Is the group that accredits journalism education in the United States preparing to bend the traditional journalistic principles of free expression, diversity and individual rights in order to accredit journalism programs in other countries?

That question comes in the wake of revisions to accrediting standards adopted at a recent meeting of the the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC). The revisions contained on the group’s web site make it clear that ACEJMC plans to more aggressively begin accrediting journalism programs in countries outside the United States and has revised standards language to make it possible.

ACEJMC Executive Director Susanne Shaw says the accrediting group wants to play a role in improving journalism education in a new global environment and has been working toward that goal for several years. “We are in a position to help them and that will benefit us as well.”

Historically, ACEJMC has accredited only one program outside the United States. Accreditation of journalism programs in other countries can be problematic because those nations often do not have protections for free expression and a free press and because other nations may allow or encourage discrimination based on gender, race, religion or other factors. ACEJMC long has demanded adherence to principles of free expression and diversity as it accredited U.S. programs.

But to accomplish accreditation in other nations, ACEJMC has loosened its accreditation language across all standards that programs must meet. For example, this language is newly added to the preamble:

ACEJMC will apply its standards and indicators in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and, where appropriate, with religious or cultural prescriptions and practices.

That new language might allow wide leeway in forgiving laws and customs that are at odds with the U.S. principles of free expression and individual rights.

Said one university professor who teaches journalism ethics, “It sets up a classic case of situational ethics. Cannibalism is ok if you are a cannibal.”

Shaw, however, says it is too early to predict exactly how the accrediting process will work in other countries. She predicts there will be four areas of controversy: free press, women’s rights, diversity (especially of faculty) and a liberal arts and science requirement for accreditation.

“I do not see any religious issues that would cause a problem.”

Says Shaw, “The council does not sit in judgment of free speech and free press issues in other countries.”

Poynter Institute Senior Scholar Roy Peter Clark sees value in assisting journalism programs in other nations to pursue U.S. journalistic ideals.  But whether journalistic principles will be diluted by the new standards language “depends on how they will be enforced,” he says.

It could mean that journalism education programs in totalitarian nations could receive accreditation, as could programs in countries with laws allowing or even encouraging discrimination against women and minorities. For example, one standard now says that to receive accreditation a journalism program must have (new language in caps):

A climate that is free of harassment and discrimination, IN KEEPING WITH THE ACCEPTABLE CULTURAL PRACTICES OF THE POPULATION IT SERVES, accommodates the needs of those with disabilities, and values the contributions of all forms of diversity.

The changes are not mandates. But the very existence of the new language strongly suggests programs in other nations will be judged differently than programs in the United States and that traditional journalistic principles might be defined differently or ignored overseas.

The following is the complete text of the changes as taken from the web site. New language is in capital letters. Posted by Leroy Towns

(more…)

Government and political PR people have many tricks that help bend political reporters to their spin. One of the easiest to use is playing into media bias.

Case in point: When the Chapel Hill city council took tax funds to finance local elections, the last thing it wanted was continual reminders in the media that it was using, well, tax money to pay for elections. So the council came up with “voter owned elections” to describe the scheme.  Like fat bass, local media took the bait, even though reporters have at least three choices: voter owned elections, a term that favors the pro-public finance crowd, taxpayer funded elections, a term that favors opponents of it, or a relatively neutral term like publicly financed elections.

A big part of the reason, of course, is that media people generally favor public financing of elections. Plus, they generally take what the spin doctors hand them.

Some media, like the Daily Tar Heel, went even further, blindly pronouncing the Chapel Hill program a “success.” No evidence is produced for that statement save for the fact the only two people taking tax money in the recent election were both elected.

In fact, tax-financed candidate for mayor Mark Kleinschmidt won only after his supporters mailed an anonymous last-minute negative attack on the other candidate, Matt Czajkowski.

The mailing was financed with private contributions, of course, well outside the public finance system.

And even more interesting, the Chapel Hill Watch blog reports that the attack mailing may be perfectly legal even under the local pubic finance system. After the election, Kleinschmidt supporter Cam Hill fussed up. Apparently, all he needed to do was report the effort, after the fact, so long as he registered before Nov. 4.

When will reporters notice that the warm and fuzzy voter owned election concept is starting to feel, well, a whole lot less warm and fuzzy?

Truth is, reporters and political operatives love to play this game. But the real question is, does the game advance independent journalism or the civic good? Posted by Leroy Towns

Note: this is a corrected version of the original post. See comments.

Up early on Wednesday and want to see the results of yesterday’s local elections? Go directly to the Carrboro Citizen or Indyweek.com. Those two publications had the most complete election coverage, including stats on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. The Daily Tar Heel had full coverage, including video, of the Chapel Hill and Carrboro mayor contests, along with aldermen and council races.

The Chapel Hill News badly trailed other local media. Readers on the News web site had to click through several pages to find stories on the mayor’s races in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Posted by Leroy Towns

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

A voter who wants information on local elections–especially the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board–should go directly to the outstanding election guide at Indyweek.com. The guide contains both news articles and the results of questionnaires answered by the candidates. The information is easy to find and use.

While both the Chapel Hill News and the Carrboro Citizen have given considerable ink to the local elections, it is difficult to find basic information about the candidates. Searches turn up many stories with little way of comparing candidates via bios and views on current issues. As expected, most stories are about the contested Chapel Hill council elections.

The Daily Tar Heel has an easy-to-use voters guide, but it lacks information on the school board elections.

The Orange County Board of Elections web site has a complete list of candidate filings, of course, but links to the candidates are for email addresses, not candidate web sites.

What about local blogs? OrangePolitics.org has the usual comment from a handful of local activists. A new blog, Chapel Hill Watch, takes a more moderate approach and contains some interesting discussion about local politics and local news media. Neither blog is much help in comparing candidates.

All indications are the local elections next week will set a new record for low voter turnout. That is the fault of voters, who have the responsibility of getting informed about each candidate and then getting themselves to the polls. Indy did a professional job of helping voters find needed information on the candidates. Posted by Leroy Towns

Big-foot political journalists in Washington rarely get past reporting the words of players in major controversies like health care. As a result, citizens are ill-served and politicians get away with rhetoric, lies and damned lies.

The Associated Press, as it often does, broke out of that trap with a fact-check story on profits of the insurance industry. Insurance has been beaten up pretty badly recently, especially by the Obama Administration and Congress, which use it as a foil to prove the need for health reform.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls insurance industry profits “obscene,” the AP reports, and a MoveOn ad says, “Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.”

The AP found:

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would “keep insurance companies honest,” says President Barack Obama.

Such facts would seem to be a vital part of any debate on health care. But news outlets don’t seem especially interested. The N&O, for example, buried the story on Monday. 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

The difference in the way North Carolina’s two McClatchy newspapers handled recent news of buyout offers is like night and day. In Raleigh, the N&O Ignored the story. But in Charlotte it was included as a news item in Monday’s edition of the Observer.

It is important to note the world did not turn upside down in Charlotte.

And of course the N&O’s refusal to run the story did not keep the story from being told. The McClatchy Watch Blog posted an item last week and the news received extensive coverage elsewhere as well. Failure to publish the story, however, creates a perception that the N&O is willing to run everyone’s bad news but not its own.

The NY Times announced Monday it was making newsroom cuts.  A few readers offered to pay for content. Reader comments, both at the NY Times and at Charlotte, are interesting. Posted by Leroy Towns

There seems to be no end to the addled thinking about the current state of American journalism. The latest comes from a lofty perch at the Columbia Journalism School in a report entitled “The Reconstruction of American Journalism.” As reported by the NY Times, the report (available here) was written by Leonard Downie Jr., former executive editor of the Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, a professor whose background is sociology and who is noted for work in civic life and journalism.

Like too many old media types, the authors cannot even entertain the possibility that accountability journalism can exist without traditional–make that newspapers–news gathering operations. (Read Jan Schaffer’s Columbia Journalism Review First Read take on the report. She makes excellent points.)

Thus, they present six recommendations, all designed to prop up traditional media. While the report presents an interesting analysis of the total current media landscape, it downplays emerging models of journalism that have at least the possibility of providing useful news for citizens. And They pretty much ignore the concept that readers and advertisers have deserted traditional journalism. Let’s take recommendatons one at a time.

Six recommendations

1. The report suggests revamping tax laws to encourage more nonprofit news operations. There are many ways that could work, but one might be to allow newspapers to spin off their money-losing newsrooms into nonprofit operations. Such a plan would certainly make the rest of the media company more valuable.

2. The report suggests raising more money from individuals and foundations for nonprofit journalism. Foundation money is not without limits. More charitable giving to new journalism ventures most certainly would be felt in other areas, such as education. The short answer here is that there is not enough money in America to make enough difference in local, state and national reporting.

3. The authors want universities to supply more students to do reporting for news organizations. Newspapers long have regarded journalism schools as employee training operations. Now, apparently, news media would have students doing most of their reporting for free.

4. Better data base access to make reporting easier. This one makes sense.

5. Because they claim public radio and television do little local reporting, the authors want increased funding with increased mandates and control by government. Additionally, they suggest using existing and new fees on commercial broadcast, internet and telecom companies so that the government could:

6. Subsidize news reporting, most probably for newspapers.

In these last two recommendations, the authors illuminate both their biases and their lack of understanding about the 21st century knowledge-based economy.

Public radio and public television provide little local news coverage? Don’t tell that to Laura Leslie of WUNC, one of the best statehouse reporters in North Carolina. Don’t tell that to UNC TV, which provides extensive coverage of local issues and elections. Or don’t tell it to the many other public radio and television stations covering their states and communities. Indeed, some of the evidence presented in the report about public broadcasting contradicts their own recommendation. Print people never have had a high regard for electronic media. This is simply an extension of old thinking.

Government subsidized news media? This one flunks both civics 101 and journalism 101. The benefits of an independent press are so obvious, the dangers of a government subsidized press are so clear, that they won’t be discussed here. But those benefits and dangers apparently escape the authors. The NY Times quotes Downie as saying:

“We are just suggesting that certain kinds of reporting are a public good and should be funded as such,” Mr. Downie said. “There are plenty of precedents and I don’t think that government support necessarily means government control.”

The press and government

That statement is most ironic, coming from an editor whose stump speech always has been the virtues of separating government and media. In fact, Downie has opposed even the notion of reporters voting in elections, lest such action taint their objectivity. Additionally, he has adamantly held the position that news organizations have no stake in the government they cover, notwithstanding the fact the media’s franchise comes from constitutional freedoms–and thus their stake in democracy is huge.

This is a report that should be viewed for what it is: just a couple of old media types wishing the world could be the way it was in their youth. Posted by Leroy Towns

When it comes to news about the news, you often cannot find it in the newspaper.

McClatchy Watch, a blog that tracks the company, has posted an email from Orage Quarles III, publisher of the N&O, that announced a “voluntary” staff reduction program:

Today, The News & Observer is announcing a voluntary reduction program for several areas of our operation. As in the past, we have reviewed all positions in workgroups throughout the company and identified positions that may not need to be replaced if vacated, or where work can be consolidated, reorganized or streamlined. This selection is not a reflection of the value of anyone’s work or personal contribution; it is a measure of changing technology, consolidation, and necessity.

Are these buyouts the beginning of further drastic staff cuts in the N&O newsroom? You won’t find the answer to that in today’s N&O, nor will you find even a mention of the internal memo.

Newspapers, it seems, are not very good at presenting their own bad news. Bless the blogs. Posted by Leroy Towns