The teachable moment passes

So The State newspaper published its account of how the Mark Sanford story went down, and it adds some useful details: Why the staff figured the Mark-Maria e-mails were sent from Argentina, how they came to send a reporter to Atlanta, the steps the staff took to make sure that Sanford's people understood they had the emails and were going to ask about them, etc.

But the tick-tock didn't cast any new light on what concerned me as a journalist: How did it come to pass that The State sat on those e-mails for almost six months? Why did The State's editors choose not to take the text of those e-mails to the governor's press office for comment months ago? And no, before you ask, this isn't a suggestion that The State should have published the e-mails if the governor's response was to deny their authenticity.

There are right and wrong answers in any profession, and then there's the grey area, which is where this decision falls. I still believe The State could give a convincing and compelling answer to the questions I've asked, but I'm not surprised that their account of their role in the story doesn't address in any way the decision-making process behind their choice to sit on their evidence. That kind of candor requires a degree of editorial transparency that most news executives despise.

I wanted to talk about that decision-making, because this was a teachable moment for journalism -- a moment for journalists to consider their processes and disciplines, but also a chance for consumers of mass media and networked journalism to explore the ethics of a tricky choice. With few exceptions, however, that wasn't the conversation others wished to have -- not about Sanford, not about the press. C'est la vie, c'est la guerre.

But let me summarize my feelings this way: The opaque gamesmanship of mass-media journalism is not aging well. We can do better.

Comments

[Mack]

Dan, I read you frequently, and though I struggle sometimes to keep up, i enjoy your blog, and have it on my reader.

But I'm sitting here wondering why any serious news organization would choose to ask for clarification on some private emails sent between two people? Why is it we feel some right to know?

[Dan]

Well, great question. Here's how I answer it:

The Lewinski saga reshaped my thinking about coverage of the private lives of public people. I was working for a paper at the time, and I remember thinking that a political party was holding the nation's agenda hostage over a blowjob and that my profession was complicit in that. I thought then that the press had swung from one extreme (non-coverage of Kennedy's sex life) to another, and that it was time to find a new approach.

Fast forward to 2008: When the John Edwards affair became public in that wrenching series of revelations, I heard from a friend who had been an Edwards backer. I expected him to vent at me about the media's obsession with the scandal (which is normally what you hear, as a reporter, even if you don't cover politics, from fans of anyone who is currently embroiled in a scandal).

Instead, he lit into the press for FAILING to aggressively report the indications of an affair months earlier. To paraphrase his case: 1. What if Edwards had won the nomination? The late revelation would have robbed the Democrats of a chance at the White House; and 2. Yeah, I supported the guy, but if I'd known how lousy his judgment is I'd have donated more effectively.

So that's how I arrived back at this point: If the press is going to claim a watchdog function in society, then it's going to have to figure out ways to deal with evidence that relates to all aspects of public life. This includes the private lives of public people.

Mark Sanford's affair was a public interest story from the beginning -- it spoke to who he is as a person, it spoke to his judgment (or lack thereof, as became painfully apparent during his June disappearance) and it presented a vulnerability to manipulation.

Let's be clear on that point, because it's key. In politics, information is power, and when you hear jokes about how "Joe Jones must have pictures of Gov. Sam Smith, or else how could he still have that job?" it's not just a joke. Anyone who has knowledge of career-ending information about a politician has tremendous blackmail power over the public agenda.

Here's the other tricky point: While I'm being a hard-ass on how the press should handle information like those e-mails, that's not the same thing as suggesting that the press should emphasize tabloid, gotcha-journalism.

I DON'T think that the press should aggressively report on whispered rumors about private infidelities. Whisper campaigns are common in politics, and very often they are complete fabrications. They're impossible to source, and reporting on them has a way of making them look real.

It was rumored for years that the Solicitor in Charleston was gay, and like most people I had no particular reason to doubt those whispers. He was a Republican, and there were two local GOP officials who wanted him out. Rather than come out and accuse him of living a secret life, the two spent YEARS trying to get newspapers and TV stations to write about their "anonymous" tips. We resisted reporting on this for ethical reasons that we can explore separately if you wish.

We did eventually "out" the solicitor -- because of explicit e-mails that were given to us. And this is the crux: It's one thing to receive an amorphous tip. It's another thing entirely to receive hard, actionable evidence.

The State had e-mails between the governor -- a man who was being promoted as a 2012 candidate for governor -- and a foreign mistress. It held on to those emails for almost six months and might have held on to them forever if other events hadn't transpired.

The best approach to handling the Mark-Maria e-mails? After deciding that the trail had gone cold, State editors could have printed out the text (removing all of its digital traces), presented them to the governor's press office and asked the simple question: Are these authentic? If Sanford had denied them, State editors would have simply returned the emails (and Sanford's response to them) to their files.

What would Sanford have done if The State's editors presented him with the evidence back in April? We'll never know. But doing so would have served a public interest. Sitting on them served who, exactly?

And had Sanford continued his rise to national prominence among the Libertarian wing of the GOP? What about the efforts of those people? Wouldn't they have rightful cause to anger, like my friend the Edwards supporter, to learn years after the fact that credible evidence had never been thoroughly vetted?

So that's a long answer to your question. That's not just because I'm verbose -- it's because it's a good question with a complex answer. And we need to begin working out these ethical quandaries in public, because the public needs to start thinking about ITS responsibilities in a networked age.

[Mack]

Not sure anyone has ever taken that much time to address a question of mine...thank you. I really mean that.

Yes, I see that there may indeed be times when certain behavior is indicative of something else, something far too important to ignore within a person who holds power.

What i don't like, Dan, is this feeling I have that with the recent purges of seasoned reporters and editors, we are left with youngsters who lack the ability to tell when they are being manipulated, or, worse, don't care if they see it suits their ambitions.

In another profession, I often had to field "tips' from people, and I found it helpful to first ask myself why this was handed to me. Dig a little, the motivation makes itself clear.

I really feel we are in the throes of a journalistic race to the bottom, and that is at least in part due to a tabloid mentality pervasive in a generation raised on Springer.

BTW, sorry about your friend's troubles in Greensboro.

[Dan]

I suspect that anyone who ever learned to resist manipulation learned the skill after being manipulated. I've been an unwitting stooge to smarter people and I didn't like it. It didn't make me invulnerable, but it did make me a better reporter/editor.

And that's the problem you mention. What's the metric that determines the value of that experience? What's the cost (to a company, to a culture) of having young professionals grow up without proper mentoring?

I was mentored by some VERY good people, but my education had huge holes in it until I moved beyond the newsroom into the networked media sphere. So my best hope for addressing the ills you describe (accurately, I think) is to build a new culture of journalism and communication AROUND the mass media and hope it penetrates.

(As for our friend Geoff -- people donated more than $3k in the first 24 hours... more proof that this is a very powerful tool we have at our disposal.)

[Mack]

I was mentored by some VERY good people

It shows.

Oh, I have no answers Dan. :)

Great news about Geoff!

[xarkgirl]

Wow. Best. Phrase. Ever.

in the throes of a journalistic race to the bottom