Skip to main content
University of Wisconsin–Madison

Author: amlacey

Nominations for the 2015 Anthony Shadid Award for Journalism Ethics are now open

The Anthony Shadid Award for Journalism Ethics recognizes outstanding application of ethical standards by an individual journalist or group of journalists.

The award is named after Anthony Shadid, a University of Wisconsin-Madison alumnus and foreign reporter for the Washington Post and The New York Times. Mr. Shadid won two Pulitzer Prizes for his courageous and informed journalism. In February 2012, he died from health complications while crossing the Syrian border.

A graduate of the UW-Madison journalism school, Mr. Shadid sat on the Center for Journalism Ethics advisory board and was a strong supporter of the center’s aim to promote public interest journalism and to stimulate discussion about journalism ethics.

The Anthony Shadid Ethics Award includes a $1,000 prize and expenses to accept the award at the Center for Journalism Ethics annual conference in Madison, Wisconsin, April 10, 2015.

We seek nominations for ethical decisions in reporting stories in any journalistic medium, including, print, broadcast and digital, by those working for established news organizations or publishing individually. The award focuses on current journalism and does not include books, documentaries and other long-term projects.

While some regard ethics as a set of rules to follow, the Center for Journalism Ethics sees them as balancing conflicting values. For example:

Ethical journalists diligently seek truth. At the same time they seek to minimize harm to innocent individuals, the community or society at large. This can present a conflict.

Ethical journalists value transparency but respect privacy. Their search for truth may sometimes require anonymity for sources or violation of privacy. These also present conflicts.

Entries will be judged solely on the thoughtfulness and responsibility of the journalists in resolving such conflicting values.

 

Letters of nomination must include:

1. The name and contact information of the nominator and their relationship to the story, and the identity of the reporter or reporting team that produced the report.

2. A brief description of the story and a link to it online.

3. The conflicting values encountered in reporting a story.

4. The options considered to resolve the conflict.

5. The final decision and the rationale for making it.

Nomination Letters of three pages or less should be saved in pdf format and attached to an e-mail sent to shadidaward@journalism.wisc.edu

An Entry Fee check for $50 payable to Center for Journalism Ethics should be sent to

Shadid Award, 5115 Vilas Hall, 821 University Avenue, Madison WI 53706

Anyone for whom the entry fee would constitute a hardship may request a waiver and should include that request with the letter of nomination.

Deadline for submissions is January 19, 2015.

 

By entering this competition, you grant the Center for Journalism Ethics permission to use your entry as a positive example of ethical decision-making if your entry is judged a finalist for the award.

“The Five” host Kimberly Guilfoyle tells young women not to vote; virality ensues

FOX News Channel’s “The Five,” host Kimberly Guilfoyle’s  comment recently that young women should be “excused” from voting in this election and instead “go back to Tinder and Match.com” received nearly universal condemnation from most online news sources.

Averaging about 2 million viewers per episode, “The Five” is not nearly FNC’s most-watched show, but Guilfoyle’s rant quickly went viral, picked up by multiple popular online news outlets including Huffington Post and Salon.

While the ethics of a pundit on national television perpetuating statements of misogyny can be more obviously challenged and condemned, another question is whether or not the news should cover the news, as in this instance when you have journalists writing about what another journalist has said.

Huffington Post, in their section dedicated to tracking the media, wrote a quick news story with Guilfoyle’s video clip on what specifically was said, with updates including aftermath statements from Guilfoyle in which she insisted that viewers missed her point and that she meant to urge viewers to “come prepared because you don’t want to dilute the votes out there.” However, given that Huffington Post’s readership base is generally liberal, is a story just on what Guilfoyle said “clickbait” for readers looking to roll their eyes at what a pundit said? Is Huffington Post providing their readers with what they want to read without much of a real story?

Media Matters For America, a left-leaning self-described media watchdog, went further,  pulling together a montage of right-wing pundits attempting to dissuade young women from voting. If anything, this angle provides context to the story, albeit from a partisan point of view, by drawing parallels between similarly leaning television personalities. Otherwise, it is too easy to editorialize, given there’s really not much a journalist can say without injecting their own beliefs about Guilfoyle’s remarks other than the fact that they were said. Additionally, Media Matters For America provided more information regarding the story by illustrating a pattern of certain types of far-right journalism, leaving it for their readers to either condemn or defend each set of remarks.

 

Presenting sponsorships in online verticals highlight need for more transparency

Online news sources see opportunity in developing subscription-based verticals, or separate sites that focus on specific areas such as energy, healthcare or e-commerce.  Theses sites can rationalize pay wall protection because they require specialized reporting resources but have a limited audience appeal.  Politico Pro offers 14 verticals, the newest being one addressing labor and employment.

Writing for the Huffington Post, Michael Calerdone notes that Politico sees opportunity in this area as major newspapers and other traditional news outlets scale back resources covering labor.  According to an interview with Marty Kady, editor of Politico Pro, the site’s marketing research shows that there remains a real interest in the details of labor policy among stakeholders in areas including lobbying, government and Fortune 500 companies.

Subscriptions for Pro verticals cost in the thousands of dollars, and the latest offering is one that may appeal to unions, law firms and companies wanting the latest workplace policy news. And Pro coverage, like that appearing on the main Politico site, is expected to be nonpartisan.

But in staffing the labor and employment vertical, Politico has turned to experienced journalists known for expressing points of view with their reporting. Timothy Noah, a liberal writer who spent years at The New Republic, Slate and MSNBC, will edit the four-person staff, which also includes Mike Elk, a labor reporter who recently worked for the left-leaning magazine, In These Times.

It seems quite reasonable to include reporters known for offering individual points of view, especially when reporting on policy decisions that are subject to debate, partisan or otherwise.  Some may see the risk of inherent bias in this kind of staffing; others recognize that with solid editorial over site, stories can be presented responsibly.

It may not be as easy to maintain an air of objectivity when a vertical supported with hefty subscription fees also come with presenting sponsors.

Writing for In These Times, Arun Gupta point out that one of the very first sponsor of Political Pro’s labor and employment seems to be more than just your average advertiser.

However, the Politico labor vertical made a curious decision in its first week. Its newsletter, “Morning Shift,” debuted October 7 with the tagline, “Your daily speed read on labor and employment policy” and a sponsorship from the International Franchise Association—a trade group representing franchised businesses like McDonald’s and Domino’s Pizza, as well as their franchise owners . Two days later, Morning Shift covered a labor issue of enormous importance to the IFA— whether McDonald’s has a legal responsibility for working conditions in franchises—but never mentioned the sponsor’s stake in the story, and editorialized in a way that could give the appearance of favoring the IFA’s position.

Gupta wonders how a news platform that presents itself as non-partisan (according to Calderone’s HuffPo piece) squares with the presentation of a labor report by a trade association that represents a sector “where unions and workplace rights are virtually nonexistent and wage theft and poverty is rampant.” (Gupta provides links to support those charges.)

Still, a sponsor with a vested interest in how information is reported can create serious conflicts of interest. Politico could be more transparent about the possibility of such a conflict if it noted IFA’s involvement in the McDonald’s story—which it never does. Further, at times, the Morning Shift appears to slant its reporting toward IFA in the October 9 Morning Shift report.

Sponsorships as well as advertising are key to the financial success of news sites.  Reporting resources take money, often much more than subscriptions can deliver, especially at start-up.  It would certainly go a long way in establishing and maintaining credibility of news sites acknowledged the sponsor-as-subject connection in a transparent and responsible manner, especially when specific stories seem to favor a presenting sponsor.

Read Calderone’s article here.

Read Gupta’s article here.

Rolling Stone journalist and Koch Industries exchange barbs over fairness

A Rolling Stone’s contributing editor and Koch Industries recently got into a battle of conflicting reports regarding Koch Industries’ practices and history, raising questions of subjectivity and objectivity.

Tim Dickinson, a contributing editor for Rolling Stone writing primarily on National Affairs, recently wrote an in-depth story outlining how Charles and David Koch, the CEO and Executive VP, respectively for Koch Industries, amassed their wealth and the allegedly illicit practices that the company has engaged in over the years.

Dickinson focuses on a wide array of topics, from the history of the Koch family all the way to their expansion into high finance. Many of Koch Industries wrongful actions are highlighted throughout the piece, painting the picture of the multi-billion dollar private corporation as a classic business empire bent on achieving the most wealth as possible.

When this story was released, Koch Industries was quick to release a press statement regarding the exposé on their company. In their press release, Koch was adamant in their opposition of what Dickinson used in his story, saying that based on what they saw as, “past distorted and dishonest coverage of Koch” Dickinson would not be “fair and objective” with them.

The press release then went on to target Dickinson himself, citing his, “willful omissions” of answers that the company provided for him, as well as attacks on his credibility as a journalist, saying they felt Dickinson, “was simply regurgitating and cribbing from past pieces hostile to Koch,” and cited his career at “left-wing outlets like Mother Jones” for his biased views.

Dickinson himself then responded to the press release, pointing out major discrepancies from the press release, such as the fact that a supposed off-the-record email was published as a part of the press release.

Through this exchange of heated words between a journalist and his source, both sides seem to be to an extent accurate in their arguments.

Dickinson, throughout his piece, cited huge amounts of information regarding about Koch Industries allegedly illicit past practices and disregard for the safety of citizens in order to increase their profits. Salon posted an article summary clearly outlining eight points of key information that Dickinson shared about Koch, including when they were found to be stealing oil from Native Americans.

Dickinson, however, omits some information that may have made the article more objective. In their press release, Koch cited several articles that showed that in some respects, they were working with communities to improve plants and refineries owned by the company, such as this one by the Star Tribune. With these omissions, Dickinson is seemingly only focusing on the negatives that Koch has done, thus falling short of attempts to minimize his story of any bias.

Koch, on the other hand, does not stop at refuting Dickinson’s claims. In their first few paragraphs of the press release, Koch aims to paint themselves as the good guy and Dickinson as a biased journalist with a hidden agenda. Instead of simply providing details to counter some of the claims of the articles, Koch aims to diminish Dickinson’s image and reputation as a journalist. They further muddied the water by publishing information from what they earlier agreed were off-the-record emails.

In the case of this back and forth “he-said, she-said” debate, both sides appear to be at fault in some sense. Dickinson seems to have fallen short in his attempt to remain objective, while Koch chose to go after Dickinson personally.  Unfortunately, sources and their spokespeople are not really bound to ethical standards in the same way journalists are.  As such, while subjects may lob ad hominem attacks at journalists, journalists are best served letting their reporting speak for itself.

Campaign season raises ethical issues of press access, plagiarism and fairness

As candidates enter the last month of campaigning in this election season, seemingly perennial ethical issues between journalists and candidates as well as between candidates themselves are once again presenting themselves around the country.

One need look no further than our local Wisconsin media this week to find charges of credentialed journalists being denied access to campaign events.  Meanwhile, charges of plagiarism between candidates regarding their own political communication materials are being thrown back and forth.

This week, a credentialed reporter from Wisconsin Reporter, the state level bureau for Watchdog.org, was barred from a campaign event for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke that featured First Lady Michelle Obama.  Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, and operates as a collection of local, independent journalism dedicated to in-depth and investigative governmental reporting, primarily in small and mid-size markets.

According to the Wisconsin Reporter, the journalist was denied access by Wisconsin Democratic Party communication director Melissa Baldauff because the online publication isn’t a legitimate news source, after initially saying the decision was made based on space limitations.

“Well, you’re not the press though, so, thanks,” Baldauff said, according to Adam Tobias of the Wisconsin Reporter.

In fact, the Wisconsin Reporter has been credentialed by the Wisconsin Capitol Correspondents Board to cover legislative sessions at the statehouse for the past several years.

This decision by the Burke campaign came on the heels of another incident of press restriction in Milwaukee when Burke’s staff tried to block reporters from talking to crowd members Sept. 29 in Milwaukee.

The Madison chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, the Wisconsin Newspaper Association and the UW-Madison Center for journalism Ethics each expressed disappointment in the Burke campaign’s actions.

Robert Drechsel, a journalism professor at the University of Madison-Wisconsin and director the school’s Center for Journalism Ethics, told Wisconsin Reporter he can’t comprehend why the Burke campaign would bar certain media from Tuesday’s campaign rally, especially after the negative attention created at the Milwaukee event.

“I think it’s a very unfortunate thing,” Drechsel said. “It’s certainly not the call I would make.”

In addition to skirmishes between media organizations and candidates, inter-campaign charges of plagiarism have been tossed back and forth.

Dee J. Hall, writing for the The Wisconsin State Journal, reports that campaigns for incumbent Republican candidates Gov. Scott Walker  and Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch are both claiming ownership of the phrase “Wisconsin is open for business.”  Walker used it in his 2011 inaugural address, although Kleefisch claims on her website she is “widely credited” for the phrase.  Hall goes on to report the phrase has been used by former Gov. Jim Doyle, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, and agencies in several other states.

This “whose line is it anyway” exchange comes shortly after the Walker campaign criticized competitor Mary Burke for plagiarism because campaign communications used phrases that also appeared in materials for Democratic gubernatorial candidates in other states.  Burke blames the common phraseology on a consultant who repurposed some well-crafted lines without telling the Burke campaign.

Speaking with Hall, Michael Wagner, UW-Madison assistant professor of journalism and political science, said he would not call either Burke’s re-use of language or the common claim of ownership over “Wisconsin is open for business” as plagiarism.

“What Gov. Walker and Burke have done is called practicing politics. It is certainly unimaginative, but that’s not a crime nor is it an ethical violation.”

Read Hall’s article here.

Read Wisconsin Reporter’s article here.

 

Center for Journalism Ethics 2015 Conference to focus on Sports Journalism

***We will be loading video from the keynote, panels, plenary and presentations of the Shadid Award and Mulhern Scholarship in the coming days.  Thanks to all who attended, and especially to our sponsors.***

The Center for Journalism Ethics will address the topic of ethics in sports journalism at our seventh annual conference, which will be held April 10, 2015 at Union South on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus..

The conference, titled Fair or Foul: Ethics and Sports Journalism, will feature Robert Lipsyte, veteran sports journalist, author and current ombudsman for ESPN, as keynote speaker.  The program will include panels addressing ways journalism ethics come into play in topical areas including issues of privacy, editorial independence in a world of sponsorship and rights fees, representation of minorities, and the bounds of civil discourse in a sporting context.

fedexfieldpressboxWe need look no further than recent headlines for examples of events and the coverage that followed them for rich subject matter, such as Donald Sterling’s leaked racial commentary, the NFL handling of a domestic abuse issue that blew wide open with one TMZ video post, or Bill Simmons’ recent suspension for his heated criticism of both the NFL and his own management.  These and other stories will serve to inspire panels and the selection of panelists with the goal of offering lively discussions and, perhaps, some direction looking forward.

Be sure to save the date, April 10, 2015.  More details will be available here on our site in the coming weeks and months.

(Photo credit: Scott Ableman/Flickr-Creative Commons)

Conference 2014 through the eyes of an undergraduate journalism student

As an undergraduate journalism student, I spend much of my time generating stories and little time reflecting on the bigger questions of my writing. Finishing projects under a deadline, or contacting just the right person for a quote often seems more important than debating the pros and cons of drone technology. But working with the Center for Journalism Ethics this spring has made me realize how relevant ethics are to journalism, and that it is difficult (if not impossible) to separate ethical principles from my work in this field.

14094959746_83f6f24040_bParticipating in a national conference much like the annual ethics conference at UW-Madison is often the best way to learn about the newest trends and research in journalism. I enjoyed learning about commercial data sensors from John Keefe, and was shocked to discover how much data these tiny yet extremely cheap and accessible devices can capture. Although these devices could be useful for many journalists, they could also make the public even more distrusting of the media (or even be confused for some kind of explosive device). I also thought that the new database technology several of the panelists discussed was fascinating. It has become more common for news organizations to create searchable and user-friendly databases, which if done well, are heavily used by the public. I myself have used many of these databases when completing class projects or research, but never thought about the journalists who perhaps created them. And if I didn’t already know it yet – I should probably make my passwords more secure. Apparently the most common online password is still “123456.”

Although I learned about new technologies for journalists, the conference also left me with the impression that many “older” ethical issues still exist. For example, the surveillance panel discussed the ethical problems of journalists telling people that they are collecting data for one purpose, but using it for another. While technology has allowed this kind of dishonesty to be more pronounced, the choice of a journalist to mislead sources has been an issue for many years, and still continues to be. “New” media ethics regarding digital technologies will continue to be important, but perhaps it is still too early to dismiss these ethical concerns.

14137961843_1b50557909_bThe conference also left me with the impression that thoughtful journalism requires a great variety of backgrounds and educations. Although a journalism degree is often the foundation for an aspiring writer or media professional, it’s also important to develop skills in statistics, math or science. In the breakout session I attended, Alexander Howard discussed the manipulation of graphs and charts by journalists, noting that many journalists falsely represent data (check out this link for some interesting examples). While its true that some journalists may intentionally manipulate data to fit their agenda, others may simply be lacking a basic understanding of how to use and treat numbers. Requiring journalists to develop these skills may not only enrich the value of their stories, but also ensure that fewer incidents of data misrepresentation occur. I won’t become a “math person” overnight, but attending this conference made me realize that I too may need to acquire skills other than writing in order to be successful in this industry.

My experience at the Center for Journalism Ethics conference made me excited to see what the future of journalism will bring. The attendees and speakers at the conference were all actively engaged in the issues they discussed, and genuinely interested in media ethics. I had the opportunity to ask questions and have dialogues with some of the most preeminent experts in their fields, which is a rare occurrence for an undergraduate student. I hope to implement some of what I learned in my own work, and that I am able to attend similar events in the future.

[Photos by Jentri Colello for UW Center for Journalism Ethics].

Conference 2014 keynote: Media Minefields: Journalism, National Security and the Right to Know

Eric Lichtblau, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter in the Washington Bureau of The New York Times, challenged government pressure and prosecution of journalists in the name of national security, and instead encouraged journalists to continue publishing stories to widen the ongoing debate regarding national security, in his keynote address Media Minefields: Journalism, National Security and the Right to Know at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Journalism Ethics 2014 conference.

keynote wideLichtblau highlighted the increasing pressure on journalists by the government to keep national secrets and other “embarrassing” information from reaching the public by referencing The Guardian’s controversial 2013 decision to publish information provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden about the NSA’s private security information mining process.

As the whistle blower style of national security narrative increases, Lichtblau said, reporting like The Guardian’s Snowden coverage, which incited the U.S. government to label the journalists as “co-conspirators” or “disgraces,” poses a larger issue regarding the widening gap between what the government is willing to tell the public and what the public “has a right to know.”

Sometimes the government “over-classifi[es]” information, not to protect national security, but instead to hide politically problematic or embarrassing information from the public, Lichtblau said.

Despite government pressure to keep journalists from publishing “politically unflattering” or, even, illegal activity, Lichtblau stressed that the First Amendment allows journalists to legally publish classified information. Furthermore, it’s the media’s responsibility to push back and, in some cases, allow for public scrutiny.

“[Journalists] still have the right and responsibility to report aggressively on national security measures,” Lichtblau said.

key2In his recent book project, Lichtblau discovered dozens of files detailing the U.S. government’s protection of Nazi officials after World War II which were still labeled as classified over 60 years later.

However, Lichtblau explained that classified information should not be published without first gauging public interest and safety.

He pointed to the AP’s decision to hold a story (which was awarded the 2014 Shadid Award for Journalism Ethics at the conference) for three years about the CIA’s involvement in the case of a missing agent in Iran to ensure the story did not compromise the agent’s safety as an excellent example of ethical responsibility from a news organization.

However, in the age of citizen journalism, Lichtblau admits he is unsure how entities like Wikileaks, which do not have internal policies or self-censorship practices regarding public safety in place like journalists, can guarantee ethical practices.

Basically, Lichtblau said, ethics regarding national security reporting boils down to: “when to publish and when to sit on a story.” But, he argued, that should be the journalist’s, not the government’s, decision.

“Do you want the government making the decisions, or do you want the media making the decisions?” Lichtblau asked.

keyscottWhile the Obama administration promised to be the most transparent administration thus far, its increased prosecution of journalists who publish classified information is alarming, Lichtblau said.

Government officials gave one of Lichtblau’s sources a “Draconian” ultimatum, in which he was forced to either agree to stop talking to Lichtblau or he would lose his security clearance.

Lichtblau stressed that in cases of national security journalism, sources are at an increased risk. Therefore, reporters need to use extra caution when protecting them.

“Obviously, there are secrets that have to be kept,” Lichtblau said regarding some cases in which unveiling federal secrets could lead to the endangerment or death of a person.

However, the practice of government secrecy is often worse than the actual substance of secrets, Lichtblau said.

“We have to be the check on the government,” Lichtblau said, closing his address by encouraging journalists to publish hard-hitting national security stories in an effort to widen public debate about government secrecy.

[Photos by Jentri Colello for UW Center for Journalism Ethics].

Goldman, Apuzzo, Bridis and AP are 2014 recipients of the Center for Journalism Ethics’ Shadid Award

2014 Shadid Award Winner:

Associated Press: Adam Goldman, Matt Apuzzo and Ted Bridis

Missing American in Iran was on unapproved mission

The AP’s Adam Goldman received a tip from a confidential source that turned out to be the story of an American who disappeared in 2007 on what the U.S. government always maintained was a private business trip to Iran had actually been working for the CIA. The American, Robert Levinson, had been dispatched on an unapproved intelligence gathering mission by rogue analysts. The CIA had lied about its involvement to Congress, the FBI and the White House then – after it was caught – the CIA paid Levinson’s family $2.5 million not to reveal the truth publicly.

Adam Golman and Matt Apuzzo dug into the story over the next few months. Their reporting included obtaining documents and interviewing dozens of U.S. and foreign officials, as well as Levinson’s family members.

The AP approached high level U.S. officials several times to inform them that the AP would be publishing the story in the near future. However, each time, the officials encouraged the AP to delay publishing the story, as it might endanger Levinson or compromise promising leads to find him.

As the AP waited, rival news sources began looking into the story. But, the AP would not let pressure from the competition compromise its ethical standards. The news organization carefully vetted every new piece of the story before publishing the story to ensure it did not include any false information.

Finally-while still under pressure from U.S. officials, which urged the AP not to publish the story-the AP, decided to publish the Levinson story.

“Publishing articles that help the public hold their government to account is part of what journalism is for, and especially so at The Associated Press, which pursues accountability journalism whenever it can,” Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll said in the award nomination. “This seems particularly true on this subject at a time when the decisions of intelligence agencies are being extensively debated.”

The AP understood, and said so publicly, that its decision to reveal Levinson’s secret could hasten his release but also might cost Levinson his life.

In January, Levinson’s wife publicly confirmed the AP’s reporting. The family’s lawyer said: “There is no further value in continuing to deny what everyone in the world knows to be the truth.”

The Center for Journalism Ethics honors Adam Goldman, Matt Apuzzo, Ted Bridis and the Associated Press for their commitment to this story, and its ethical implications, and is pleased to award them with the 2014 Anthony Shadid Award for Journalism Ethics.

2014 Shadid Award Finalists:

Minnesota Public Radio: Madeleine Baran, Sasha Aslanian, Mike Cronin, Tom Scheck, Laura Yuen and Meg Martin

Betrayed by Silence

Minnesota Public Radio exposed a major sex abuse scandal within the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis after receiving an anonymous tip from a former official at the organization. MPR’s reporting team of Madeleine Baran, Sasha Aslanian, Mike Cronin, Tom Scheck, Laura Yuen and Meg Martin obtained thousands of documents detailing how the archdiocese covered up decades of sexual abuse involving children. Lead reporter Madeleine Baran conducted nearly 100 hours of individual interviews with the whistleblower.

MPR carefully considered the ethical implications of reporting information from documents that included full names of child victims and internal Church memos hiding the names of the priests, providing secret payments to pedophiles and other illegal activities. MPR published seven major investigative reports that led to a judge ordering the archdiocese and a diocese in southern Minnesota to release the names of credibly accused priests.

MPR provided the following comments in the award nomination regarding the story and its dedication to ethics:

Betrayed by Silence is the most ambitious journalism project ever undertaken by MPR News. The reporting team of Madeleine Baran, Sasha Aslanian, Mike Cronin, Tom Scheck, Laura Yuen and Meg Martin has been vigilant in adhering to the highest standards of ethics in journalism. Faith, reputations and fortunes are at stake. We have been respectful yet firm with an institution that resists outside scrutiny. We have been delicate, yet assertive, in taking on two deeply private realms of human existence: religion and sexuality. We have striven to report the truth with care, rigor, independence and humility.

USA TODAY: Paul Overberg, Meghan Hoyer, Jodi Upton, Destin Fraiser, Jerry Mosemak, Anthony DeBarros and Jodi Upton

Behind the Bloodshed: The Untold Story of America’s Mass Killings

Even before the Newtown, Conn. killings, a collaborative USA TODAY data team dedicated itself to correct the public’s inaccurate view of mass killings—often created by the FBI and other organizations misreporting mass killing data. The team, which included: database editors Paul Overberg and Meghan Hoyer, senior database editor Jodi Upton, Gannett Digital designers Destin Fraiser and Jerry Mosemak, Gannett Digital director of interactive applications Anthony DeBarros and USA TODAY senior database editor Jodi Upton, worked together to design, research, interview survivors and the victims’ families and publish an online interactive that better defined mass killings and detailed FBI data of actual mass killings from 2006 to 2011 was only 61 percent accurate.

Before speaking with survivors and families of the victims, the team spoke with trauma experts to ensure they approached the issue with sensitivity. The team was made sure to avoid adding trauma to the situation, as the interactive did not name or provide specific ages of victims or survivors and included just one photo of a victim and one of a survivor. The Army’s 2nd Psychological Operations Group contacted USA TODAY to use the data for training, since it was more complete than other available reports.

“USA TODAY covers breaking news as all news outlets do, but we try to avoid the ‘If It Bleeds, It Leads’ mentality that, unfortunately attract many readers. This project was a lot more work and we were not first, but we felt it was more important for both victims and survivors to be right,” said Upton in the award nomination.

Propublica: Michael Grabell

Temp Land

While reporting on the recession, Michael Grabell, a reporter for ProPublica, discovered a harrowing series of abuses against temp workers in the U.S.—revealing an industry-wide problem of exploitation and other offenses against workers who had been laid off from factory jobs and were only able to find work through temp agencies or as independent contractors.

“I wanted to learn more about this growing ‘contingent’ workforce and set out to learn everything I could through data and on-the-ground reporting,” Grabell said.

Through interviews with over 100 temp workers across the U.S., Grabell saw much of the injustice first-hand.

Early on, I came across a group of immigrant laborers in Chicago who were getting on a school bus at 4:30 a.m. on a cold January morning. All they knew was that a labor broker named “Rigo” told them there was work at a place called los peluches — Spanish for the stuffed animals — and to meet in the alleyway behind the dental clinic. It turned out they were working through one of the largest temp agencies in the United States for one of the largest stuffed animal manufacturers in the world.

My editors and I struggled with how to expose abuses that could only be documented through on-the-record interviews and how to balance the fears of workers living a neighborhood where the labor market is largely controlled by these labor brokers.

Grabell also interviewed labor brokers, temp agency employees, worker advocates and others in the temp industry. After obtaining workers compensation claims, he discovered that temp employee were six times more likely to be hurt on the job than regular employees with similar jobs.

Many of the workers — and the other temp workers we wrote about in the series —  were afraid they wouldn’t be sent out by the temp agency anymore if they talked.
‘I would be homeless if they found out who I am,’ one woman said. Another explained that after the reporters left and the story was published, ‘I still have to live in this neighborhood.’ This is why many of the interviews were conducted in the early morning hours or late at night and why many of the workers remained on background. One interview was conducted entirely in whispers as the woman feared her neighbors in the next apartment would overhear. During another interview, one man simply got up and left, telling a reporter in a text message that he feared he had been seen by a labor broker’s sons.

“Thankfully, after multiple trips to Chicago, I gained the workers’ trust and many had the courage to go on the record. After the stories, several temp agencies changed their practices,” Grabell said.

The Illinois and federal labor departments have launched a joint initiative to investigate issues temp workers face on the job, and have since opened investigations into three temp agencies for issues Grabell wrote about.

Stephanie Mencimer, writing for Washington Monthly

The War of Rape

Stephanie Mencimer set out to set the record straight about an alleged 2005 rape incident that happened in Iraq and involved U.S. citizens and a private contractor.

The story of Jamie Leigh Jones, a contractor in Iraq working for the Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) private contractor company and her personal account in 2007 of how she was raped by a gang of coworkers in 2005, created a media firestorm and national outcry regarding the regulation of U.S. companies involved in the Iraq War.

Media coverage fueled a national discussion and prompted Congress to get involved. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) to introduce and pass legislation on the victims behalf, which banned the Pentagon from contracting with companies that require employees to arbitrate sexual assault claims rather than appear in a jury trial.

However, when Jones was finally granted a jury trial in 2011, a Houston jury found no evidence that Jones’ story had ever happened. The jury had reviewed evidence that reporters, who earlier sensationalized her claims, never fully examined. The media fell silent and few media outlets covered the verdict.

“From start to finish, this piece is an exercise in accountability. It takes to task the media and Congress in one strong piece based on solid, verifiable documentation,” Mencimer said.

Mencimer sifting through court documents, State Department reports and expert witness testimony, seeking to report what the mainstream media left out. But, to minimize harm, Mencimer decided not to disclose the family’s mental health history.

Throughout her reporting, Menicmer emphasized the value of accountability and her dedicated to the highest standards of journalism. Mencimer commented:

My story was an attempt to set the record straight. It took apart Jones’ story and exposed just how little of it was true–and how the American media failed to correct the original narrative, possibly in part because the real story was uncomfortable and challenged a lot of conventional wisdom.

Mencimer received some backlash from people, stating her story would hinder efforts to maintain actual victims with access to the court system, but Menicmer argued she was a journalist – not an advocate – and people had the right to know Jones’ story.

A graduate of the UW-Madison, Anthony Shadid died in 2012 while crossing the Syrian border on a reporting assignment for the New York Times. He won two Pulitzer Prizes for his courageous and insightful foreign correspondence. Shadid sat on the ethics center’s advisory board and strongly supported its efforts to promote public interest journalism and to stimulate discussion about journalism ethics.

The award, which now carries a $1,000 prize, honors a journalist, or team of journalists, whose reporting on a specific story or series best exemplifies four key criteria: accountability, independence, and commitment to finding truth and to minimizing harm. In its first five years of awards, the ethics center limited nominations to journalists in Wisconsin, but this year expanded the scope nationwide.

[Photo by Jentri Colello for UW Center for Journalism Ethics].

Email exchanges suggest CNN’s “Chicagoland” producers collaborated with Mayor Rahm Emanuel

According to the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel had an instrumental hand in shaping certain scenes of CNN’s supposedly unscripted documentary “Chicagoland.”

The Tribune reviewed more than 700 emails, which reveal that the producers worked closely with staff from the mayor’s office while filming the weekly episodes. In the emails, the mayor’s office expressed desire to pitch story ideas and even implied that their office had some editing power. In one such exchange between an Emanuel public relations representative and a mayoral aide, the aide wrote back that they would “have edits shortly.”

Still, other email messages were redacted, with the mayor’s office citing an exemption in Illinois open records law that says opinions or exchanges related to policy formulation do not have to be shared, the Tribune wrote. 

Also according to the newspaper, an Emanuel spokeswoman said that the mayor had worked with CNN as it would with any news outlet. The mayor had not provided information different from what he would usually give to reporters, including the Chicago Tribune, the spokeswoman said.

Before making a public records request for the emails, the Tribune ran a story in March questioning the motives behind the Chicagoland series. The story calls Chicagoland a “re-election campaign vehicle” and a way for Emanuel to sell “his heroic narrative.” Emanuel is portrayed as the hero above all the chaos of Chicago, and as the man who never backs down, the Tribune wrote. Although critics of Emanuel are allowed screen time, such criticism is juxtaposed against a “calm, reasonable and above the fray Rahm.”

Media critic Robert Feder, who had written an earlier blog post in favor of the series, later wrote that his “confidence was misplaced.” Feder said he reached out to Konkol, the Pulitzer-Prize winning narrator of the series, and Konkol remains proud of his role, which was to tell the story of real struggles facing Chicago.

It’s ironic that a documentary intended to reveal the political and social problems of Chicago partnered with political leaders. Even if the exchanges between the filmmakers and the mayor’s office wasn’t as collusive as the Tribune says, there are still other ethical warning signs such as the fact that filmmakers with connections to Emanuel’s brother, Ari, directed the series. Implying impropriety in Chicago while possibly exercising impropriety in documentary filmmaking calls into questions the judgment of  how a news network like CNN represented the series to viewers.

Update (5.1.2014)

As the series’ producers point out, this conversation is much bigger than one series.

“It’s about the evolution of journalism and the way authentic stories are told in the 21st century,” said Sarah Sherman of Brick City TV, the company that produced Chicagoland.

Sherman points to some of the several other conversations the series, and the way it came together, have sparked in local Chicago media, including a segment on pubic television station WTTW’s Chicago Tonight program featuring Craig Duff of Northwestern University and Jeffery Spitz of Columbia College.

Mark Levin, executive producer of Chicagoland, speaking on WBEZ-FM, responded to a question as to whether the program was “staged,” responded, “That’s ridiculous.”  Levin went on to explain that the very nature of producing a requires coordination, in this case with city hall.  “That’s… what we do. You don’t just walk into the mayor’s office … and start filming.”

Chicagoland aired eight weekly broadcasts, which premiered in late January and ended in April. Videos from the series can be viewed here.

[Image: CNN]