As every school kid supposedly learns, a basic protection of our system of justice is that judge, jury and prosecutor are separate processes and different people.

But what about investigative journalism, where a reporter(s) uncovers the dirt, pushes it to an official investigation and then covers the legal proceedings? Does the accused get a fair shake in the press?

The question is relevant to the N&O’s outstanding investigative journalism in the former Gov. Mike Easley affair. Lead reporter Andrew Curliss dogged the story for months. He pealed back layers of misstatement and coverup. His work shed light on what surely is a sordid chapter or North Carolina politics. He practiced textbook accountability journalism that resulted in the NC Board of Elections hearings last week.

Now the case is headed for the legal system. Should the same reporter that helped “indict” Easley be the one to cover the process that decides guilt or innocence?

It is a serious question, not only with the N&O, but with other investigative efforts as well.

Whether for a coveted journalism prize or just for newsroom bragging rights, the success of investigative journalism is judged by whether the subject of the investigation is brought before the bar of justice and, more importantly, found guilty. A verdict of not guilty pretty much discredits the news reporting that led up to it. Thus, the reporter has something of a vested interest in the case as it heads to court. At what point, should fresh eyes be given to the story?

Raising the question is not intended to discredit the ability of Curliss to cover the story. He is a fine reporter. His wrap-up article on Sunday put the story in context and reviewed the case against Easley.

Curliss obviously has a head full of facts that constitute an encyclopedia on the case. But Easley’s guilt or innocence will be decided on only what is presented to a judge (if a prosecutor sends it there), not all the damaging information that brought the affair to light. Until that process is finished, Easley is innocent, no matter what has been published to this point and no matter what else might be uncovered.

Yes, there are safeguards to prevent publicity from influencing legal proceedings. But those safeguards are far from perfect and lawyers in high profile courtroom dramas make their cases in part to the public. At that point, the work of an investigative journalist would seem to be mostly finished and a seasoned court reporter should take over.

I have no journalistic judgments here, only questions. Posted by Leroy Towns

When it comes to ethics and confidence in public institutions, appearances of propriety are just as important as whether public officials are in fact acting honestly and ethically.

Thus, the messages that public officials send should inspire confidence in governmental institutions.

It is a lesson that North Carolina has been slow to learn.

The latest example comes in a Daily Tar Heel story revealing that UNC System President Erskine Bowles “leads the board of directors of the company that was chosen to develop University Square through a closed process.”

The University Square property in downtown Chapel Hill was recently purchased by the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, a private group that manages assets and property for UNC. To develop the property, that group hired a for-profit group, Cousins Properties, whose board is headed by Bowles. Negotiations and contracts in the deal are private and not subject to public scrutiny or review.

And when asked about the appearance of propriey, the answer was, “trust us.”

“He has recused himself from any involvement in any doings related to the University,” said Joni Worthington, vice president for communications for the UNC system. “He will have no impact and no involvement,” the DTH reported.

Bowles has served North Carolina honorably and without scandal. And while the University Square arrangement appears to be cozy, as pointed out by the DTH, no one is suggesting that anyone involved is doing something wrong.

But “trust us” is not a political message that inspires much-needed confidence in North Carolina’s public institutions, especially given the track record of state government officials over the last several years.

In governmental ethics appearance is everything. Posted by Leroy Towns

The news value of any piece of political journalism must be judged on how it informs the community and whether it gives citizens information on which to make decisions.

The N&O recently published a breathless page one expose revealing that State Highway Patrol Commander Randy Glover had an extramarital affair 22 years ago. The young trooper was given another assignment in the wake of the the affair. The strong implication of the story is that Glover should be disqualified from serving as commander of the scandal-plagued patrol. The N&O also criticized Gov. Beverly Perdue for not disclosing Glover’s affair.

Does the N&O story meet the basic test for political journalism?

Absolutely not, says Governor Perdue, who strongly backs Glover. Further, she is highly critical of the N&O’s journalistic judgment in publishing the story, as reported by the Charlotte Observer:

She noted that the affair happened “nearly 25 years ago” and that Glover was serving as a lieutenant colonel at the time she appointed him.

“That’s pretty close to the top, and so regardless of the articles you continue to write, this is a man who is lieutenant (colonel) of the Highway Patrol, he had an affair nearly 25 years ago, he’s married with two beautiful little daughters, and I really, really am disappointed in this kind of journalism,” Perdue said. “And did I disclose it? I will have to be very honest with you, I never once in any interview for any position ask anyone about their sexual preference, their sexual orientation, or their past marital history.

“I didn’t figure it had a thing to do with the job they could do for the people of North Carolina.”

That response is something rather rare these days in politics: Here is Governor Perdue, a public official with the courage to defend an action and call out a newspaper for a serious lapse in news judgment.

While news judgment often boils down to the whim of an editor, it is difficult to defend the placement and tone of the N&O’s original story and its dogged attempts to keep the story alive by insinuating Perdue did something wrong in not disclosing the officer’s long-ago affair.

Even in this sex-obsessed world, it is difficult to make the case that a simple affair, conducted a quarter century ago, should disqualify anyone from a job.

If extramarital affairs are a new standard of disqualification, businesses, state government and even the N&O newsroom, it is presumed, will empty out in a hurry. Posted by Leroy Towns

Politico reports that the Obama Administration cut a secret deal with industry and business groups for a massive ad campaign supporting health care reform. See their work product above.

Working with your friends to garner support for a policy is message management 101. But the deal to put corporate money behind a pro-health care reform campaign raises two interesting questions.

First, it flies in the face of President Obama’s campaign promise to change things in Washington and make government more transparent. He apparently has made secret deals with the very lobbyists he promised to banish from White House influence.

Second, and more important, it raises questions about the relationship between public officials and lobby groups. The business groups involved certainly were potential opponents to the Obama health care plan. What did they get out of the deal?

Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, said he is troubled:

“What you’ve had was the Senate and the White House sitting down and cutting deals with special interests,” he said. “I don’t think that’s quite what the American people signed up for when the Obama campaign said that they were going to limit the influence of special interests in this White House.”

Players in the deal deny any impropriety. But with governmental ethics, it is not only the propriety of a situation, but the appearance of impropriety.  Leroy Towns

Nonprofit journalism, touted as the future of reporting that holds power accountable, was overcome with corporate greed almost before it got off the ground.

ProPublica, the nonprofit startup funded by a number of left-leaning groups, has a budget of about $9 million and a staff of 32. But Alan Mutter, who blogs as Reflections of a Newsosour, reports that ProPublica’s top two editors earn a combined salary of $866,000, nearly 10 percent of the total budget. Top editor Paul E. Steiger, the former managing editor the Wall Street Journal, was paid $570,000, Mutter says, and provides a link to the group’s tax filing.  That is an astounding sum, considering the number of good journalists who make far less.

Given the number of excellent journalists thrown out of work in the last year, there is no question the half-million-dollar salary is far above the market rate for editors.

Outlandish salaries are not limited to Wall Street, it appears.

So what is being produced for the money? While it is too early to make definitive judgments, there certainly are questions about the group’s reporting. One highly hyped story published in the NY Times Sunday magazine dealt with a hospital and one of its doctors during hurricane Katrina. The story has received exhaustive news coverage in the last few years, but the ProPublica story struck a tone of breathless expose.  One physician/journalist told me he believed the piece was more advocacy than reporting. “It was written with a viewpoint.”

Two recent stories on politics also raise similar questions.

One was an “investigation” of leadership PACs used by members of Congress to raise money for their parties and to assist the re-election efforts of their colleagues. While a case might be made for changes to these leadership PACs, the ProPublica story did not make that case. Instead, its use of selective data and facts painted a picture that was misleading at best and flatly inaccurate at worst.

Disclosure: I have served as a consultant to the leadership PAC operated by Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, my former boss. While it could be argued that affiliation colors my view, it also can be argued the experience gives me unique insight into the workings of leadership PACS.

Along similar lines, a recent ProPublica article criticized Arkansas Congressman Mike Ross for sale of his family pharmacy, implying it was a sweetheart deal that impacted his vote on health care. But in an extensive investigation, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette concluded there was no such link, that the price he received was fair for the industry, and that the sale happened three years ago. (no link to the story can be provided because the Gazette is locked behind a pay wall). Ross responds here.

At the least, these stories raise questions about ProPublica’s gotcha brand of reporting and about the group’s judgment in paying huge salaries to top editors. The nonprofit model may yet contribute to the nation’s flow of news and information. But nonprofit organizations no less than other institutions must have oversight and accountability, which long has been lacking for nonprofit endeavors. Posted by Leroy Towns

As editor of the student daily in my undergrad days, I valued my independence much higher than any advice from faculty and administration. But when we published an edition of the paper sans page 1 headlines, the scathing criticism of the faculty was hard to ignore. The advice from our faculty advisor went something like, “Call me the next time you want to do something stupid.”

It was clear that an interesting experiment concocted at midnight could not withstand the light of day.

So it is with full understanding of the tenuous relationship between faculty and student journalists that I gently offer the following advice to the The Daily Tar Heel, student newspaper at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Credibility at stake

The DTH risks its credibility by selective news coverage of students arrested for underage drinking. And credibility is essential to any news organization’s ability to present useful news and information to citizens of a community.

The controversy arose after letters to the editor criticized the DTH for coverage of drinking and drugs in the Greek system, including one letter by Benjamin Brumley that charged the DTH has a double standard because it did not report the names of several DTH staffers who were arrested for underage drinking, even as the DTH published stories about members of the swim team who were arrested on the same charges and suspended from the team. The controversy became a topic of heated discussion in one of my classes and apparently is being discussed across campus as well.

DTH Editor Andrew Dunn defended coverage and said this about the paper’s policy of covering underage alcohol arrests:

For years, the DTH has made it a policy not to write about incidents of underage drinking. Unfortunately, in this town or any college town, it’s not news. On any given weekend, up to two dozen people are given citations by the Chapel Hill Police Department for underage drinking. An individual incident is not news. It becomes newsworthy when it results in suspension, investigation or intervention by a high-level UNC administrator.

Arrests are news

By any professional journalistic measure, arrests of students for underage drinking are, indeed, news. A large number of arrests does not diminish the news value, it increases the news importance. Newspapers traditionally have published news of arrests of all kinds for important reasons. Tax resources are spent to enforce the legal drinking age. Aren’t citizens entitled to know the result of that enforcement, whether it is one arrest or dozens? A community’s police blotter tells much about the social fabric of a community.

Making arrests public provides both a check on police power and gives citizens information needed to make decisions about where their community is headed.

By citizens, we are talking both about students and residents of the wider Chapel Hill community, which the DTH also serves.

Citizens need information

Citizens need information about the individual arrests and statistical data that put the arrests in perspective: How many over time, where and how are they made, what is the disposition in court? Reporting of underage drinking arrests might well show the law’s futility–and provide ammunition to get the legal drinking age lowered. Or, if underage drinking is the social problem some believe, more reporting might signal caution to younger students. Either way, interests of the community are served.

Those same interests are never served by a conspiracy of silence.

When some arrests are reported and others are not–even for the best of intentions–citizens lose trust in the source of news. In this case, it is doubtful the student community will understand the distinction that arrests only get reported if there is further action by higher ups.

Selectivity has consequences

Community newspaper editors are painfully aware of the consequences of selectively publishing arrests.  No matter who gets left out, the community believes somebody got special treatment.  Just the perception of inconsistency chips away at a newspaper’s credibility.

The DTH is an independent publication with no connection to the journalism school and no connection to a professional publication. In large part, best practices are decided by students and get passed along to new staffs by the DTH culture. The current policy on alcohol arrests apparently is based on that tradition. Usually, this practice provides continuity and allows student journalists at the DTH to provide valuable service to the University and Chapel Hill communities.

But in this case, tradition and credibility are squarely in conflict. A wise community newspaper will opt for credibility every time, both by reporting what is news and by reporting it with an even hand. Posted by Leroy Towns

It cannot be said too often that the N&O is doing valuable public service with its continuing coverage of the Easley scandal (s).

But today’s story documenting how the Easleys got a special deal on waterfront property broke an important rule of journalism in the online age: document sources in ways that allow readers to judge for themselves the merits and accuracy of a story. Use links to original sources or lay out details of the source–whatever it takes to inform readers.

The excellent N&O story relies heavily on a settlement document that shows former Gov. Mike Easley and his wife Mary received a $137,000 break on their land purchase.

But we need to know how and where the N&O was able to lay hands on that document.

The story notes the N&O long had sought the document. It reports that Easley’s attorney says the document is confidential “and threatened legal action against the newspaper.”

That’s all. There is no mention of how the document turned up. Thus, we are left with the N&O’s word it is genuine, accurate and has an “evidence trail” that is untainted. And while the newspaper’s word is usually solid, fewer and fewer readers are willing to accept a newspaper’s word on face value. The web, with its many links to sources, gives readers the ability to judge for themselves the credibility and importance of news. Such details are important and readers know it.

Does the N&O have a copy or the original? How do they know it is genuine? Who gave it to reporters and why? Does the Grand Jury have the document? Is the N&O protecting a source? If so, why? What is the paper trail of the document?

In this new news environment, newspapers that do not go an extra mile to be transparent will continue to suffer decline. Posted by Leroy Towns

The Mike and Mary Easley show continues to dominate political discussion in North Carolina.

The latest: State auditor Beth Wood now says Mary Easley’s $170,000 salary at NC State was “excessive,” the N&O reports.

Don’t bother to stop the presses on that news. Is there a single taxpayer in the state that did not know her salary was excessive the moment it was revealed more than a year ago?

Well, yes, there are several: President Erskine Bowles and the entire UNC system Board of Governors, in fact. After Mary Easley’s salary hit the headlines and created considerable outrage, the BOG was forced to take it under review. Despite rumors of outrage among board members, the BOG made a few changes and gave the salary their blessing.

There is another irony in the September, 2008, BOG action that put a stamp of approval on Easley’s salary. Easley was forced to work 12 months instead of 9 months for the money. And she was told to raise part of her salary from private sources. That fact is barely mentioned when Mary Easley is criticized for raising money from businesses and groups with issues before the state while her husband was governor.

So, was her salary excessive? Like a lot of other things in NC politics, it depends on who you ask, taxpayers, the state auditor, or the UNC System Board of Governors. Posted by Leroy Towns

The media’s lid of secrecy surrounding the Talliban kidnapping of NY Times reporter David Rohde kicked up a storm of discussion over journalistic ethics. When is it right to bury a story, when is it right to report it?

No editor wants to have to make that decision when a colleague’s life hangs in the balance–or any other life, for that matter. Yet, the responsibility comes with the job.

Poynter’s Bob Steele, a respected voice on ethics, reflected the agony in an Editor & Publisher interview, when he asked, “Would a news organization apply different standards in the case of a government diplomat or a business executive or a tourist than they would one of their own?”

Rohde’s escape from the Taliban over the weekend brought the story into the open–and raised another question as well.

Rohde was actually one of a three-person team of journalists captured. The others were his assistant, Tahir Ludin, and driver Asadullah Mangal. While Ludin and Mangal do not fit the common conception of “journalist,” they were nevertheless working in a journalistic capacity.

Rohde and Ludin escaped. Mangal did not and still is being held by the Taliban. Yet, in the flurry of reporting, there seemed to be no hesitation in naming him. If it was ethical to withhold Rohde’s kidnapping to protect his safety, would it not be just as ethical to withhold Mangal’s name to protect him?

There may be no clear answers in this case, but news outlets walk a dangerous path in deciding to make news out of one but not the other. Posted by Leroy Towns

The NC State mess illustrates what public officials too often forget: Don’t do things you cannot defend publicly and always tell the truth.

NC State Chancellor James Oblinger, Provost Larry Nielson and Trustee Chair McQueen Campbell forgot those basic rules. All three resigned in disgrace, leaving the state’s largest university leaderless and mired in scandal. Indeed, the N&O had this to say about the affair:

“University trustees said that it’s not clear whether anything illegal occurred and that most of the problems could have been prevented if those involved had been forthright from the beginning.” 

Cut to its core, the mess started because university officials could not resist suggestions from Gov. Mike Easley and his staff that they should hire Mary Easley, the governor’s wife. In creating a job for her and paying a six-figure salary, they must have known it would not pass the smell test. Thus, when questioned by N&O reporters about it, all three did not tell the truth about their involvement. They were caught in that lie by release of records and emails, all of which clearly showed 1) their personal involvement and 2) the fact they had not been candid.

The NC State drama is a sub-plot of the larger story about the sense of entitlement by elected officials in Raleigh and their absolute inability to discern what is appropriate political behavior. This is not a failure of law. There are plenty of laws relating to ethical behavior already in place. It is a failure of officials to follow the laws. It is a failure of the political culture in Raleigh. It is the stuff that feeds citizen cynicism about government.

University officials who depend on legislators and governors for their budgets know it is difficult to resist political pressure. In the NC State example, they might have been viewed as victims of political pressure except for one thing: their failure to be candid made them part of a sordid political mess.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging, is valuable PR advice. Usually, though, you can stay out of the hole in the first place simply by telling the truth. Posted by Leroy Towns