For most of my time as a reporter in Phnom Penh, I have been covering the border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia near the 11th century Preah Vihear temple. The temple belongs to Cambodia by a final and unequivocal decision of the International Court of Justice issued in 1962, no question about that. Even the Thai government’s official position is to not contest the temple’s ownership. The dispute is over 4.6 square kilometers of land (mainly jungle with leftover landmines) near the temple. The legal and political details would bore my non-Cambodian readers, but suffice it to say the dispute, which has historical implications dating back decades if not centuries but heated up last July, has fed deep nationalistic sentiment on both sides of the border.

I noticed in the months spent reporting on this that Thai officials increasingly used the Thai name for the Cambodian temple —Phra Viharn— when I’d heard (and read) them used ‘Preah Vihear’ before. That’s the Cambodian term and also the one most frequently used in English/French, as far as I’ve seen. The name issue surfaced as a problem in border negotiations back in November, and again last week. I considered writing about that, but the Bangkok Nation beat me to it with a quite well written article on Feb 4. They showed that the Thai government frequently used “Preah Vihear” in the past, as recently as in July press releases still available on the ministry Web site.

Well, lo and behold, when I went to look for those uses of the offending word, I (almost) couldn’t find them. (Almost) every use of the words “Preah Vihear” had been redacted and changed to the Thai spelling “Phra Viharn”! It seems somebody went through the trouble of editing the public historical records of official ministry communication. How do I know this? How do I know my memory isn’t shaky or the Nation reporter wasn’t lying? It seems the Thai MFA’s Web editing software automatically updates the datestamp when the file is changed. If that’s on purpose, I commend the architect of this system for their care for transparency. So all those communiqués are still in chronological order of their original release but with a new datestamp of “February 4, 2009.” Just see the screengrab.

Thai Foreign Ministry website, press releases page 9, as captured on Feb 5, 2009

I counted 18 news releases modified. Apparently someone didn’t know about the “Find and Replace” function because a few “Preah Vihear” references remain within the text of at least two communiqués I went through. I know PR isn’t journalism, especially government PR, but the whole process just seems dishonest to me, and a bit sneaky (besides smacking of limited Web competence). PR has ethical rules, too, and redacting history surely doesn’t qualify as ethical. I’ll let you be the judge.

L’Express’ editor-in-chief Eric Mettout explains on his blog how and why his paper published the scoop on Le Figaro altering the minister’s photo. (French version at the link, excerpt translated by yours truly below. Molière reference impossible to translate.)

“It’s true it’s not North Kivu, this story. But it’s information, not as harmless as it looks, which says a lot about the collusion of media and [political] power — worse, on the conditioning of certain newspapers or journalists who now self-censor even before the Commander intervenes. It threatens us, too. The day when, God forbid, we slip up, to be called back to our senses this way will be painful but salutary.”

—–

Here’s one for the ethics textbooks that motivates me to revive this otherwise forgotten blog. Look at those two photos:

The top one is the Wednesday Nov 19 front page of Le Figaro, one of France’s top daily newspapers. The bottom one is the original photo taken by François Bouchon for Le Figaro. Notice the gorgeous ring on the finger of our justice minister, Rachida Dati? (by Chaumet, white gold and diamonds, price tag: 15,600 euros, or about $19,500 in today’s super high dollar.) Notice how it’s disappeared on the front page?

Worse than the act of altering a news image (huge no-no, if you were wondering), is the totally unapologetic stance of the Figaro photo editor when interviewed by L’Express, a competing newspaper, which revealed the photo was doctored.

“We went to press under a tight deadline. We’re taking responsibility [for this]. We didn’t want that ring to be the object of a polemic, when the real topic is the judges’ petition. Rachida Dati has nothing to do with this.”

[For context, Le Figaro is right-leaning, as is the government, and people could have assumed the minister requested the ring be removed from the photo. Also, Dati isn't very popular with France's law professionals and they recently let it be known. And generally, French people don't like to see a 20k piece of jewelry on their government officials in the middle of the worst crisis since the Great Depression.]

I’m appalled. If you don’t want the ring to be so apparent, choose one of the other gazillion photos on file of this highly mediatic, government official. (Believe me, I too care about the judges’ petition; half my family is in the legal professions.) Being on deadline might be an excuse for not taking the time to tone a photo; I really don’t see how it’s one for going the extra mile and altering a photo. And most of all, nothing —NOTHING— is an excuse for misleading readers.

I really don’t care what circumstances this was done under, because I can’t think of a single one that would make it ok. At this point, were I a Figaro reader, all I’d want is an apology. And I have yet to find one on Le Figaro’s Web site.

PS: Now the photo is all everyone’s talking about, and not the judges’ petition.

But there’s more revelation at the bottom of Rosen’s column (also pointed out by Poynter and Jeff Jarvis):

But perhaps the Bulletin is merely on-trend—or even ahead of its time. The Drudge Report, the Huffington Post, and Real Clear Politics have made names and money by sifting through RSS feeds; Tina Brown and Barry Diller are preparing the launch of their own news aggregator. Mike Ladyman and company may simply be bringing guerilla-style 21^st-century content aggregation to 20^th-century print media: publishing the Napster of newspapers.

Wow. Frankly, as a blogger I’m offended that the editorial work of linking and aggregating (and, by the way, sending traffic your way Jody) is compared to the gross practice of slapping one’s name on somebody else’s work and passing it as one’s own. Ouch. I expected this from The Associated Press, not from Slate.

That’s just one paragraph too many (that’s already angered at least one blogger) in an otherwise edifying exposé, which I will link to (er, plagiarize) here again. Just ‘coz.

I am writing my midterm on the ethics of media blogging. Everyone and their mother has written about blogging ethics, but I am wondering particularly about the rules that apply to blogging about your own industry, the people you work with or might work with, even the very company you work for. How do you blog your honest opinion without burning yourself with future employers? How do you conciliate your journalist’s instinct to spit out all the information you have with your employer’s right to proprietary information? In general, how do you think news organizations are faring, when they praise transparency in the editorial process but are usually pretty defensive on disclosing their business practices, and what can/should bloggers do about it?

As you can tell, the topic is pretty wide. I’m only on the first draft, but I need help. Be kind, share your opinion and pass this request around to media bloggers you know.

Full disclosure: All comments will be sourced/attributed. This is for a footnoted paper that will serve as my ethics statement for my J-school senior assessment. It will be published on the portfolio section of this site, with a handful of industry insiders reading it (a 2-year-old’s handful, really). Excerpts might be used on this blog.

Item of note today: someone agrees with me. You might remember that I asked newspapers to stop shooting themselves in the foot by endorsing presidential candidates. (Jay Rosen rightly points out that the Times endorsed McCain while it was investigating his “ethical lapses,” and at the very least the publisher was in touch with both the editorial and the news sides.) Apparently, Time managing editor Rick Stengel is on my side.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is going ahead with his reform of France’s external media, which I could blog about for hours. He just named famed journalist Christine Ockrent to director of the holding France Monde, which will regroup France’s international radio network RFI, trilingual cable news channel France 24 and francophone channel TV5Monde. Journalism unions were quick to point out that Ockrent is the wife of Bernard Kouchner, France’s foreign affairs minister. Ockrent defended her journalism credentials (I won’t deny they’re impressive) and said today on radio that she’s tired of being reduced to her “wife of” label. “Frankly, I find that unfair and humiliating,” Ockrent said. I couldn’t agree more, but she’s missing the point. Her new job puts France’s diplomacy and our international public media in the hands of the same couple. Can you say conflict of interest?

And lastly, think your job is threatened by bloggers, citizen journalists and the evil empire of Rupert Murdoch? Try fending off an insect invasion to save your paycheck.

1. Keep an open mind.


Today’s journalism doesn’t resemble what we thought we were getting into, even just four years ago when we applied to MU. Get used to it and get over it.


2. Be wise.


“Wise shall be the bearers of light” is our motto engraved on the historic J-school building. Never has it been more true than today.


3. Be entrepreneurial.


Thank God! I side with the partisans of more business skills being taught in J schools. How can we save our industry if we can’t figure out how to make money at it? But Geneva wasn’t just talking about that. Talking about new media, she essentially said, you can’t have every skill in the world but you must expose yourself to them, be ready to understand them. Coming from a pretty grand figure of old media, this one made me particularly happy. Maybe I shall invite her to Wired Journalists.


4. Have passion.


Amidst all the doom and gloom talk, we’re almost forgetting that we got into this because we cannot possibly imagine doing anything else. With her 40 years’ experience, Geneva said she had never seen a more exciting time for journalism worldwide. And with my 2 years’ experience, I couldn’t agree more. “You’re really here for the revolution,” she said. “It’s gonna take your passion.”

With all that inspiring talk, I finally figured out my senior project, but more on this another time. If you want to read more from Geneva, download her Manifesto for Change. See her talk about it below (bless Berkeley for publishing their lectures online, even if the photography could be better.)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UMzwEpbwwg&rel=1]

You might start thinking that becoming a journalist is like entering the priesthood. It’s hard enough having to discipline ourselves in public statements; now some would have us become apathetic, blank slates even in the dark of the polling booth. What’s next? Give up your habeas corpus rights so you can look objective reporting on Guantanamo? Not own a pet so you can report on the Humane Society? Not have a kid so you can report on the PTA?

It’s a travesty to argue that just because journalists wouldn’t vote, they would be objective about the election. I am not a U.S. citizen and cannot vote in the upcoming presidential election; believe me when I say, I very much have an opinion about it. Stronger, in fact, than in many French elections where I could — and did — vote. I just won’t make public statements about candidates, donate, be involved in campaigns, etc… And I am confident that I can set this opinion aside if asked to report about the election. It’s that simple. Let me vote (where eligible.)

CNN was playing all afternoon on the fancy screens we’ve just added to the newsroom. When they started reporting on the Northern Illinois shooting, some anchor was standing in front of two giant screens displaying those fancy graphics they like to show, like they’re launching a blockbuster. The graphic today? CAMPUS SHOOTINGS, like that, in all caps, with on the left of the typography… a bull’s eye! That’s right, just what you’d see if you looked through the viewfinder of a sniper riffle and started aiming at students. The circle was a bit tilted, stylized they’ll say, with the obligatory dents at noon, 3, 6 and 9. All you have left to picture is the terrified face of a victim.

Seriously? Do they think? Is there an editor out there making those decisions, or do they just leave it the graphics intern? You can’t even blame it on the rush of breaking news. Even an Illustrator ace needs a little time to make this, enough time to think, ‘hey, how would I feel if my kid got shot today?’. I know I’m rarely forgiving towards television news, but this one is just plain wrong. Sorry I couldn’t find a screenshot, but you probably wouldn’t wanna see this anyway.

I know the question above is about as old as modern journalism, and I’m not inventing warm water here. But the fact that I’ve been asked this question twice this weekend is telling. The first time, it was with my journo roommates. Nothing spectacular. The second time, it was in an IM chat with a high school friend. Pretty smart, college-educated and more tuned in to the news than your average 23-year-old, but not a journalist. Just an avid New York Times reader. Here’s what he asked me about the Times’ endorsement, which disappointed him.

So does it effect how they will be covering the campaign? (…)
Or is that just what everyone who’s not a knowledgeable journalist will think?

Well… I explained all about editorial boards being separate from the news-gathering staff and reassured him about the Times’ objectivity. But how many readers have a journo friend that they can ask and that they trust enough to actually believe their answer? Come to think of it, how many of us actually believe that answer? I’m not too worried about the Times, but many newspapers (starting with campus papers) make endorsements even though their staffs are much too small to separate editorial and reporting.

So, you might ask, what’s the difference with the daily op-ed page? a/Op-eds are rarely a complete espousal of a public person’s opinions and platform. They might resemble a party’s or a candidate’s stance, but they don’t scream “Vote for that guy!”. b/Op-eds aren’t nearly as publicized as endorsements. In the past few weeks, it’s been a circus of ‘Times endorsed this,’ ‘Post endorsed that.’ It begs the question: who cares? Is someone seriously gonna vote for Hillary Clinton just “because the Times said so?” That’d be scary for democracy. (What isn’t?)

Professional organizations might have an interest in telling their members what candidate best defends their profession’s interests. The Kennedys can do what they want. But news organizations have a credibility to defend. Presidential endorsements seem to only serve the ego of news orgs that for half a news cycle on CNN get to be in the campaign, not just covering it. It has a nasty taste of “We know better, we’re journalists,” the very reason why so many people are turned off by our profession. It doesn’t serve the reader.

As long as there’s even just one reader out there wondering if he now can trust the New York Times’ coverage of Barack Obama, drop the hubris. Drop the endorsements.