The Post Register of Idaho Falls, Idaho has published its ethics policy on its Web site along with an invitation to readers to hold the paper accountable to the standards and practices described in the policy.
The paper has also built an interactive page that enables readers to see what that ethics policy means in a real story. Just click around the page's links, and you will see little explanatory paragraphs saying why the paper published the story the way it did. The Web site also includes "enforcement cases" based on the enaction of specific items in the code of ethics.
This is an idea that any newsroom/Web site could consider.
Development of the policy was led by the paper's executive editor, Dean Miller, who is also a Poynter ethics fellow. I interviewed Dean via e-mail to learn more:
Al Tompkins: Why did you put this online?
Dean Miller: For internal and external reasons.
Internal: Updating an online document is a lot easier and more reliable. When I showed this to a colleague at a global media company, she was kicking herself. She had just shipped thousands of dollars worth of little tabbed ethics binders. On Tuesday, part of my newest staffer's orientation was to sit down and work through the entire site, including the interactive portion. No matter where he is, he knows exactly where to find it and any time I update it, I just send an all-staff email and direct people to the amendments.
External: A.) Ease of use. This much text would be daunting if printed on dead trees. But readers can decide how deeply to dig, using the structure our Web designer, Aaron Avery, concocted. And it's reusable. They can quickly find the material even a year later if they have another question.
B.) The Medium is the Message. I am loyal to brands like UPS and FedEx that give me lots of information when I want it. This is 24-hour customer service, the way I see it.
C.) The Message: We welcome constructive criticism and we encourage readers to watchdog the press.
What has the reader response been like?
I wrote a full-page summary three weeks ago for the benefit of those who aren't online.
Response to that was overwhelmingly positive, with many folks saying they found the code of ethics interesting and reassuring. Readers love those ethics discussions and I've already had two emails from readers who articulated their criticism based on materials from the Web site. It raises the level of the discourse substantially.
Some newsrooms worry that if they publish a code of ethics, some lawyer will use it against them sometime. What do you say to those concerns?
If you have a code of ethics, any lawyer with a brain will get it in discovery anyhow. Can you imagine explaining to a jury why you refused to give up your code?
Publishing it on the Web tells plaintiffs and their lawyers that you're not afraid of your own code of ethics. And more importantly, it tells your readers that you are aspiring to high standards, that there are reasons for the decisions you make and that you're eager to hear what they think of your interpretation of the Code. Anyone who reads it has to be struck by how idealistic the press is, and how complicated the decisions can be.
What has the internal (newsroom) reaction been to publishing "enforcement cases" that involve your staff?
Context is everything. I moved out of my office years ago. I sit in the middle of things, so there's lots of opportunity for discussion. For good and for ill, this is not a union newsroom, so all these conversations take place face to face, not through intermediaries. Plus, with a wife on the school board, everybody knew my disclosures would be front and center.
More importantly, it's a newsroom that reads and understands the findings of the Readership Institute's work. Plus, being in a small town means you regularly run into the people you write about, so you know about distrust.
I think that when we noted the kinds of disclosures required of public officials, and all for the same reasons, it made sense to the news staff.
Frankly, most of us are so poor that we don't have anything to disclose. And disclosing spousal conflicts is just fair play.
So I can't say it was popular, but it was not seen as a big deal.
How does this kind of disclosure build reader trust?
Time will tell. The initial response has been very strong, but I haven't got science to back that up.
There were those on staff who worried this would just open up more opportunities for Mainstream Media haters to sow distrust and innuendo. But that's the same argument secretive government officials make against open meetings all the time. I hope that this pushes other public institutions to be more open.
