameras’ frame, the host country is abusing and killing some of its people.

Human rights groups around the world have called on countries, companies and media to boycott the Beijing Games in protest of an array of documented oppression by the Chinese government, primarily the forced detention and labor of Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang region. These groups and the United States, which announced a boycott by diplomats, say China is committing genocide.

But a little genocide isn’t enough to keep corporate sponsors and NBC away when China is such a huge potential economic market and the Olympics are a TV ratings magnet. NBC has paid $7.75 billion to broadcast Olympics through 2032, so it’s going to carry forth. (Many of its announcers and crew will work from the U.S. but that’s because of COVID, not because of crimes against humanity.)

The issue is whether broadcasting endless hours of sports competitions serves to whitewash – or “sportwash” – the image of a country that’s committing atrocities. My department colleague, Dr. Andrew Billings, who has done extensive research on media coverage of Olympics, says such coverage traditionally avoids hard-news issues like this one, and lack of discussion could be considered “tacit condoning” of a host nation’s policies.

The head of NBC Olympics Production said the network will include the “geopolitical context” of the Beijing Games in its coverage, but that the focus will remain on the athletes. Billings said he anticipates NBC will report on China’s human rights violations during pre-competition coverage and as part of its normal news programs. “This might sound like a cop-out, but NBC likely knows that the people who tune in each night do so to watch the Olympic competitions as a form of escapism.”

He thinks it was unrealistic of protesters to expect a boycott by the network. “I completely understand why NBC would opt to show the Games and seek ways to highlight China’s problematic policies in a way that educates on air instead of via a highly costly media boycott.”

Journalists from NBC or any other news organization who want to report on the realities face a related question of how much they can actually do so. China promised press freedom at the Beijing Olympics in 2008, but it didn’t happen. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Foreign Correspondents Club of China reported at least 30 cases of Chinese officials interfering with journalists during the Games, including assaults by police.

In 2022, China has again promised no restrictions but early indicators aren’t good. According to CPJ, international press have been barred from news conferences and competition venues in favor of more friendly domestic press. Further, the government, citing COVID, will confine journalists to the Olympic Village. No travel around the country for the chance to talk to the Chinese people.

The government also tightly controls the internet in its country. It has pledged an unrestricted internet during the Olympics but CPJ nonetheless advises journalists to “assume your devices and online activity will be monitored.”

None of this is surprising from the country that annually jails more journalists than any other country in the world.

The larger question is why Olympic Games take place in repressive countries in the first place. China isn’t the only example (see Sochi, Russia, 2014). One reason is the International Olympic Committee, to its discredit, has always separated sports and politics.

Second, abusive countries see the Olympics as a chance to cleanse themselves in the eyes of the world. Meanwhile, many democratic countries and large cities get spooked by public opposition to the enormous cost of hosting, which is rarely offset by revenue or economic development. Beijing, for instance, beat out only one other bidder, Almaty in Kazakhstan, another problematic nation.

Billings points out that we get to go through these issues of complicity again later this year. The FIFA World Cup begins in November in Qatar.

Not falling for phony news takes a lot of darn work

UMM, this didn’t happen. it went viral on social media, but it’s fake, like many other photos and news reports. some of those news reports, of course, carry far more dire consequences than this did.

This week is National News Literacy Week. In light of the rampant spread of false information these days, this seems humorously futile. What’s next? Courteous Driving Week? Brussels Sprouts Appreciation Week?

News literacy, sometimes called media literacy, means that audiences, not just news organizations and platforms, carry responsibility for stopping distribution of misinformation and disinformation that arise from social media and substandard professional news outlets. (Misinformation means unintentional wrong information; disinformation means wrong information created or shared intentionally to cause mischief, advance a political agenda or make money.) This audience obligation entails evaluating the credibility of statements before choosing to believe them and share them.

Considering the avalanche of information that news consumers receive these days, along with some people’s desire to believe anything that reinforces preconceived notions while rejecting everything else, this expectation of literacy among readers and viewers seems unrealistic. A 2019 Stanford University study found young people especially unprepared to evaluate online content.

Lack of literacy can lead to people looking foolish. No, a raccoon did not go for a ride on the back of an alligator. More consequentially, though, it can reinforce political division. No, Democrats aren’t fronting a pedophile ring. And sometimes it leads to people endangering themselves and others. No, COVID vaccines don’t have microchips in them. 

Even the non-gullible among us – and sometimes we’re all gullible – need to keep constant vigilance. Here’s some advice on how to make yourself more news literate.

a typical website rating by mediabiasfactcheck.com, this one of the site renewedright.com, which was rated “questionable.”

• Use multiple, credible news sources. Credibility, or believability, develops over time as a news source establishes a track record of accuracy. But a familiar brand is not necessarily a credible brand. Bias affects many well-known outlets. Fox News’ prime time talk shows, which are opinion shows masquerading as news shows, are especially bad. But there are others.

• When getting news from social media, try to identify the originating source of the information. Remember that social popularity does not equate to truth. It’s often the opposite, in fact.

• If you’re on an unfamiliar website, or an unfamiliar website is the origin of a social media post, look for clues to the reliability of the site. Click the “About” tab. A political or business affiliation or funding source could mean the site has an agenda and can’t be trusted. Be suspicious of sites that don’t list staff names or contact information. Same goes if you see misspellings and poor grammar. Remember also that on some sites, everything is spoof or satire, presented to look as if it isn’t.

• You don’t have to be a detective if you don’t wish. Several online services created to combat disinformation rate news sites on degree of adherence to principles of good journalism. Check out newsguardtech.com, or mediabiasfactcheck.com, or verificationhandbook.com.

• If you want to check the truth of a particular report on a website or social media platform, do an online search with keywords and see what other news outlets, if any, are reporting the same thing. You also can use sites whose sole purpose is to confirm or debunk particular stories. Check what you’re reading with factcheck.org, or politifact.com, or snopes.com, among others.

• Run an online search on the bylined reporter if the name is unfamiliar. What’s their bio? What else have they written?

• Many news stories rely on polls, surveys and other research. Identify who compiled the data and run an online background search.

• Technology allows for hard-to-detect manipulation of photos and videos, and often images are presented as representing something they don’t. Check video and photo authenticity by doing a “reverse search” online. Use Google’s Reverse Image Search or tineye.com.

• Stop giving automatic credence to the reported statements of authority figures such as politicians. These days, many of them will say anything if they think it will win them votes. 

Looking at all this great advice, I think it’s obvious: This is more than any of us wants or has time to do. And that’s a big part of the problem. The purveyors of disinformation count on us not to do it.

The famous case of the free press and the atomic bomb

A New York state judge’s order last month prohibiting The New York Times from publishing memos written by a lawyer for the political spying organization Project Veritas blatantly violates the First Amendment. But not every court case seeking to dictate press publishing decisions is as laughably wrong as this one.

Take, for instance, the case in which publication might have meant the end of mankind. True story.

In 1979, The Progressive, a politically liberal magazine based in Wisconsin that still exists today, planned to publish an article detailing how a hydrogen bomb works. The U.S. government went to court to try to prevent publication. It’s a notable case in the legal history of prior restraint.

Prior restraint refers to government action – a law or a court order, for examples – that blocks publication or broadcast before it happens. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1931 that prior restraint infringes on the First Amendment right of freedom of the press when it struck down a Minnesota law that prohibited publication of “malicious, scandalous or defamatory” information. However, the court left open the possibility that prior restraint could be warranted in cases of obscenity, incitement to riot, or sensitive military details such as number and location of troops.

In the most famous prior restraint case, in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not stop The New York Times and The Washington Post from printing the so-called Pentagon Papers, a classified government report on U.S. decision making about the Vietnam War prior to 1968. The report, leaked by a former Pentagon contractor and war opponent named Daniel Ellsberg, showed that the government had made deceptive public pronouncements about the war’s progress.

The government argued unsuccessfully that disclosure of the report threatened national security, jeopardized lives of military and intelligence personnel, and could be prevented under the exception identified in the 1931 case. The Supreme Court ruled that prior restraint is unconstitutional unless it’s needed to prevent an immediate, inevitable and grave threat to national security. Disclosure of the Pentagon Papers did not pose such a threat, the court ruled.

The Progressive case eight years later was potentially more explosive. (Oh. Sorry. Wince!)

The government argued that the mechanics of the hydrogen bomb was classified information and that disclosure would aid foreign countries that wanted their own H-bombs. It also argued that a court could block the magazine article under the narrow national security exception carved out in previous Supreme Court decisions.

The magazine, with a track record of alarm over nuclear proliferation, countered that such details were essential to public debate about the issue. It also claimed it had obtained all its information from interviews with scientists and publicly available information. And it disputed that a foreign enemy with the resources to build a bomb would learn anything new from a magazine article.

The national media were divided over The Progressive’s intended action. According to an article by Belinda J. Scrimenti in the Ohio State Law Review, the Saturday Review wrote that publication would be “a crime against humanity.”

Because of the established presumption that prior restraint is unconstitutional, the case’s burden of proof fell on the government. Nonetheless, the judge sided with the government and blocked the article. "I want to think a long, hard time before I'd give a hydrogen bomb to (Uganda’s terrorist dictator) Idi Amin,” Judge Robert Warren said.

He also made some mistakes, such as concluding that the story did include classified information unavailable elsewhere and that the story presented “the recipe for a do-it-yourself hydrogen bomb.” Alarmingly, he stated that he saw "no plausible reason why the public needs to know the technical details about hydrogen bomb construction to carry on an informed debate.” (This is similar to another judge who thinks he’s an editor: The judge in the current Project Veritas case stated that communications between a client and a lawyer “simply cannot be a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.”)

 The Progressive appealed. During the appeal, the Madison (Wisconsin) Press Connection published a story containing essentially the same information (and showing that it was obtainable in the public domain). According to a 2019 retrospective article in The Progressive, the Press Connection worked overnight to produce a special edition off its normal publication schedule so that the government didn’t have time to try to stop the story.

In the wake of this, the Justice Department dropped its legal fight. The case over whether to mute had become moot. (Oh. Sorry. Grimace!)

After six months of prior restraint, in October 1979, The Progressive published “The H-bomb secret: How we got it and why we’re telling it.” Idi Amin never did drop a hydrogen bomb.

Prior restraint, thankfully, remains extremely difficult for the U.S. government to achieve. But not impossible. Narrow permissible circumstances remain in Supreme Court precedents. And the ruling in The Progressive case, although not very influential because it was merely a state district court judge, remains unreversed.

As judicial appointments and elections in the U.S. become more politicized, and the media increasingly get disrespected by politicians and segments of the public, the danger of prior restraint remains. Even if the fate of the human race doesn’t hang in the balance.

One news media bias that isn't debatable

screenshot from website ourblackgirls.com

The innocent, young, attractive, white woman was missing, and presumably dead, the victim of homicide. Local and national media pounded the story with daily coverage.

This is, of course, the case of Gabby Petito.

And Mollie Tibbetts. And Natalee Holloway. And Chandra Levy. And others.

The equivalent case of a missing Black woman? Couldn’t find one.

HBO is currently showing a documentary series called “Black and Missing.” It features the founders of the Black and Missing Foundation, and makes the basic point that news media and law enforcement pay more attention to missing white people, especially females, than to missing Black people. Sociologists and media often call this Missing White Woman Syndrome.

Research supports this claim. In a 2016 study, a researcher at Northwestern University examined the racial and gender breakdowns within FBI data on missing persons and compared them to representation in news coverage by several media websites. The researcher found significant disproportionality not only in which cases got any coverage at all, but also in “intensity” of coverage. “Missing White Woman Syndrome is a real, empirical phenomenon,” he concluded.

This produces harmful effects. Primarily, it diminishes the value of Black lives and dismisses the anguish of Black families with loved ones who have disappeared. At the same time, it makes young, white women think they are in more potential danger than they actually are based on numbers. There are practical effects, too. No or less media attention means fewer case-related tips from the public and less pressure on law enforcement to devote resources to a case.

Guilty media can claim they’re merely reflecting degree of interest among the public. “Any story that captivates the nation and our readers like this one is front-page worthy,” a spokeswoman for The New York Post said about its prominent and relentless coverage of the Petito case. Of course, like a lot of traditional media and their traditional audience, this is actually a measurement of interest among the white public.

Multiple factors create Missing White Woman Syndrome. Certainly, one of them is a conscious prejudice within some people who attach more social worth to a white life than to a Black life, to a female than to a male, to youth than to age, to the affluent than to the poor, and to physical attractiveness than to plainness. 

SCREENSHOT OF A TWEET DURING Gabby Petito SEARCH. CHO’S BODY HAS SINCE BEEN FOUND.

I’d like to think (but don’t) that this prejudice plays no role in any newsroom’s judgments about missing persons. I believe the main reason the news media go astray is their harmful stereotyping of Black communities – specifically, that crime, runaways and other forms of social dysfunction are so common in these communities that, well, a missing Black person is par for the course and not newsworthy. But when white privilege and other social advantages fail to protect a young, beautiful, white woman, the media see that as a really big deal.

An additional reason the media perpetuate disparities is that they take a lot of cues from social media. And social media – users and companies – love a certain type of female. (My department colleague, Dr. Jess Maddox, pointed this out when UA’s sorority rush exploded on TikTok this year.)

As the Petito case went nationwide, news media published a rash of self-criticism about Missing White Woman Syndrome. Commendable but insufficient for absolution. The real question is whether and how coverage changes.

Because of its glaring distorted prominence, the Petito frenzy did guilt newsrooms and social media posters into spreading word about missing people of other demographics. And some national news media are trying to help beyond the short term. NBC News has a webpage called “Missing in America,” and NexStar’s NewsNation recently started a webpage by the same name. Both show diversity.

But the challenge remains for local news organizations to ensure that in a time of diminished resources and weakened community connections, they are paying attention to all demographics within their locality (a point that, come to think of it, applies to more than just missing person cases). And the challenge remains for national news outlets to make news judgments that are smarter and more ethical than simply parroting the metrics of social media.

After mass shootings, public safety and good journalism collide

In the aftermath of the fatal shootings at Oxford (Michigan) High School last week, CNN’s Anderson Cooper continued his practice of recent years of not reporting the name of the shooter. This is becoming an increasingly popular editorial decision among news media.

The main reason for this is that, according to research and anecdotal evidence, most mass shooters commit their acts in large part to gain notoriety. Further, there’s evidence that fame for one mass shooter can motivate future ones.

partial screenshot from the homepage of nonotoriety.com

One of the frequent voices on this point is Dr. Adam Lankford, a professor and researcher in the University of Alabama’s Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. “A lot of these shooters want to be treated like celebrities,” he told The Associated Press in 2019. “They want to be famous. So the key is to not give them that treatment.”

Increasingly, law enforcement officers at press conferences, such as the prosecutor in Oakland County, Michigan, are limiting their mentions of suspect names to once or not at all. Online organizations, such as No Notoriety and Don’t Name Them, have joined the effort to persuade media to voluntarily eliminate or rein in the attention given to perpetrators in favor of more attention to victims. No Notoriety was started by the parents of a victim of the 2012 theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado.

I’ve also noticed that this issue is chosen as an assignment topic by at least one of my Ethics students every semester. I believe every single one of them concluded that the media should stop identifying mass killers. The only exception would be if police need help from the public in locating a suspect who isn’t in custody.

No one wants to play even a tiny, indirect role in causing a mass shooting, obviously. The hitch is, not identifying the person responsible for a major crime runs counter to the fundamental principle that journalists should tell a complete story. Some readers and viewers might understand, but most would feel deprived and frustrated.

There is a presumption that telling a complete story should serve a public benefit that outweighs the potential for harm. In the case of mass shootings, I see a clear benefit not only to identification but also to factual, non-sensationalized, non-glorifying profiles.

logo from dontnamethem.org

When the public, especially the local community where the crime took place, has a name, it’s easier for law enforcement and news media to piece together preceding events and for information about the killer’s past and possible motive to emerge. This sheds light on the crucial question of whether warning signs were missed by family, friends, teachers, whomever. Perhaps with the next dangerous person, the warning signs will be spotted early enough.

Disclosure also helps to answer the equally crucial question of whether the system could have but didn’t prevent the crime. By “system,” I mean any number of possible failures: Courts or law enforcement officers or parole boards or social workers or school administrators who had interactions and could have made some different decision that would have altered circumstances. I very much include gun control laws, or lack thereof, as part of the system.

Despite the benefits of complete reporting, the news media still can and should avoid certain practices that offer much less public service but great potential to contribute to future tragedy.

• The news media should not publish or broadcast the name excessively, preferably doing so beyond the first news cycle only if there’s a notable news development in the investigation or adjudication of the case. 

• The news media should not publish shallow, rapidly done, “normalizing” profiles based on interviews with acquaintances who are, of course, always shocked. It is better to dig deep into potential motive and life events that brought the killer to this point. Focus on the lessons that society needs to hear.

• They should not publish photos that glorify or redeem the shooter. No poses with weapons. No angel shots. (Have you seen the offensive choir boy photo of the Oxford killer? Geez.) Restrain frequency and prominence of photos.

• No verbatim publication of social media rants or manifestos. If they are insightful into a warped mind, summarize.

• No detailed methodology that could give a potential copycat a new idea.

• No more rankings of deadliest shootings. Again, geez. It’s not a contest, but a potential copycat might think it is.

• And don’t give more attention over time to the bad guy than to the victims. We always need to know what we’ve lost. Because maybe we’ll care enough to do something about it.

This is all good advice, in my view (and I am certainly not the first person to offer guidelines in this vein).

But don’t deprive us of a name.

“A lot of these shooters want to be treated like celebrities. They want to be famous.”

— UA Professor Dr. Adam Lankford, to The Associated Press

Sin and confession: Newsrooms revisit some major failures

The Washington Post on Nov. 12 took the highly unusual step of overhauling two articles that had been posted on its website since 2017 and 2019, respectively. Recent events had suddenly called into question the accuracy of the articles, which reported on the identity of a confidential source who supposedly contributed salacious information about Donald Trump that was contained in the infamous and since discredited “Steele dossier.” The Post removed large portions of the articles, changed the headlines, removed a companion video, and appended editor’s notes. About a dozen other, related stories were corrected, as well. The Post’s editor offered public explanations on various platforms.

This got me to thinking about previous famous situations in which a news organization belatedly found fault with its coverage of a high-profile subject and decided it needed to take corrective action. I’m not thinking about individual stories that proved faulty – though there are many – nor am I thinking about discoveries of plagiarism and fabrication committed by reporters (Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Jonah Lehrer, Jack Kelly, Mike Barnicle -- shall I stop now?)  

Rather, I have in mind organizations that took a retrospective look at months or even years of stories on a subject and found overall coverage to be flawed if not disgraceful, leading to publication of an honest self-assessment or apology. Here are just some: 

• In 1990, The New York Times asked one of its writers to revisit the work of Walter Duranty, the Times’ Moscow correspondent from 1922 to 1936. Duranty was an apologist for Joseph Stalin, and essentially ignored a Ukrainian famine that killed millions in 1930-31. Yet he won a Pulitzer Prize in 1934. The writer concluded that Duranty produced “some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper. … Having bet his reputation on Stalin, he strove to preserve it by ignoring or excusing Stalin's crimes. He saw what he wanted to see.”

•  In 2004, the Times admitted to significant failures in its coverage leading up to the war in Iraq during the George W. Bush administration. Many reported facts in support of a war were untrue, and the Times faulted multiple reporters’ overreliance on non-credible information from “Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on 'regime change’ in Iraq.” The editors wrote, “Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged – or failed to emerge.”

• The Washington Post’s media critic wrote a similar piece about the war in 2004, framing the problem as lack of prominence for stories with dissenting voices. It quoted then assistant managing editor Bob Woodward: "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this (war) was shakier" than commonly understood. "Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page."

Perhaps no subject is more suited for media self reflection than reporting on race and the civil rights movement. 

• In 2004, The Lexington Herald-Leader published a front-page editor’s note that would almost be funny if it weren’t so unfunny: "It has come to the editor's attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission." The newspaper wasn’t being flippant. It also published a collection of articles examining past coverage of local civil rights activities, which were usually ignored or relegated to the back pages.  According to a Washington Post story, news about the Lexington Black community appeared mainly in a column called “Colored Notes” written by the newsroom’s only Black employee. (My former employer, The Birmingham News, engaged in this same approach to coverage during this era. It acknowledged its failings in print in 1988.) 

• Much more recently, in April 2018, the editorial board of The Montgomery Advertiser published “Our shame: The sins of our past laid bare for all to see.” It wrote: “The Advertiser was careless in how it covered mob violence and the terror foisted upon African-Americans from Reconstruction through the 1950s. We dehumanized human beings. Too often we characterized lynching victims as guilty before proven so and often assumed they committed the crime.” The paper heard from some readers “who wish we would leave the past in the past. We can’t do that.” 

• The Kansas City Star researched its archives back to its founding in 1880 and compared its coverage to local Black-owned media. It published an apology in December 2020. The Star “disenfranchised, ignored and scorned generations of Black Kansas Citians. It reinforced Jim Crow laws and redlining. Decade after early decade it robbed an entire community of opportunity, dignity, justice and recognition.”

These mea culpas are painful. But ethical news media do them when necessary. It’s not mere public relations. It’s accountability to the public, even if it’s late, even if damage can’t be undone. 

The next question, of course, is what coverage is happening now that will someday be the focus of yet more regretful confessions. Preferably, the news media will do enough immediate self-examination to render them unnecessary. 

Staring death in the face -- voluntarily

Note: This post discusses the death penalty and media witnesses. Some readers may find certain details disturbing. I think they’re warranted for the topic.

controversy over an execution in oklahoma on thursday showed the need for media witnesses. that’s plural.

Reporters witness more death than they want to, be it war, disaster, disease, crime or accidents. It’s a whole different jolt to the conscience, though, when a death is scheduled and government sanctioned.

Members of the media are standard witnesses whenever a state – at least in this country – carries out a death penalty. This was in the headlines in Alabama 10 days ago when state news organizations unsuccessfully protested a decision by the state Department of Corrections to allow only one media witness to the lethal injection of an inmate. The DOC cited pandemic safety measures.

The media’s interest in attending such events in numbers isn’t because they want a sensationalistic headline. Rather, it’s a watchdog role. “We are there to observe and report on the most powerful thing the state can do to a person,” said Kent Faulk, the managing producer for state news for the Alabama Media Group and a former colleague of mine. “We need to make sure they are held accountable, doing things the way they are supposed to.”

Why can’t just one reporter do that? Faulk knows. He’s covered seven executions – six by injection of drugs and one by electrocution in 1989. The steps of an execution happen rapidly, and full reporting requires observing the actions of the inmate, the prison officials and the families gathered. Recording is not allowed. One reporter might miss a moment that matters. Sometimes, Faulk said, reporters confer to confirm the sequence of moments, precise times and even the inmate’s exact last words.

The value of multiple reporters increases when executions seem not to happen as they should. Faulk witnessed that in 2016 when a convict heaved, gasped and coughed for 13 minutes as an initial drug failed to render him unconscious. On Thursday in Oklahoma, an inmate receiving deadly drugs including the same initial drug as in the 2016 Alabama case, died after vomiting and convulsing. The Oklahoma DOC claimed the killing occurred “without complication” and challenged the accounts of the five reporters present. Not a tough choice of which side to believe.

With or without complications, death penalties can puncture the stoic detachment expected of journalists as they do their jobs. Faulk recalls one first-time media witness who almost passed out. He remembers two others on different occasions who had traveled to the Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore and were in the media center but decided they didn’t want to go to the death chamber. Their editors weren’t pleased, Faulk said.

Photo by tamika moore

“They didn’t think they could take it, watching a person die,” he said. “I understand their reasoning. The down and dirty reporter says ‘you got to toughen up.’ But this is different. This is watching a living person die. ... Reporters are human beings too.  It’s one of the worst things you can ever witness.”

Faulk’s first assignment to see an execution, the midnight electrocution 32 years ago, remains vivid today. “I still remember the scared look on the inmate’s face. … I didn’t get to sleep that night.” But he doesn’t think he’s been psychologically affected by witnessing seven executions (a relatively small number compared to some reporters).

“It’s one of the worst things you can ever witness.”

— AL.com managing producer Kent Faulk

In fact, he said he’d want to observe a future execution if the state uses the new method of nitrogen hypoxia. By observing all the methods the state has used over the years, “I feel like my perspective might be good” in discussing issues of effectiveness and humaneness. The state hasn’t used electrocution in 20 years, though in 2015 the Legislature discussed a possible return to that method because of limited availability of suitable drugs.

Journalists certainly fall on both sides of the death penalty morality issue (a question that Faulk understandably declined to address). But I think the executions to which journalists bear witness can cause problems of conscience regardless of one’s moral view. That’s because it is the nature of many journalists to look skeptically at systems of authority and to feel alarm over extreme uses of power. If I were a witness (I haven’t been), some part of the disquieting psychological aftermath would come from wondering if a fallible justice system had condemned an innocent person.

Sources should be sources, not editors

I’d have posted this sooner but I was waiting on Adam Schefter to edit it.

adam schefter of espn

Schefter, a National Football League “Insider” reporter for ESPN, became a target of widespread derision within the journalism community this week when the LA Times reported that Schefter sent an entire draft of a pending news story about NFL collective bargaining to a key source for review. It happened 10 years ago, but is in the news now because Schefter’s action was revealed in emails that are part of current court litigation involving the key source.

I would try to give Schefter the benefit of the doubt by suggesting he merely wanted to ensure the accuracy of a complicated story. But one email blows that defense to smithereens. The reporter didn’t just ask if anything was factually wrong with the parts of the story that came from the source. Instead, the reporter wrote: “Please let me know if you see anything (in the entire story) that should be added, changed, tweaked.” Then came the coup de grace of professional embarrassment as Schefter referred to the source as “Mr. Editor.”

Schefter, who eventually apologized publicly for what he claimed was a rare practice by him, still insisted that he had not surrendered editorial control over the story to the source. But in fact, he did exactly that. Editorial independence is a journalism foundation, and to cede that to an involved source who probably has a particular agenda is fundamentally unethical.

But let’s complicate the subject.

What if Schefter had shared the whole story but with an email that said, “Story is done and won’t be changed. This is what we’re publishing”? This is a gray area suddenly. For me, this is still a no-no because, especially with negative stories, this can trigger a pre-publication blitz of angry calls to bosses, legal threats and other kinds of political pressure from targets.

Yet sometimes sharing at least some portion of a pending article is the right thing to do. For instance, if persistent efforts to get a target of criticism to respond to specifically stated questions have failed, sharing the article can be a legitimate last resort to elicit response, a move that places the virtues of balance and fairness above the good practice of keeping pending work close to the vest.

Also, it is quite common, actually, for journalists to review pieces of stories and interviews with the sources who provided those pieces to help ensure accuracy and clarity. This may be the case especially if a journalist who is a generalist rather than a specialist is reporting on a complicated topic. I’ve read some stories about, say, science or technology or cryptocurrency for which, if I were the reporter, I’d be highly tempted to do exactly what Schefter did.

But in the end, you shouldn’t.

I can’t help but wonder if Schefter lets key sources have such a full understanding of what he’s writing – if not behind-the-scenes control – that they feel more comfortable giving him insider scoops. Could be part of the secret to his success.

That brings up my last question: If you are going to do it, which sources are the ones who get the pre-publication review and potential influence? In the current case, it was the president of an NFL team, as opposed to, say, a player union rep. I think that’s significant. Mainstream, establishment media are more likely to give credence to, or defer to, sources with titles and power. That’s troubling, too.

In a disaster, media heroism (aka craziness) has its limits

Jack Royer of cbs 42

When a natural disaster strikes a community, residents go to shelter. Public safety workers and journalists go to work.

News organizations usually prioritize the safety of reporters in the field during such events. Often, it’s the reporters who will push the limits on safety in order to deliver vital news to the public. Ethical managers talk them out of it.

But there’s no shortage of instances of reporters subjecting themselves to the brutality of nature to report a weather story. Their aim is to show the public the truth about the conditions. Their critics call it reckless showboating. 

Several media groups offer published guidelines for keeping journalists safe. The Radio Television Digital News Association, for instance, states: “Journalists should keep in mind that their personal safety comes first. Managers should ask if live coverage in the path of a hurricane or wildfire presents a clear danger to staff, equipment and the public. What’s the value of putting your staff in harm’s way in order to show that yes, the wind is blowing?”

Hurricane Ida was the latest example of journalists braving the elements to help keep their communities informed and safe, while at the same time not doing anything that’s dangerous or nuts. Well, let’s amend that to just dangerous. Because getting drenched in a torrent and staggering around in the wind is nuts.

Jack Royer isn’t nuts but he did that during Ida. Royer, an anchor and reporter for CBS 42 in Birmingham and a 2018 University of Alabama grad, spent several days reporting from downtown New Orleans for his station, for Nexstar affiliates around the nation, and for Nexstar’s national cable news channel called NewsNation.

He’s primarily a morning news anchor for CBS 42 but considers himself a reporter first. He has asked for assignments like this one. “There is nothing better than being in the middle of a story like that,” he told me.

Royer, the son of longtime and highly respected Birmingham news anchor Mike Royer, said he never felt in danger. He and his crew did some outdoors standup reports, of course, but based themselves primarily in a protective parking deck.

“It only takes one piece of flying debris to remind you that Mother Nature is far more powerful than you are. … We were careful not to stand out in the open for very long.”

That wasn’t merely a safety consideration. “There is nothing that erodes trust in viewers faster than telling them to stay out of the storm but then going out in it yourself,” said Royer, who’s a veteran of tornado coverage, too.

Not to say there weren’t scary moments. On the streets, he and his team ran into floodwaters. All power and streetlights were out and their cellphones barely worked. “We were starting to think about what would happen if we ran out of gas,” he said. 

royer, with photojournalist WIL RAINES, reports from a parking deck in downtown New Orleans during hurricane ida

Research indicates that reporting on natural disasters takes not just a physical toll but a mental one as well. That comes from the long hours and stress of that kind of assignment and from the unavoidable effects of seeing devastation and suffering. In one particularly powerful moment, Royer is on camera talking about scenes he has witnessed, including the plight of some of the city’s homeless people. The emotion is obvious on his face and in his voice. He can’t look directly at the camera.

“The toughest part, in some sense, is the people who you can’t help. You see people without a home, pushing shopping carts, having a hard time pulling them. I don’t want to get emotional but it’s challenging when you see these poor people and you can’t help them and they are in the middle of a Category 4. What am I going to do? Roll down the window and say, ‘Hey, you shouldn’t be out here right now’? He has nowhere to go.”

I knew as far back as 2015 that Royer would be an excellent TV journalist, and I hadn’t even seen him on TV at that point. But I had listened to him, still in college, conduct a professional-grade phone interview in the WVUA 23 newsroom on campus. And that’s what matters. I’m sure some narrow-minded bosses of TV news care mostly what you look like and sound like on air, but legitimacy and success, even for anchors, come from knowing how to report and write, and from being able to draw on experiences like delivering needed news in the face of a hurricane.

Pay-for-say: Buying interviews is a bad idea

Paying for information is a much frowned-upon practice in journalism. Fortunately, it rarely happens.

billy liucci (RIGHT), co-owner of texags.com website, interviews texas A&M football player Isaiah spiller, FOR WHICH SPILLER RECEIVED $10,000 FROM A CORPORATE SPONSOR OF THE INTERVIEW.

Except, of course, when a media organization pays for a newsworthy photo or video.

Or for breaking news tips from sources (think TMZ paying police officers).

Or to cover a source’s pre-interview expenses.

Or for subject experts to appear regularly on shows.

Or for coaches and athletes to do weekly programs.

Or for event broadcast rights.

The latest incarnation is emerging in the world of sports, where college athletes can now make money from endorsements, appearances and interviews. Last month, websites that cover athletics at the University of Texas and Texas A&M arranged paid interviews with multiple high-profile athletes, including two A&M football players who received $10,000 each from a corporate sponsor.

News organizations have approached some student-athletes at the University of Alabama with proposed pay arrangements. This week, some prominent sports reporters are doing interviews with college athletes, including an Auburn University football player, that are sponsored by a new social media app. 

“Checkbook journalism” has been around forever. It may become more common. It’s a new option for college sports media, for whom interview access has become diminished and tightly controlled by universities. For sports or non-sports media, it offers a chance to land unique content in crowded markets characterized by content sameness, and to reclaim some relevance at a time when many newsmakers prefer to reach the audience directly through their own digital platforms.

But paying for interviews runs counter to the best practices and ethics of journalism for multiple reasons:

• The audience may conclude that an interviewee said what the interviewer wanted them to say, or embellished information to justify the money and entice other deals.

• Having a financial arrangement with a newsmaker is a conflict of interest, especially if the newsmaker is someone who will continue to make news. (Public officials aren’t a concern here because they can’t use their office for personal gain.)

• To enhance value, some deals might involve exclusivity, which would prevent other media from doing their own and perhaps better job of reporting on a story.

Paid interviews allowed by college athletes’ new right to earn money from their name, image and likeness (NIL) pose special potential problems. Some quasi-journalistic sports sites, such as the two team sites that paid the Texas athletes, might happily give the programs they cover a recruiting tool in the form of annual media deals.  (A deal can’t be offered to a specific high school prospect, but coaches can cite recurring deals as evidence that athletes will have NIL income potential if they enroll and negotiate agreements later.) Then comes the question of when a payment amount crosses from fair market value to poorly disguised excessive benefit.

Let’s acknowledge that paying for interviews sometimes may be the only way to bring a newsmaker to a forum for public accountability, and to get them to sit and confront hard questions. But for every interviewer who will do that, there’s another who will toss softballs for the sake of protecting the business relationship.

If pay-for-say does become more common, here are two good suggestions. First, disclose all compensation to the audience. Second, remember to write a contract clause that says if the interviewee provably lies, they give the money back.