Despite the fame (or notoriety, depending on your point of view) of the principals in Dan Bice’s front-page story, the question of whether the media should expose an adulterous affair between two consenting adults with children on the Friday before Father’s Day is a close call. Or at least it should be.
In an interview with 620-WTMJ last Friday, Bice said the paper’s editors struggled with the question of whether the affair had news value—before going on to reveal that the love letter penned by McBride contained graphic information newspaper staff felt couldn’t be published.
That’s the kind of salacious detail readers and listeners will latch onto—at the expense of a dialogue about whether the paper had any business publishing the story at all. That’s unfortunate because, regardless of how one feels about McBride or Flynn, it’s a question that deserves discussion.
It’s been awhile, but many large newspapers, including the old Milwaukee Journal, once employed ombudsmen to sort out these questions for readers, provide insight on the process of gathering and reporting news, and to clarify for readers what kind of ethical dilemmas reporters and editors face in doing their jobs. Budget cuts across all media have meant that most of these positions have disappeared, leaving only large organizations, such as the New York Times, able to retain them.
A good ombudsman would criticize the paper’s editors and reporters for their failings and praise them for their successes. The position also meant that readers had a forum for complaints or concerns beyond writing a letter to the editor. And, I would argue, ombudsmen tended to build trust among a newspaper’s readership—particularly after reporting sensitive information—by demonstrating that decisions about what to publish are usually not made lightly.
In an e-mail exchange, I asked George Stanley, the paper’s managing editor about this issue on Monday and he pointed to the paper’s weekly “Behind the Headlines,” column, and added: “I think we would need a very big budget to give up a position for (an ombudsman) rather than use it to gather and report news.”
As to Bice’s story, Stanley wrote, “We’ve only received a handful of negative responses to the two columns on this issue. Generally, the tone of comments from readers has become quite positive in recent years. As budget cuts have forced us to focus more on our core responsibilities – especially in-depth reporting that holds officials and institutions accountable – reader support for our efforts has grown."
What would an ombudsman cover in regards to Bice’s story, scandalous by any measure, that might help readers understand the paper’s intention in publishing it? Here are some potential questions:
Why is this a front-page news story?
On coordination with TMJ-4 and 620-WTMJ which are also owned by the Journal Sentinel's parent company, and which provided teaser coverage for Bice’s storyStanley: “The facts that Jessica McBride had just written a long profile of Chief Flynn for Milwaukee magazine without acknowledging their personal relationship; that she teaches journalism ethics at a public university; and that it can be very problematic for a police chief to have skeletons in his closet all weighed into the decision about whether this story was newsworthy or not. Many editors were involved in the discussions and we also talked it over with a respected journalism ethics professor, who was not quoted in the story, in advance. After long deliberations, all involved in the discussion believed that the public deserved to know what we had learned.
“The chief has acknowledged that he made a grave error in judgment and he apologized to the mayor, to his command staff, and through Dan Bice's column to the city.
“We respect the judgment of readers who disagree with our decision and think this was not the kind of story they want in the newspaper. We believe it's our job to report things the way they are and not the way we might wish them to be. As a result, we often have to publish stories we wish we didn't.”
The use of anonymous sourcesStanley: “The letter and email were sent to us by an anonymous source who had very close access. Dan worked for two weeks to get interviews with both people and to get questions answered – using every possible avenue, including face-to-face. He sent questions in writing, which we rarely do. The chief’s apology was the only response he received from the two parties until after the first column appeared and then Jessica McBride also responded.”
In the above, Stanley provides two important details. First, that the anonymous source who provided the e-mails and love letter to Bice was someone with “very close access," implying that the paper knows the source. And, second, that the timing of the Journal Sentinel coverage may have been influenced by the fact that TV reporter Charles Benson was working on the story independently. (Note: After posting this, I got the following e-mail from Stanley: “No, we don’t know who the source is. If we did, we would’ve said so. But the source had access to a personal letter written by McBride to the chief and to the computer and personal emails of one of the parties.”)“Historically, (the coordination) has been ad-hoc with those stations as well as with other news outlets. For example, networks and cable news stations often want to interview our reporters on things like local flooding or a court case we’ve been covering or the Wisconsin presidential primary, … When Channel 4 started a 3 p.m. newscast, they asked if they could interview a reporter each day as part of it, and that has been happening around 3:20 p.m. each day. That is usually coordinated between Tom Koetting, our local news editor, and the Channel 4 news director. In the No Quarter column on Flynn-McBride, Channel 4 reporter Charles Benson was working on the story and learned that Dan Bice was farther along in his reporting, so Channel 4 contacted us.”
Both details are crucial, but that last one may be what prompted Flynn to issue his statement, which prompted the Journal to go with the story.
Why is that important? Because not everyone would agree that Bice’s story, in the absence of detail corroborating McBride’s actions, was ready for publication. That’s certainly what Milwaukee Magazine editor Bruce Murphy argues in his full-throated defense of McBride’s article and her actions, and, by extension, McBride herself.
If, as Murphy notes, McBride was no longer writing or reporting on the chief when the affair was launched, what’s the news angle? In other words, why cover a private affair between two consenting adults?
Stanley notes that Chief Flynn’s actions deserve scrutiny, too, but the article, on balance, is really about McBride’s breach.
So, was this a news story? The point is really moot since, after all, the piece has been published. And both Stanley and Murphy have now staked out their own positions on the matter, leaving readers to decide the value of the information for themselves.
And, in most cases, that’s what a free press is all about: giving the public access to important information affecting our lives as citizens.
Readers will have to decide for themselves whether this particular story accomplished that.
What are my own thoughts on this matter? I’ll post those later.
8 comments:
In other words, they didn't have a story. They knew they didn't have the facts for the story. They decided to go forward with the story hoping it would be true because that would justify the story.
So when is the newspaper printing a retraction?
I think the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is on the final glide path to insolvency, oblivion, creative destruction (to put a Shumpeterian gloss on it). For a long time their quality in both the news and opinion departments has been in steep decline. Their best and most experienced writing/editing staff have been bought out. Copy editing daily plumbs new depths.
The previous ombudsman position occupants were ineffective old hands being phased out of active journalistic practice. Ruth Wilson and Russell Austin were particularly weak "reader contact editors," before the position was dropped. Milwaukee Journal management chose not to allow their own ombudsmen to call themselves that, though they did join ONO, the Organization of Newspaper Ombudsmen.
Too late for any such intervention. The bean counters and the marketing department provides all the oversight the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel requires.
It's a damn shame. I've always loved the smell of newsprint in the morning. But, I do not have that sorry rag in the house. I browse it on the net--mostly for laughs. Not worth the money they charge or the time I'd waste on reading it.
Were it not for Brewers, Packers, Bucks and high school sports, the MJS would have gone out of business years ago.
Of course, it was a story -- because of Flynn coming out and admitting it. But it was the rest of the JS first-day story that became problematic as it morphed into another story with far lesser foundation or examination or whatever went wrong -- I'm still trying to figure it out -- with the majority of what the JS ran. It may be that Bice is just not the man for the job of a discussion of journalistic ethics (this is not the same at all as questioning his ethics; it is questioning his discussion of the topic). I've read better discussions of the topic since from commenters on blogs.
A swing and another miss by Waukesha's Jimmy Widgerson.
It was a story once the Police Chief said it occurred and because Ms. McBride didn't step forward to "lay" out the timeline.
Speaking of a swing and a Ms., this may be the end of Ms. McBride's sordid 15 minutes of fame. The poor Police Chief apparently didn't know in advance that she likes to "bag" men in uniform (or in office, like the former District Attorney). Such a tart -- and a bitter one at that.
I like your idea for a JS Ombudsman, especially when (to paraphrase Woody Allen) you kept pointing to yourself and clearing your throat.
This kind of salaciousness never happened to UWM's Dave Berkman.
Joe--Dave Berkman having an affair with the chief of police would certainly qualify as news.
Greg--For the record, I'd not be great in the job; on the record, I understand there are a number of internal candidates at the paper who fancy themselves qualified.
I always feel guilty subscibing to the paper (just the weekends). I feel like I funded crappy reporting like this. I'm not a McBride fan, but this was not news. (especially front page news...this was simply mean a mean spirited shot at someone they don't like) I wonder how much of their "Circulation" like me, gets the paper just for the ads. (Although I do read the sports and comics too ;-)
Post a Comment