CREDIBILITY IN QUESTION

April 2005
		Public trust in the news media has been shaken by several recent scandals and lapses of journalistic judgment. Two experts answer your questions about specific cases of journalistic misdemeanors and how the news organizations in general can improve their credibility. Special Report: Credibility in Question

Forum Introduction Have past administrations used pseudo-journalists, like Jeff Gannon, to help improve media coverage? Should reporters stick to reporting and leave the commentary to experts and analysts? Are journalists less aggressive than they should be with the Bush administration? Is it ethical for a working reporter to keep a blog? How do we know which writers are paid consultants and which are delivering personal or educated opinions? Did the 'real story' get lost in the fallout from the flawed 60 Minutes report on President Bush's National Guard Service? Is it ethical for media outlets to restrict what type of news they report? Are there conflicts of interest for federal employees who become reporters? Could the Fairness Doctrine become law and what impact it would have on the news? Does corporate ownership of a news provider taint coverage?	Margaret Green asks: How do we know which writers are paid consultants and which are delivering personal or educated opinions? How can we find out if this is isolated to the Republicans? Aren't many columnists and journalists to some degree revealing their personal bias and/or advocating the position of one special interest group or another? Jay Rosen responds: The issue is not being paid and having a point of view or position. It's being paid with taxpayer dollars for a point of view presented as independently arrived at. It's almost a kind of government secrecy, because it seems to be columnist Armstrong Williams talking but it may really be his contract with the Department of Education. That's corrupt and dangerous. Michael Getler responds: In most cases, we don't know unless the writer discloses it, which he or she should always do. We have recently seen some cases in which this had to be disclosed by the press. I'm sure we haven't seen the end of this. The recent cases have focused on a Republican administration and conservative columnists, but I'd be surprised if they cornered the market on this stuff. It is obviously fine to have strong opinions. But I think most people assume that commentators come to those views independently. But if there is government support in some fashion, even if the views are genuine and the work not specifically related to their role as columnists, it should be disclosed. Readers, viewers and listeners deserve that, even if they have no quarrel with it.