It started, as many things do in journalism, with a pen and paper.
Close to three years ago at a Journalism That Matters event in Washington, D.C., John Hamer, president of the Washington News Council, was thinking about the double standard that exists with journalism and the institutions and people it covers.
“What journalism needs more of is the same things journalists ask of everyone they cover—it’s a two way street,” he said. “We should be transparent about who we are and what we believe, be accountable and admit our mistakes, and fess up and apologize and be open to a wide range of other voices. That’s what we have demanded of every other institution in society. All of a sudden I thought, ‘Transparency, accountability, openness—that spells TAO’.”
He wrote those three words down on a piece of paper and started gathering people around him to talk about the TAO of journalism, as it were. In the end, about twenty people joined him in a conference room to talk about how journalism and journalists could do a better job embracing these values. That moment of inspiration led to the TAO of Journalism, a voluntary seal program that Hamer has been working on ever since. After receiving a challenge grant from the Gates Foundation last fall (Hamer had to raise $100,000 in order for the Foundation to award him $100,000), he moved forward with the idea and has created a logo/seal:
Now the hard work begins. He’s hoping news organizations, bloggers, and other journalistic operations will pay a small fee to sign up to the program and display the seal on their Web site, broadcast, or print edition. They would also be listed on TAO’s Web site. The idea is that by signing up they pledge to adhere to these ideals (or ones similar to them):
TRANSPARENT – You’ll fully disclose who you are and where you’re coming from. Your background, experience, education, and – importantly – payments and/or conflicts of interest. Are you being paid to blog? Are you affiliated with a political party or special-interest group? Are you lobbying for anyone? Are you promoting a product or cause?
ACCOUNTABLE – If you get the facts wrong or misrepresent something, you will admit it publicly and post/publish/print/podcast a correction or at least a clarification. You will fully explain what happened to cause the error or mistake. You will do a follow-up story if that is appropriate, putting the original material in better context. You will apologize and promise to be more careful next time.
OPEN – If there is a difference of opinion, you will be open to contrary positions. You will give the other side(s) opportunity and space to express views and engage in open public dialogue through comments or other means. If you are primarily engaged in opinion and commentary, you will make that clear on your site/publication – while inviting others to express their opinions through all feedback mechanisms.
This is similar to the online seal programs that emerged in response to concerns about data privacy. Today there is the BBBOnLine seal and the TRUSTe seal, both aimed at assuring Internet users that the site they’re on adheres to certain privacy and business principles. Hamer acknowledges that journalists are often wary of initiatives of this nature.
“Journalists instinctively react negatively to anything that smacks of licensing, certification regulation, oversight—there is great resistance,” he said. “The attitude is, ‘Nobody can oversee us, we oversee everyone else.’ When you think about it, it’s just a massive double standard.”
A seal is a way to provide a sense of oversight without bringing in licensing bodies or the government, according to Hamer. He also thinks the program can be flexible enough to work for all of the varied organizations and individuals that make up the emerging media landscape.
“I think the beauty and I think the appeal of the TAO seal is its simplicity,” he said. “We don’t specify which ethical codes or what standards you’re going to follow—we just want you to be open about them. Just tell us.”
Journalists live in a confused world these days. Everyone is pointing a finger at them and saying that they should be called to a higher standard...that the are enslaved to some special interest group.
Rush Limbaugh personifies the voice of the right. They are "conservative" and love walking around with their gun strapped in plain sight in an IWB holster while they scream that the "media" is bought and paid for by the left and serves as a their personal voice.
Then I see comments being left on blogs by leftists (typically enviro or feminist types) who say that the media is all bought and paid for by conservative interests!. Not just Fox News either...all of them.
Both can't be true but implicit in these opposing voices is a call to journalists to get their stuff straight and not try to influence the people but just report the facts.
Now we have journalists themselves pointing fingers at themselves and saying they need a "seal" that assures they do their job right. I doubt if this is going to be the solution, but then again I don't have any suggestions either. Must be tough being a journalist.
#1 Posted by Lou Alessi, CJR on Fri 28 May 2010 at 03:32 PM
Too bad Hamer doesn't live by his own seal. His Washington News Council is a farce, set up more so for public officials to bash critical journalism than as some noble effort to raise journalism standards. This Neiman Foundation aptly describes Hamer's operations in this op-ed.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00132
If only Hamer's own organization lived by his own creed of being "transparent," accountable," and "open," perhaps he would have disclosed his and his council members' personal conflicts when taking up the complaint of an elected sheriff in Washington state who complained about a newspaper's investigation of her office. Instead, she was able to use the council as a PR-tool to deflect valid scrutiny.
Hamer and some of his council members had direct connections to the sheriff's office, but didn't disclose it until only after the very press that he was accusing raised the issue. Then, after the council upheld the elected official's complaint, they used her in promotions and fundraising events that directly fund the news council's operations (and Hamer's salary). Does that sound like the ethical pursuer of the truth that Hamer and his News Council purport themselves to be?
#2 Posted by Jorge Krugman, CJR on Sat 26 Jun 2010 at 01:06 AM
Dear Jorge -- You are misinformed, misguided and mistaken. Let me set the record straight. First, the Washington News Council was not set up for public officials to bash journalism. In fact, most of our complaints have come from private citizens or organizations that were damaged by inaccurate, unfair and/or unethical stories about them. We accept complaints only after the complainants have tried to get corrections, clarifications or follow-up stories done by the media outlet. We give people recourse that did not exist before. Second, it was not the Neiman Foundation that described us, but only Jane Kirtley as an individual in her column on the Neiman site. Jane has been a longtime opponent of News Councils, unlike such notable journalists as Geneva Overholser, Bill Moyers, Jim Lehreg, Mike Wallace and Al Neuharth, among others. As for our organization being transparent, accountable and open, you are obviously unaware of the fact that at the hearing on the complaint by King County Sheriff Sue Rahr against the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, every member of the News Council who had any potential conflict of interest RECUSED himself or herself from the discussions and votes (even those who had gone to a $35 campaign breakfast). I personally recused myself from any meetings on the substance of the complaint because my wife worked for the previous sheriff, who was mentioned in some of the articles. And at the hearing, the Council members voted almost unanimously to uphold the complaint on virtually every question. No fair-minded person who watches the 3-hour hearing could conclude that it was anything less than thorough, professional, and even-handed. The P-I boycotted the hearing; although they posted a response online, they did not have the courage (accountability?) to come to the hearing and answer questions in public. Sheriff Rahr came to our annual dinner and thanked us profusely for giving her a chance to make her case in public -- an opportunity that she was denied by the newspaper. We have been transparent, accountable and open all along. How about you? Are you willing to take the TAO Pledge? If so, let me know. Cheers!
#3 Posted by John Hamer, CJR on Tue 29 Jun 2010 at 05:31 PM