Why I don't buy the argument for magazine cover photo retouching

One of the most interesting issues that has cropped up in recent years has been the debate over the ethics of airbrushing and retouching the artwork and photos that appear on the cover of a magazine.

I've been watching the debate with great anticipation, because I feel that it's a bit of a make-or-break issue for magazine publishing. I don't believe too much will change in the short-term, but I do believe it will establish more concrete boundaries as to what is and isn't acceptable in terms of modifying artwork.

Many magazines have come under fire for choosing to heavily modify their cover subjects, who are usually celebrities: Vogue, Glamour, Marie Claire, InStyle, Shape and even Self (irony of ironies!) have all been called out for a gratutious "we'll fix it in post [-production]" attitude.

Heading the effort is snarky women's blog Jezebel, whose "Photoshop of Horrors" series documents various magazine efforts to, well, hide the truth.

But how true should the truth be in a women's interest or fashion magazine?

The criticism grew so great for a recent Self cover depicting Kelly Clarkson as thinner than she really is -- a big deal, since part of Clarkson's image is the rags-to-riches theme that she's an average (and average-sized) girl who made it big based on that uniquely American potion of talent, merit and moxie -- that the magazine's editor-in-chief Lucy Danziger felt the need to address the issue in a blog post on the mag's web site.

Here are some highlights from her lengthy response:

Pictures are meant to tell a story, express a feeling, convey an emotion or capture a moment. Portraits like the one we take each month for the cover of SELF are not supposed to be unedited or a true-to-life snapshot.

[...]

Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best. Did we publish an act of fiction? No.

[...]

This is art, creativity and collaboration. It's not, as in a news photograph, journalism. It is, however, meant to inspire women to want to be their best. That is the point.

[...]

Kelly says she doesn't care what people think of her weight. So we say: That is the role model for the rest of us.

[...]

Think about your photographs and what you want them to convey. And go ahead and be confident in every shot, in every moment. Because the truest beauty is the kind that comes from within.

If I may be so bold: does this not reek of excuses?

Allow me to address these points individually:

• Danziger first defends the edits on their face by declaring that Self isn't supposed to be "true-to-life." Somewhat hypocritical given the magazine's title, but the most legitimate point in defending this practice for magazines.
  
  
• But then she backtracks: We only did it to make her look "her personal best." That's impossible, because there's no way of reproducing a Photoshop job in real life. Her skin will not get unblemished. Her hips will not thin the way you've crafted them. Her teeth will not whiten so evenly. There's nothing personal about it.
  
  
• Worse, that reason allows that the magazine assumes responsibility for Clarkson's physical appearance. Last time I checked, she's a public figure -- meaning she (and her publicist) are the ones in control of how she appears in public. That's the cost of being famous. That's your primary job: representing yourself. If she's not at her "personal best" at the time of the shoot, is it really your job as a publisher to pick up the pieces? (And, if you're into back-door dealing, is it really fair for a publicist to withhold their client because she can't manage her own image?)
  
  
• By Self allowing image edits on Clarkson's figure under the excuse of Clarkson "looking her personal best," it allows that the magazine is now a part of Clarkson's public relations team. A thin line that all magazines straddle to be sure, but not something I'd readily admit to as an editor.
  
  
• Danziger then tries to compare the edits to journalism. No one's criticizing their work based on the accuracy guidelines for war photos from Iraq. To me, Danziger is defending her decision on the basis of an issue that has not been legitimately raised.
  
  
• Danziger then admits that Clarkson doesn't care, and uses that as an excuse to alter the photo. Again, hypocritical -- especially in light of the "personal best" reason (so we're kissing up to her!) and the following one, below.
  
  
• Danziger finishes with a dashed off, clichéd line about how "true beauty" comes "from within." Besides the fact that the phrase rings empty, it still flies in the face of the effort, time and budget spent to modify Clarkson's photograph.

Jezebel's criticism is based in the implication of an ethical boundary that has been crossed: women should not be fooled into thinking or idolizing something that is not possible in the physical world, and anything less than 99% truth is ethically reprehensible.

But it's not the ethical issue of representing women on covers for readers to look up to that bothers me the most. What's really aggravating is that no publishing professional has owned up to the real reason: a better-looking magazine sells more on the newsstand.

(And the unspoken inference: rightly or wrongly, the majority of people find thinner women more attractive. And "more attractive" is always a way to sell more magazines.)

Why is it so hard to just respond to criticism that way? If the decision is made not on the basis of ethics or representation or idealistic idolatry among readership, why not defend it on that ground?

(Certainly no one's holding Danziger's feet to the flames for mere color-correction.)

For sure, it's unfair that Danziger is being singled out in this post (and others) for her response. Self is hardly the worst offender of this practice. But her attempt to defend herself just fell flat to me.

The calling card of most general interest magazines is not their hard-hitting articles or their ethical rigidity. It's their ability to entertain. They are vehicles for leisure, and they convey that spirit through layout and design.

A magazine without that isn't a magazine at all, the way I see it. And at the end of the day, magazine publishing is a business. Period.

So why defend it any other way?

Update: Looks like Self entertainment assistant Ashley Mateo gets it. Amid meaningless fluff, she writes:

"Magazines don't hide the fact that they're always trying to sell issues--and to sell copies, you need to appeal to readers with the best writing and the best images possible."

Perhaps the corner office is too insulating?

Update 2: Jezebel's Margaret posted her own analysis.

Online, have rules of journalism ethics changed?

A new post by Robert Miles on OJR.org analyzes the challenges print journalists face as they transition to the web -- specifically with regard to the assumptions they make regarding ethics and procedure.

The practice of journalism is an act of service. But if we are going to be able to continue to serve our audience, we will need to change some of the conventions and assumptions we've brought to our practice if they now stand in the way of our ability to serve. What good are conventions designed a generation ago to protected our public image if following them today leaves us with a shrinking audience and no advertisers to support us?

Miles takes three popular tenets of traditional journalism ethics that he believes journalists must change in order to remain relevant online:

• Old rule: You can't cover something in which you are personally involved.
• New rule: Tell your readers how you are involved and how that's shaped your reporting.
  
  
• Old rule: You must present all sides of a story, being fair to each.
• New rule: Report the truth and debunk the lies.
  
  
• Old rule: There must be a wall between advertising and editorial.
  
• New rule: Sell ads into ad space and report news in editorial space. And make sure to show the reader the difference.

It's clear that the op/ed beginnings of the blogosphere have affected journalism, and the debate's out as to whether that's for good or not. But writing standards and news cycles aside, it's clearly forced journalists to reconsider the rigid rules they were taught on the job or in school -- which I applaud. The old adage is, "if your mother says she loves you, check it out." So why do we take journalism's rules on face value?

With consideration to skepticism, why aren't we questioning our very journalism education?

Above, Miles clearly isn't suggesting that journalists change their core beliefs; rather, he's redefining how journalists can best empower readers with valid information. And I think we ought not follow journalism's rules with such religious fervor so much as follow journalism's intentions -- purpose, really -- with that same energy.

Campaign Buttons, Professors and Journalists

Seems to me that journalists and college professors have a lot in common when balancing preaching the good of the First Amendment and actually exercising the right themselves:

In New York City, Department of Education Chancellor Joel Klein announced that his administration would enforce a longstanding policy prohibiting teachers from wearing campaign buttons when they are at work. In Illinois, the state university ethics office stated in its newsletter that faculty are barred not only from wearing campaign buttons in the classroom, but also from placing political bumper stickers on their cars and attending political rallies on campus.

Reaction was swift and predictable. In a letter to Chancellor Klein, United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten noted that teachers have always “been allowed to express their opinions as citizens, political and otherwise, on their lapels.” American Association of University Professors President Cary Nelson (an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana) issued a statement deploring the “chilling effect on speech” of such rules, which, he says, amount to “interference with the educational process.” He asks why “students can exercise their constitutional rights and attend rallies and wear buttons advocating candidates, but faculty cannot?”

Sound familiar, journos? Freedom of speech food for thought.

When NYT Fails To Give Credit...

...where credit is due.

Today Jason B. Nicholas, freelance photographer for the New York Post, was written about in the Times' City Room blog for violating his parole as a result of minor arrests at crime scenes for being an aggressive photographer.

In the post, author Corey Kilgannon mentions the Times' previous profile of Nicholas by Colin Moynihan in 2007, telling the story of his trajectory from Rikers Island convicted felon to NYU graduate, writer and photojournalist.

Problem is, this story was written about more than a year prior to that, in NYU's Washington Square News. No credit is given, despite the fact that the paper that first wrote about it operates in the same city (and borough).

This is not the first time I've seen the Times take a story off the hands of a local or college paper and fail to mention that it was first written about in a smaller publication. Sure, it's not breaking news, but it's frustrating when a Times blogger makes mention of the Times' previous story ("Look! We've covered him before!") without also giving credit to the person who originally discovered the story and broke it.

(Full disclaimer: That person was me.)

Without Disclaimer, NYT Assails Generation Y

In yesterday's New York Times was a television review of the popular NBC show "Heroes" by critic Alessandra Stanley. In it, Stanley writes:

Generation Y has more special abilities than any previous one: these are people who came of age taking the Internet, BlackBerries, cash machines, Facebook and iPods for granted. They also take the taking for granted. They are the most coddled, indulged and overprotected generation ever. Swaddled in safety and self-esteem, they have all been assured that they are special. They don’t rebel against their parents or even seek independence; they welcome an electronic umbilical cord that stretches through high school and college and even the post-graduate return to the empty nest. On “Heroes” those filial bonds stretch beyond the grave: even after his father is dead, Hiro (Masi Oka) still receives his fatherly advice via prerecorded DVD.

If you read the review in its entirety, it's a great review. Stanley makes legit, specific connections between the writing of "Heroes" and Generation Y's habits.

Problem is, Stanley forgets to mention one thing: that she's a Baby Boomer, having graduated from Harvard in 1977, putting her birthdate roughly at 1955, smack dab in the center of her generation.

Suddenly, passages like the following seem less insightful and more vitriolic:

“Heroes” returns on NBC Monday night for a third season at an apt time — in the midst of an economic crisis that confirms the worst fears of Generation Y members, namely that their baby boomer parents are leaving them a world convulsed by war, drowning in debt and melting down under global warming.

The heroes in this science-fiction drama are a group of young people with special supernatural abilities who seek to save the world from a dark, high-level conspiracy, spawned by the Me Generation that is hellbent on annihilating humanity.

Critics are certainly allowed to take a side; that's what they're paid to do. But what a disgraceful lack of transparency by Stanley and the Times.

The Pentagon Sways the Media: How Responsible Are We?

This story just broke today in the New York Times, and it's a must-read (yes, all 11 pages):

New York Times: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand

It's about how the Pentagon uses, overtly or otherwise, its retired generals and personnel to propagate the Department of Defense's military agenda with regard to overseas policies (Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, etc.) on network news by positioning them as seasoned military "analysts."

Apparently, many of these "analysts" that appear on media news coverage of the military not only echo Pentagon talking points (deliberately or otherwise), but some even have vested interest/holdings in companies doing business in those areas. According to the Times, these relationships are rarely or not at all revealed to the networks and the viewers.

From a journalistic standpoint, it's ethically reprehensible. From a public relations standpoint, it's successful business. From a viewer's standpoint, it's a look into the shadowy world of the back-slapping, hand-shaking deals that go on behind closed doors (and behind the broadcast) -- the kind of deals that now dictate so much of what the journalism industry does as a whole. I can only hope that it's sobering in some way.

I've got one simple question with regard to all of this: as journalists, as broadcasters, as those who make an attempt to quote those we deem "experts" on subjects to get a fair take on a subject, how responsible are we in this debacle?

Is It Unethical To Interview A Job Candidate When They Have No Chance?

I was reading the website of the Chronicle of Higher Education today and I noticed a story in the careers section: "On Hiring: To Interview or Not to Interview," which asked if it was ethical to go through the motions of a job interview if you already know as a candidate that you won't accept the job.

But with journalism jobs less and less numerous with each passing day, this article prompts this question for the media world: is it really ethical for big-J recruiters to interview people if they don't have any positions to offer?

Or: Is towing the company line at a job fair by telling hungry journalists that "we accept freelance!" truly ethical?

I recently attended a job fair in a major media center and many of the recruiters I spoke with relied heavily on the prospects of freelancing. "Sure, we can take freelance," many would say. "Feel free to pitch stories."

But many of the people at the job fair weren't looking for freelance opportunities. They were looking to be hired.

Now, there's nothing wrong with freelancing -- I do it all the time. The problem, of course, is that all the background work to craft a worthy pitch is not paid for unless the pitch is accepted. And there might not even be space for an outside freelancer if the publication has a steady stable of writers.

Of course, returning to the original problem: as an attendee of the job fair, you are clearly looking for that elusive job. Apparently, to no avail.

No one's actually advertising any "freelance fairs," are they?

So here we are, at another ethical crossroads, and I'm not sure where to place the blame (corporate? HR? Surely it can't be whoever showed up to the thing). It seems to be a recruiter's duty to be fairly transparent about such a situation, and not lead a potential (but not really) hire on. But it still happens -- and general journalist morale about these types of situations isn't getting any better.

BREAKING: Is Gawker Gaming Its Own System?

Gawker Media has never been a company to adhere to ethical standards or rules (with the exception of its liberal reader exit strategy). Now, it seems that all those readers/commenters who give Gawker its true "snark" are its very own interns [via former College Humorist jakoblodwick.com]:

me [Jakob Lodwick]: Nick.
me: pretend you're not talking to the world's slowest retard
Nick Denton: sure
me: none of them are real?
Nick Denton: no
Nick Denton: there are three or four real ones
Nick Denton: collegecallgirl is one
me: and the rest are interns.
Nick Denton: yeah
me: the commenters on gawker are employees of gawker media.
Nick Denton: not employees
Nick Denton: interns
me: pretending to be anonymous web jerks
me: you know that I'm going to post this conversation
Nick Denton: sure
me: and you don't care because...
me: ...because it doesn't matter.
Nick Denton: good night

Or as our mostly-absent columnist Mitchel Stevens summed up to me: "The 'elite gawker commenters' are all interns at Gawker. And have multiple accounts."

I've dispatched Stevens to troll the comments for the truth. If this really is the case, Gawker's falling even farther from becoming a legitimate media power.

UPDATE: Fascinating video about Denton from an old classmate. Not a lot of insight here, just well-chosen words -- including some choice examples about self promotion. See comment below.

Can A Blog Hold A Paper Publicly Accountable Like An Ombudsman?

The Baltimore Sun just canned its ombud position and replaced it with a Q&A blog. Does that sound like an equal-value replacement?

A memor from publisher Tim Ryan, via Poynter:

As you know, communication with our readers is very important to us. Although we will not fill the public editor position, we will continue to take steps to ensure interaction with our readers:

We will launch a new blog on baltimoresun.com, offering readers the opportunity to ask questions and comment about our coverage. [Former public editor] Paul will moderate this blog and coordinate responses from the senior editors. We will post the reader comments and our responses on the blog each weekday.

Now here are two questions I have about this move:

One, since when is the paper's ombud a liason with readers? I always thought the public editor position was intended to hold the paper accountable by someone who fully understood its workings.

Two, is a Q&A blog really a match of a replacement for an ombud? Sure, a Q&A blog may help some give-and-take between the paper and readers (even though questions are edited and selected by the paper). But can it still hold the paper accountable? Not to deny Sun readers valid points, but is the kind of person that would respond to a blog Q&A the same kind of person that could make the points that an ombudsman does?

To me, it seems like there's an inadvertent bait-and-switch -- you know, like exchanging checks and balances for the impression of tech-savvy transparency -- and it seems like the Baltimore Sun took back some power it had given to entities not affiliated with the newsroom.

Just some food for thought. Happy 2008.

Covering Clinton's Birthday: Why 60 Is The New 80 For The Press

Walking down the street on Hillary Clinton's birthday a little while ago, I saw a preponderance of front-page salutes to her big 6-0.

It made me stop and think: why?

What's the big deal about 60? Why should we care? For some reason, the press thought it necessary to lead off the day's edition with that story and cover, and I couldn't for the life of me think why.

Is the press inadvertently supporting Hillary Clinton's campaign?

After all, Hillary Clinton is arguably the candidate with the least to attribute to her age. On the other hand, I saw (and anticipate seeing) few covers heralding Barack Obama's birthday, who is constantly under criticism for being too young and experienced a candidate. And switching sides, I didn't see any front covers for John McCain's birthday either, and he's remarkably older than the rest of the pack.

It seems to me that this non-story's impact was only in helping a Clinton campaign, and that in hindsight, it was a nearly-ethical slip. Honestly -- what was the point of this story? The Editorialiste wonders.

What do you think?

Mitchel Stevens’ Guide to Employment and Robotics

Editor's Note: The following column is part of an anonymous weekly humor column chronicling the struggle of a new, young journalist out in the working world. You may find the author's previous posts in the archives. --The Ed.

The column’s a bit late these week, kids, due to the nasty weather and all. I know, you may be thinking, “how is that possible with sun and summer-like temperatures?” Especially when the stormy weather comes after my column usually runs.

And the answer for that is located somewhere underneath Fox’s corporate headquarters and Jann Wenner’s safe where the secret to rock and roll success is kept.

(Special note: don’t bother looking for it. It’s just a napkin Jann made at the age of 22. It’s just a venn diagram, a smiley face and the number for a pizza place on Lexington Ave.)

But anyway, it is cold and I have taken to staying inside my lavish cubby hole located somewhere between the BQE and a bottle. Of course, one of my daily rituals is refreshing my Bloglines quicker than you can say, “we regret to inform you…”

The other? Reading Gothamist. Particularly the interviews, since they can range from wonderfully short and (unintentionally) hilarious to the most recent one with Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld.

It is a semi-secret that most Gothamist contributors make a majority of their money at day jobs and write/blog second, which is great. (It’s also not a secret that Gothamist is stingier than Radar Magazine when it comes to reimbursement/payment. Not to mention a tad bit of payola. See below.)

But back to the interview at hand by Ben Kharakh. Now, Gutfeld’s hilarious. It’s worth it sometimes for me to be at the bar, try desperately to pick up a girl who has cable, go to her apartment and then cite performance anxiety*—all so I can then watch Red Eye at 3 a.m.

It’s just too bad that Kharakh either couldn’t get Gutfeld on the phone, couldn’t take the B/D/F/V to Sixth Avenue or schedule a good time to do anything but an e-mail interview. How can one tell it’s an e-mail interview?

An excerpt:

[Gutfeld:] It took three months to work out the kinks, but our show is now the most refreshing, smart and fun hour on television, and that includes Reading Rainbow. More juice? It's grape.

[Kharakh:] Having done this for over half a year, what are some tricks that you've picked up to make it through the day and in what way have you improved

First, there was no punctuation and that’s fine. Normally when one transcribes an interview, you forget things like that. Lord knows this one time I even forgot to do the Q&A. But completely ignoring such a flippant opening, or editing it out? Huh.

Gutfelt goes on, treating the “exchange” as if they were in his lavish, Swinging Sixties bachelor pad and not pounding this out on his office computer. There’s nothing wrong with the e-mail interview, but Gothamist has a long history with running it as if it was conducted in person and as if keeping the reader blind to the truth is ethically all right.

Not to mention they disable all comments for interviews.

But hey, how can I be upset at Gothamist? You can’t hate them. They’re adorable little puppy bloggers with cat fetishes and who dedicate their free time to a network of city-based blogs.

I mean, I’d just like to know if an interview was in-person or via email or phone or iPhone or iChat. That’s all, guys.

Anyway, sorry for pretending to be The Editorialiste today, guys. It is cold and I am mildly cranky.

Before I go, I also must say: Gawker’s Freelancer Action Unit. Wowie Zowie. Finally, I can get paid! No longer do I have to live in fear of unresponsive editors and payments departments! Gawker is back on my side!

…

Of course, Gawker is tied to Radar Magazine, who may or may not be still publishing, New York Magazine, slightly to Time Out New York, OK Magazine…um…you know, in hind sight, maybe it’s better NOT to talk to Gawker. Then again, each editor does make $323 billion dollars per year because bloggers are rich.

Speaking of, it’s time to go fight a cat for some breakfast.

-MS

*Note: Mitchel Stevens does not really suffer performance anxiety. He is a he-man woman hater with a cock that just won’t stop a sensitive writer and nice guy.

Aren't we all citizen journalists, by default?

Today's food for thought:

Who do journalists work for? Themselves, their employers, their readers, their country, their mothers?

Many journalists instinctually say the readers or listeners -- the citizens. But we're citizens, too.

So why do mainstream media, big-J journalists section themselves off -- i.e. "we're the journalists, they're the readers and listeners?" when we're all "citizens"?

Doesn't that make us citizen journalists, too, by definition?

Something to think about next time you hear someone talk about a "citizen journalist" as a separate entity.

When It Comes To Journalism Fundamentals, Naples High School Falls Flat

Think about this for a second: You're a newspaper reporter for the local major broadsheet in your area. You've been a great reporter -- you've caught some great beats and won the paper accolades for an undercover story about a corrupt police chief. It's time for your year-end review, and your editor calls you into his office:

"Johnson, you've done some fabulous things for this paper. Really top-notch stuff. Your general assignment work has been on time and had clean copy, and that undercover story really helped put us on the map. I know you aren't paid very well (neither one of us are, Johnson).

However, during your otherwise stellar year here, you didn't sell enough advertisements. Yes, ye- yes that's right, Johnson. The boss upstairs doesn't like his journalism without that weekly paycheck just as much as any of us around here do. So the big boss said you've gotta go. There are younger whippersnappers out there who are hungrier to make a buck at the reader's expense. Pack your things, Johnson."


If this happened to you, what would you say? You'd be outraged, for one, and probably start regurgitating the high-minded journalism sayings that crowd every newsroom, things like "for the people" and "to help them be free and self-governing" and things like that.

Well the time has come. High school journalism students in Naples, Fla. fail an assignment if they don't sell enough ads for the school yearbook. According to Jim Romenesko, "The syllabus says $600 in ads gets an A; $500, a B; $400, a C; $300, a D; and less than $300, an F. 'It bothers me,' says a school board member. 'I don't think you should be able to buy a grade.' "

Apparently, this Collier County school forgot one tenet of modern journalism: Separating business from editorial. But aside from ethics, does this even mirror the real world?

I'd say no. But at Naples High, it's half your grade.

One student quoted in the NBC2 investigation said she doesn't think it's a problem because it teaches them to communicate. For someone in her formative years, this may be a fundamental way of thinking that is dangerous.

The Editorialiste's opinion? Teach the kids about both, but ensure that there's a clear distinction -- and don't require it of anyone. Then again, it's entirely possible that the high school will just change the name to "journalism and business" or something similar to avoid the fire it has received.

Should we scrutinize journalism at this level? To what level, I don't know -- but for fundamentals, I think it's necessary that the real, practicing journalists stand up and make sure the word "journalism" means the same thing on every level -- even high school.

Is Journalism Closer to Seduction or Betrayal? Are Bloggers Unifying?

I recently attended a discussion between journalists on what journalism's role is (for example: are journalists obligated to be the "verifier"? Do we need verification to produce journalism?) and how the journalist is supposed to play the field between the experts and the people. The forum, held at Columbia University, was a jump-off from discussion about the updated version of The Elements of Journalism.

Pretty heady stuff, as usual. We journalists just love to talk about ourselves.

But one question was posed that really perplexed me: Is journalism closer to seduction or betrayal?

The question, posed by longtime broadcast journalist and Columbia Journalism Vice Dean David Klatell, really threw me for a loop. Since when is journalism stuck between those two?

Klatell prefaced the question by explaining that every part of life contains some element of seduction or betrayal. We can be seduced by good food, or betrayed by a city council, or what have you. And I can see his point there. But is it possible for journalism to be stuck in between those two?

The question, posed among a slew of others, quickly was buried by a series of tangential responses and never really re-addressed. But the question was so interesting to me that I wished we were able to come back to it (we were not).

I personally think the question is slanted -- after all, why must journalism be stuck between the two? Can't it have elements of both (i.e. seducing a reader with a headline or lede, betraying a reader by not covering an important topic or not fully reporting a story)? Why one and not the other?

The whole question makes me uncomfortable, but maybe it's just me. What do you think?

Oh, and another question based on what, in my opinion, is a limiting assumption that didn't sit well with me from the discussion:

"Citizen journalists/bloggers are, for the first time in history, atomizing discussion instead of unifying it. Why?"

Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Should A Journalist Use A Character?

Yesterday, I got into a discussion with my girlfriend about whether it was ethical, on a personal level, to assume a character for an op/ed outlet. This came about after I began guest-blogging at IvyGate, a satirical, Gawker-toned blog catering to the supporters and critics of America's top-tier schools.

I originally took the assignment on to pose as a nice change from the serious journalism I practice during the day at a major city newspaper. It was a fun change. But my girlfriend said she didn't like the tone that I used on the blog -- the satirical, lampooning one that's the blog's trademark -- because it didn't match my person.

Should a journalist assume a character for opinion? Is he or she then a journalist, or an actor?

It seems that this kind of issue wasn't a big deal in the past, but with the rise of digital citizen journalism -- that is, assuming anonymous pseudonyms to use a "different voice" or more, assuming it under one's real name and hoping the audience gets it -- I think it leaves the journalist in a bit of an ethical predicament: Be true to oneself, or be true to one's work?

If this were a case of violating personal beliefs, it would be much more clear-cut. But the nuance here is tone. Let's take an editor of Gawker, a popular satirical Manhattan media blog, as an example:

Doree Shafrir is a young, accomplished journalist who graduated from Penn and Columbia with journalism on her degree and has worked as the arts and entertainment editor at Philadelphia Weekly. Clearly, she's got the right experience. But when she writes on Gawker, she assumes the voice that Elizabeth Spiers and so many others have trailblazed -- snarky, unsympathetic and verging on offensive for the sake of being so. Is that the real Doree? Only her friends could tell you.

But does it denounce our trust in her as a journalist? Does Gawker hire jaded, angsty, ignorant editors who revel in writing personal attacks, or do they hire people capable of assuming that voice?

The same story goes for Ana Marie Cox, former editor of Wonkette. Cox wrote on Suck.com under a pseudonym, Ann O'Tate, and now works as Washington Editor for Time.com. In her Wonkette days, she often used such phrases as "ass fucking" liberally in her posts, and she's known to have gone after Sen. Mike DeWine for accepting money for sexual favors.

Does Cox really have a vendetta against DeWine? Or is she outing him like any other proper journalist would, but using sensational language to match the tone of her outlet?

Is it all an act? Is it allowed to be?

I think it's a fine line to straddle when one's true name is in the byline. Before and still today, writers assume pen names to create a barrier between their actual person and their 'character.' But in an age of citizen journalism op/eds, where the barrier can be implied by how outlandish the writing is, should the journalist be held accountable?

I, myself, don't know. I'm still thinking about the vague boundaries in this. And in real life, there's a lot of doubling-back: After Cox appeared on Don Imus' radio show, she wrote "I'm embarrassed to admit that it took Imus' saying something so devastatingly crass to make me realize that there just was no reason beyond ego to play along."

In other words, Cox thought Imus was racist or sexist or, at the least, overtly sensational. Which is often times what a Wonkette post can verge into, so long as it's equally offensive for everyone of all demographics.

So it brings me back to my main question: Can a journalist be an actor, assuming another voice, without repercussion? Is he or she allowed to if a disclaimer is placed up? Or will it always reflect on their person and past, present and future work? Are they even a journalist anymore once they've become an actor?

And most of all, does it violate a journalist's own ethics doing it?

I don't know. But I've got a lot of questions.

'Preventative Journalism' Is Hypocrisy

What role should journalism play -- watchdog? Advocate? Nonpartisan arbiter of truth? Doctor?

According to the founding editor of Washington Monthly, "preventative." And the organization he heads, Understanding Government, is offering $50,000 to the best case of it.

"We define preventive journalism as reporting that identifies inept leaders, wrong-headed policies and bureaucratic bungling before they lead to disasters like the bad intelligence about WMDs and the travesty that was the response to Katrina," Charlie Peters writes in this week's centerpiece Poynter story.

Peters goes to on reference the lack of news organizations following-up on disasters to see if things have really changed. And in that respect, he's got a point: It's that kind of journalism that prevents harm from others.

But I've got a big problem with this idea in principle -- if journalism is taking a preventative stance, how exactly is it still neutral?

I understand Peters' motivation behind the award, and I support his thoughts. But I believe Peters makes incomplete arguments in his explanation of the award, which ultimately undermines its relevance. He writes:

"Investigative reporters too often simply provide a flat one-dimensional account of what went wrong. They usually fail to explore the "why" behind the story. And when they do, as happens in the case of the better explanatory journalism, the reasons they identify are only political or economic. Rarely are cultural factors examined."

Well, aside from the fact that he doesn't mention any examples to back his claim about investigative reporting, he says that cultural factors aren't examined. His example? The fact that "the FBI still has only six fluent Arabic speakers among its hordes of agents. But we are not told what it is in the bureau's culture that produces this absurd result," citing proof when the CIA ignored a cable warning that two of the 9/11 terrorists had come to the United States.

Well, if this is a sociology paper, I might say that the reason may be continued racism of some variety. But within the constraints of Washington, I truly believe that the reason is primarily political. So in this example, it's my opinion that separating culture and politics in Washington would be a grave misstep in any investigative piece.

To get back to my point, I think the concept of this award has been bungled. In theory, investigative reporting should be covering all bases in the first place, and on principle, journalism should not be "finding out what's wrong in time to keep bad things from happening," as Peters writes. I think Peters strays into near-advocacy on this, and I'm hesitant to agree with him here. Journalism should be finding out what's wrong for the purpose of telling the public, not for the purpose of preventing bad things from happening.

If you're a journalist and a member of PETA, you might think covering a slaughterhouse might be important because they're killing animals, even if it's all done legally. To the rest of the country, it's just a way to get food. If the public doesn't perceive an atrocity, they'll be wondering why the news is setting the agenda for them.

So really journalism needs to tell the public and let them react. That's what investigative journalism is really all about, isn't it? If you're writing a story that your public doesn't care about, are you really a neutral source of essential "news" at that point? Or are you an advocacy group?

Let the public take action and prevent unfortunate events -- just make sure you tell them what's happening. Tell 'em what's wrong, just don't prescribe the medication. Morally, would I like to prevent certain things from happening? Sure -- but as a reporter, I'm not hired to change the world. I'm hired to report on who's changing it.

That's the role of journalism, I think. And I'm standing by it.

The Wall Street Journal. Neutrality. A Chance To Make Right.

Yesterday, Slate's Michelle Tai asked the question, "How do newspapers report on themselves?"

And I've got an answer: They don't. Rather, they shouldn't.

The paper in question is the famous Wall Street Journal, a rag so esteemed that you rarely see a journalist write about the Journal without preceding it with "venerable." Yet with a Murdoch-ian News Corp. positioned to eat up what is arguably the nation's most important paper, Tai wants to know how exactly the paper is supposed to report on itself, given that News Corp. has its hands in, well, everything. With that kind of potential disclosure, how's a paper like the Journal supposed to have any space for actual business news?

Tai correctly points out that the public's perception neutrality -- a sensitive word these days in the media world -- would be seriously compromised if the Journal reported on itself. As an "important paper," the Journal would certainly shun avoiding covering News Corp. altogether, because that would leave holes the size of, well, News Corp. in the paper.

OK, can't do that. How about finding our "most neutral" reporters? Besides serving as a backhanded diss to all the other reporters at the paper for being "less neutral," you still have a cynical public who won't believe it with the "staff writer" title behind it. So what's left?

Tai saves the very, very last paragraph of her excellent and brief overview of the situation to what I think is the answer: Hire an outsider. She writes:

Sometimes the answer is to hire an outsider. In 2003 the Seattle Times chose a freelance reporter, Bill Richards, to cover its ongoing dispute with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. To ensure objective coverage, editors didn't tell the owner what Richards was working on. Richards and the paper also decided that an outside arbitrator would have the final word on any disagreements.

There you go. With all of those top-flight journalists out of a job these days anyway, I say it's high time to hire a bunch (with experience at liberal pubs and conservative pubs alike) to cover Rupie and his media Death Star.

I'm tired of hearing that newspapers aren't neutral, and reading those that don't try to be. I'm also tired about reading the old yellow journalism tactics of championing your own paper in editorial, e.g. "Post beats Daily News in circulation! Woo! Top story!" So in my opinion, the Wall Street Journal should have a third party -- the Society of Professional Journalists or some similar group -- to choose a small team strictly for the News Corp. beat. Pay them average pay, too -- no more than they would get in any other department at the paper. Make it transparent; tell us who they are on WSJ.com, where they come from, and how much they're making for all of this. Full biographies. The whole nine yards.

Does it raise the question that the WSJ's own reporters aren't neutral enough? Maybe. But I think doing this "out of principle" is a solid basis for supporting this suggestion.

Would it be expensive? You bet. But if the Wall Street Journal can't hack it when the paper itself is in the pages, don't expect any other lesser paper to do so. You can say what you want about it, but it's my opinion that this is the only way to do that elusive neutrality concept right.

It's time to set a good precedent in journalism for once.

Taking Responsibility: How The Sacramento Bee Protected The Hive's Freedom Of Speech

Remember the old controversy over whether or not a news publication should audit its online comments?

About two years ago, the Washington Post ran into just that problem when it literally turned the function off after the usual stock of personal attacks and profanity showed up on its pages. Bloggers were furious, citing a violation of their own virtual First Amendment, and news hounds were appalled that the Post would stifle the voice of its readers.

At the time, washingtonpost.com executive editor Jim Brady wrote, "We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it."

Two years later, the Sacramento Bee might have just figured it out.

A new policy at the Bee requires full names attached with online comments. Old-guard 'netphiles would argue that this ruins the anonymity of the Internet, but in the Bee's eyes, it introduces responsibility. After all, if you're going to take the time to say something, you should take responsibility for it, no?

As a result, the Bee is no longer vetting comments. In this case, that's great -- it rids of the need for such energy and time to do so and gets Bee staffers back on the important stuff: the news. Plus, any time a newspaper steps away from appearing like a God-like authoritative figure ("I am the decider"), that's a good thing.

However, the current worry is that staffers within places like government institutions won't have the freedom to comment without fear of repercussions.

But you know what I say to that? Baloney.

If a government staffer or any other insider has something important to say -- and doesn't want to just correct reader discussion for the sake of it -- he or she should simply e-mail the paper. Allow the paper to take anything important public, under the veil of anonymity. Isn't that what the paper's for?

If the Bee is worried that they won't get any more tips, they should introduce a special tip-off e-mail address that guarantees anonymity -- kind of like how The Consumerist treats its tipsters. If something's important, a well-written article would probably break more news than one comment among hundreds on a story.

So many news agencies are worried about how to handle the citizen masses. "But they'll curse!" they say. "But they'll be racist!" they say. Ah -- but when their name is attached, a digital trail may soon form, and they'll dig their own grave.

But I'm still stuck on this nuance: How exactly will the Bee ensure the use of a legitimate name? Or will this turn into a bunch of flamewars between "Billary Clinton" and "Hick Cheney"? I don't know.

But what I do know is that this action is not an overreaction nor infringing on freedom of speech. I applaud the Bee. If you want your freedom, stand up and claim it. Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't guarantee you anonymity with it.

Ethics: Musings on Journalists and Political Affiliation

Should journalists be allowed to donate to political causes?

The late Timesman Abe Rosenthal once said, "I don't care if you sleep with elephants as long as you don't cover the circus."

But when MSNBC outed some for having donated a little while back, there were muffled conversations in newsrooms. "Did you hear about Bob?" "Yeah I dunno." "Think he's in trouble?" They've certainly occurred in mine.

Of course, these records have always been publicly available, and this topic tends to come around at opportune times during the political process. But you don't often see journalists outing journalists.

But you know what? I kind of like the checks and balances nature of the investigation. I don't condone needless peer-chasing, but it's a stark reminder that hey -- journalists are just as much in the public eye as everyone they report on.

The crux of the argument: Why should we give up our rights as U.S. citizens just to report, especially when journalists end up being jailed for holding true to their values? Neal Justin over at the Star Tribune gave what I thought to be an even-handed look at the topic: If politics is your bag, you might want to avoid giving to a campaign or worse, working for them. It's too active a role in the topic you cover. Don't be the news, just write about it.

However, there's always the problem of registration, which I find to be much more controversial. Should a journalist register as a Democrat or Republican, or register as an independent? Many colleagues I know would say not to register with a party; to avoid being associated with them. I respect that view -- however, my view is a bit more complicated.

In my opinion, a journalist should be allowed to register for whomever. Registration is not a vote. But I'm not here to argue on principle. What I mean to say is that a registration could be a strategic move, since it allows a vote in the primary -- for example, I could register for the opposing party so I could vote in their primary and try to game the system, especially if that party's in power in my state. On the surface, that registration certainly doesn't indicate my political preference, does it?

Similarly, by registering independent, I'm sacrificing my right to vote in a primary. And I find that to be a bit too much. So I think it's OK to register for a party (especially since it's required by law to register) and journalists should defend their registration on the basis outlined above. It's like finding someone guilty in a lawsuit based solely on speculation. I know public opinion isn't as institutionally even-handed as our court system is designed to be, but it's worth a defense.

In Justin's article, Bill Wareham, Minnesota Public Radio news director, says: "I don't think working journalists should be actively engaged in politics outside the voting booth." And I agree.

What do you think?

White House Press Who Wear 'Tony Snow' Bracelets On The Job Should Be Reprimanded

I read this morning that White House reporters took it easy on press secretary Tony Snow after he returned from an ongoing bout with cancer.

I also read that "at least two of the reporters in the audience wore yellow cancer bracelets with Tony Snow's name inscribed on them," according to Dana Milbank.

Patrick Gavin asks: Should reporters wear Snow bracelets?

The Editorialiste answers: Not on the job.

Ethics is a recurring theme in journalism (and on this blog), and reporters often have different takes on the issue.

Are we people before reporters, or are we reporters before people?

Some journalists say the cancer empathy -- or even sympathy -- is more important.

Some journalists think any sign of sway is condemnable.

So what to do? What do you think?

It should be noted that the White House press office handed out the yellow bracelets.

Does that knowledge change your answer?

In my opinion, I take the middle approach: you can wear the bracelet, but not on duty or in the office. If you sympathize or empathize with Snow, fine, but on your own time. It's an egregious error in thinking, in my view, to wear something on the job that compromises one's neutrality (and integrity, really) -- much less on camera directly in front of the man you're expressing the sentiment for!

Look, I feel for the guy. Cancer's rough. So if a reporter wants to send him a letter on his own letterhead (and not his publication's), fine. We're all human. But as journalists, we've got to have some semblance of neutrality.

We already have neutrality problems with the Correspondents' Dinner. This is even worse. And since many of the White House reporters are seasoned journalists, this is an even bigger slip for someone with extensive experience.

Why? Because they have Snow's name on them. If you'd like to wear a yellow "cancer" band from Lance Armstrong's foundation, that's fine too, as long as you aren't reporting on the foundation. But a Snow-specific band?

That's on the equivalent of wearing a t-shirt with Snow's face screened on it. Is that appropriate?

No. The size of the message doesn't matter. It's the same message.

And to have taken it from the White House press office! That's a handout directly from a PR company, the PR company of the U.S. government. No way, man.

Tell me, readers, in the comments -- what do you think (you may keep in anonymous)? Every journalist should be able to answer this question.