This evokes the initiative being led in Europe by the non-profit Media and Society Foundation, a body that is working to provide ISO certification to media organizations. One difference between that effort and Hamer’s is that the latter uses an ISO standard to certify participants. It also includes an element of auditing and oversight. Hamer’s plan is to enable the public to help provide oversight and confirm whether a seal member is living up to the TAO pledge or not.
“We want to have something on our site [inviting people to] report violations,” he said. “We want to crowdsource ethics well … my thought was, ‘Let’s invite the public—it’s a conversation today, after all.’”
Reports of violations could then lead to a review/hearing by a peer review group that would look at the reports of violations and determine whether the seal needs to be revoked. The reality is that many details have yet to be worked out—the idea took off faster than Hamer anticipated. Journalism.co.uk recently wrote about the initiative, and so did Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust. The idea was also praised at a recent discussion, “Journalism Values and Vision: Leading in the Age of Digital Disruption,” at the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication. Tom Stites, founder and head of the award-winning Banyan Project, has already said he wants to be the first to sign up. (Hamer recently sent out a message on a journalism discussion group and offered that the first ten organizations to sign up can join for free.)
Support is one thing, but a workable seal program is another. Hamer is doing his best to push it forward and come up with a model that will be both effective and useful for organizations and the public, while also meeting the need to be financially self-supporting. Which is to say that for all of the thought, time, and effort that he’s invested in TAO, he’s trying to remain transparent, accountable, and open to the ideas and needs of others.
“I’m open to suggestions,” he said.
Correction of the Week
We incorrectly used the word “homocentric” when what we meant was “male-centred” (27 February, p 36). – New Scientist
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